fer of the
Swedish negotiators, it is mentioned, as aforesaid, that the relations of
the Separate Consuls to the Minister for Foreign affairs and Diplomatic
representatives should be regulated by identical laws, which could not be
_altered_ or _abolished_ without the consent of the Government powers of
both Kingdoms. In the mutual resolution reference is made to laws "which
cannot be altered by one of the parties", the word 'abolish' does not
occur. This already caused astonishment. It was asked if this omission
had any important significance. It was observed that Mr BOSTROeM, in the
Swedish Diet, made use of the first form of expression, Mr BLEHR in the
Norwegian Diet of the second.[25:1] In reality, the difference depended
on some oversight in the final revision which was made in Christiania
under great excitement in political circles there; this seems to have
given a prominent place to the preliminary solution, before the full
contents were grasped. Mr HAGERUP acknowledged later that the expressions
in reality meant the same, as the conception of the word 'alter', must
necessarily include the conception of the word 'abolish'. It was
afterwards frequently proposed in debates, that the intended laws should
be terminable only by mutual agreement, and this question has been
significant only through the connection which may be found to exist
between it and the chief point of this discussion itself, as to the
extent to which the laws were to be changeable.

The divergencies referred especially to the conception of Union Law by
the Norwegian Radicals, according to which Norway had the right to have
her own Minister for Foreign affairs, and consequently was entitled to
appoint one without agreeing with Sweden. As the proposed laws were
based upon the presupposition that the Swedish Minister for Foreign
affairs would continue the administration of the Foreign affairs of the
Union, the question now arose as to whether a Norwegian Minister of
Foreign affairs could be appointed unless Sweden consented to the
suspension of the Consular Laws, or whether the Consular Laws would
become extinct of themselves, if Norway made use of her assumed rights in
the matter.

In other words, was it the intention of the Communique to force Norway to
a solution of the question of the foreign administration only through
negotiations with Sweden, or had the Norwegian Radicals the liberty to
continue to urge Norway to take matters into her own hand