On the whole the Swedish Cabinet maintains its claims, but it offers to modify them, if they can be proved to be in conflict with the provisions of the Communique. Furthermore the possibility is not excluded, of making on other accounts changes and modifications in the proposed resolutions, but their essential items must "be adhered to". The Cabinet does not consider itself entitled, in the interests of the Union, unconditionally to refuse the points designated by the Norwegian Cabinet.

[Sidenote: The Norwegian government breaks off negotiations.]

To this document from the Swedish Cabinet, is immediately despatched the reply, "that the Norwegian Cabinet finds no grounds for further communication on the matter."

FOOTNOTES:

[30:1] Thus, their claim for a separate Consular service was worded in the Norwegian Moderate party's programme as follows: "Our own Norwegian Consular Service with the exception of all matters connected with the relations between the Consular Service and Diplomatic administration is hereby declared established".

[31:1] N:o 4.

[33:1] N:o 5.

[33:2] Some other points in Mr BOSTROeM'S Memorandum were rejected by the Norwegian side. They ran as follows:

1:o Before a Consul was nominated, opportunity should be given to the Minister for Foreign affairs to make such observations as he might think necessary.

2:o In the Consular Diploma, the King shall be styled King of Sweden and Norway—not King of Norway and Sweden, as was the case in Norway—as these Diplomas are intended for presentation to Foreign powers, and the King always makes use of this title abroad Foreign powers.

3:o As long as the appointment of separate consuls was not approved of by Foreign powers and so long as ambassadors in a Foreign conntry had not been stationed, the joint Consular Service should continue its functions. —Mr HAGERUP did not refer to these points in his reply partly because the difficulties of his agreeing on them with Mr BOSTROeM were not, according to his own account, so very insurmountable.

[34:1] N:o 6.

[34:2] N:o 7.

[35:1] They are mentioned, for instance, in the Act of Union.

[35:2] It is characteristic that NANSEN in his review of the negotiations (page 76 and following) does not mention one of the Swedish demands. It can, however, be safely referred to all, who are impartial on the subject, as to whether its decisions, as NANSEN (page 77) insists, imply the subordination of the Norwegian Consular Service to the Swedish Minister for Foreign affairs on a very extensive scale.

[35:3] In that case, what numbers of legislative rules and regulations would have remained unwritten!

[36:1] N:o 8.

[36:2] N:o 9



V.

[Sidenote: Norwegian accusations aganist the Swedish government.]

The breaking off of the negotiations caused great depression in Norway, and even in wide circles in Sweden the issue was deeply deplored.

Norwegian policy had always been a policy of strong feelings, and now it made it an object systematically to work up illwill against Sweden. Strong expressions were not wanting, and soon the whole of Europe— thanks to the indefatigable manner in which the Norwegians cultivated the European Press—resounded with accusations against the Swedish government, and the entire Swedish nation of unreasonableness, fickleness etc. etc.; it was important now to make good cause for the plans then already existing in Norway, plans which had probably been laid years ago.

Now in what does the truth of their accusations lie?

[Sidenote: The responsibility of breaking off the negotiations.]

The accusations implied in the mildest form that the attitude of the Swedish government had caused the break down in the negotiations. To this it must be first pointed out, that the side which first formulated its demands as an ultimatum formally bears the responsibility. Formally, therfore, the Norwegian government is unquestionably the responsible party, so much the more so, that not even after the Norwegian Ultimatum, did the Swedish government maintain its standpoint as being absolutely inflexible. It must also be observed that the first Norwegian proposition in May 1904, in fact, propounded the essentials contained in the Ultimatum. It was certainly held to be only the grounds for further negotiations, but it was proclaimed afterwards on the Norwegian side, that the Norwegian Cabinet had found it possible that divergencies in the form and contents of the law, would be limited to a very slight number of points of minor importance.

The formal responsibility for the breaking off of the negotiations may now, on the whole, be considered of slight importance. It is interesting only on the grounds that it illustrates the Norwegian method of negotiating, which all but commences with the ultimatum, for it explains to a great extent the difficulties of the opposite party in gaining their lawful rights.

The accusations on the Norwegian side, of course, imply, that the Swedish government, in making unreasonable conditions, had practically caused the breaking off of the negotiations, and even wished to bring about that result. As regards the former, an impartial examination of the Swedish final proposal is the best refutation. And as regards the latter, it may assuredly be affirmed, that there was no want of good will, on the part of Sweden, to come to a good understanding on the point, the last letter on the question written by Sweden is a sufficient proof of this. But the government could not reasonably be expected to go further in granting concessions.

It was indisputably clear to the Norwegian government, that they could not make greater concessions. During the proceeding of the negotiations it had become intimately acquainted with the opinions in Norwegian political circles, and it knew that if it went further, it would risk a defeat in the Storthing. But with equal right, it behoved the Swedish government to take into consideration the prospects of getting the proposal approved of by the Swedish Diet, so much the more so, as the Swedish government, in respect to this question, occupied a more insecure position than the Norwegian. The Norwegian government was supported in the Storthing by a majority on the side of the negotiations. The Swedish government had no support at all. The Diet had certainly not insisted on the breaking off of the negotiations, but it firmly maintained its old standpoint, that the Consular question should be solved in conjunction with the Foreign Minister question. It must therefore be of importance to the Swedish government, to have the proposition worded in such a way that it would remove the doubts of the Diet regarding an isolated solution of the Consular question. In the matter of the immutability of the identical laws, it had sought an effectual guarantee that the independent Consular office would not disloyally—when the time was ripe for it—be provided by Norway with its own Minister for Foreign affairs. This question had been shirked by Norway. It was therefore necessary to cling to other guarantees, in order, if possible, to prevent the Norwegian Consular Office from drifting away from under the direction of the Minister for Foreign affairs, and thus, paving the way by degrees to its original goal—the breaking op of the joint administration for Foreign affairs. It is in this light that his Excellency BOSTROeM'S demands ought undoubtedly to be seen.

It may in short be said: If during the negotiations the Norwegian government was bound by Norwegian Union-political traditions, the Swedish government had the same right to refer to its attachment to Swedish Union-political traditions. And, it must be added: That if any of the Swedish conditions, which the Norwegian government pointed out, were an expression for a suspicion of Norway's implicit loyalty in conducting its own Consular affairs, it was Norwegian traditional Radical Policy from the beginning of 1890 which cast its shadow before it. And that the old Norwegian Radical traditions had to be taken into account was prowed by the number and length of the discussions in the Storthing, which were dinned into the ears of the negotiators, during the whole period of the negotiations. That even Mr MICHELSEN, one of the parties to the negotiations on the Norwegian government side, in a debate at the Storthing, during the Spring 1904, cast friendly glances on the old lines, showed plainly how little they had forgotten the old talk of taking matters into their own hands.

[Sidenote: The question as to whether the Swedish government had broken the covenant of the Communique.]

But the Norwegian accusations were not limited to the negotiators' (especially Mr BOSTROeM'S) bringing about the breaking off of the negotiations by their unreasonable demands. They went further; it was loudly proclaimed that the Swedish government had not kept their word, had broken their agreement etc. etc., and, when all of a sudden Sweden became identical with the government of Sweden she was pathetically pointed at as untrustworthy etc. etc. The amount of moral indignation contained in these Norwegian accusations has plainly been made manifest by late events. Their object—to throw on Sweden the responsibility of plans that were designed to be executed in Norway—was too transparent, but just on that account they must be explained, in order that the responsibility of Sweden for what happened in Norway, may appear in its true light.

The most naive accusations of having broken their agreement, are based on the supposition that the Swedish government was bound by the Communique to bring the negotiations to a definite conclusion, which means about the same as, that Sweden had beforehand promised to accept the Norwegian demands which in future would be presented by the Norwegian side. This supposition requires no serious reflection, the Communique naturally implying only a promise to try to come to a conclusion that would be satisfactory to both parties. This system of reasoning is, however, typical of Norwegian politics all through. It is illustrated in one way by the Norwegian government's peculiar way of practically commencing negotiations with an Ultimatum, and it has been characterised, in a very amusing manner, by professor TRYGGER in a debate in the First Chamber of the Swedish Diet, immediately after the publishing of the Communique. "Norwegians", he said, "are very fond of negotiations. I have sat with them in the Union Committee, for three years, and they have always taken great pleasure in negotiating with us, so long as we acceded to their demands".

Far more serious is the accusation that the Swedish government had violated the grounds of the negotiations by exceeding the terms of the Communique[41:1]. It has evidently been privately expressed by the negotiating party in Norway, during the latter stage of the negotiations, and it was indirectly referred to by Prime Minister HAGERUP when he announced in the Storthing, that the negotiations were broken off. The Swedish government contradicted it, however, in their last letter, and offered to modify their proposition if it were proved that it exceeded the terms of the Communique. But the Norwegian government failed to produce the proofs, they preferring to cut off negotiations.

What the Norwegians point out over and over again is the provision of the Communique that the Consuls of each Kingdom shall be under the authority of the country to which they belong, which matter the country concerned shall decide. Against this, it has been mentioned, is opposed the Swedish government's evident plans to arrange a "hierarchal" relationship between the Foreign Minister and the Norwegian Consuls. This decision, in itself, undoubtedly seems to speak for the Norwegian notion of the affair. But an honest method of interpretation tries to see individual particles in the light of their relation to the whole matter.

Now, on the contents of the identical laws, the Communique confirms among other things that they shall "give guarantee that the Consuls do not exceed the proper limits of their occupation." What guarantee? The Norwegian negotiators, who scarcely paid any attention to this provision in their proposition, are said to have maintained verbally, that the best guarantee was the control exercised over the Consuls by the Norwegian Consular Office. But to this the Swedish government may justly object: "that was not the kind of guarantee intended by the Communique, as this had nothing to do with the internal relations between the Norwegian consuls and the Norwegian Consular service. The guarantee which the Communique mentions, can refer to nothing but the control to be exercised by the Foreign Minister and Ambassadors over the Consuls".

If this interpretation is acknowledged as correct—and it is difficult to find any other—it is plain that the presupposition cited by the Norwegians only referred to normal conditions and that it did not exclude in exceptional cases—as for instance, when Consular affairs were in any way connected with the Diplomatic Office—a hierarchal relationship between the Foreign Minister and the Consuls. Conclusive for the correctness of this interpretation, as represented by the Swedish government, is the approval the Norwegian government itself gave this interpretation by conceding that the Foreign Minister might give direct orders to the Norwegian Consuls, which, in certain cases, implied a hierarchal relationship between the Foreign Minister and the Norwegian Consuls. This admission on the Norwegian side must not be regarded as a concession beyond the demands of the Communique. It had already been made before the Communique was compiled, and must therefore absolutely be included in the frame of the Communique. The so much-disputed claims of Sweden imply nothing but an extension of the above hierarchal exceptional conditions, especially in an disciplinary sense, and are therefore within the frame of the Communique.

In close connection with the Norwegian accusations against Sweden for breach of faith, are the Norwegian governments insinuations that the Swedish government, by its later shaped demands, had strayed from the agreement which had previously been decided on, both by the Swedish and Norwegian sides. The Norwegian government especially refers to the preliminary agreements, which, under necessary reservations, had been made in the negotiations between the delegates of the two Cabinets, before the Communique existed.

It is clear that these accusations especially touched matters in the negotiations, of which outsiders cannot, of course, form a quite distinct opinion. Meanwhile it would not be impossible to gain an idea of the breadth of the case on the grounds of the statements of the Cabinets, the references in the papers, and the debates in the Swedish Diet and the Norwegian Storthing.

The matter that first demands our attention is the communication of the Swedish Cabinet dated Jan. 30:th 1905, in which it is distinctly declared that, when the Norwegian Cabinet had assumed that its proposition of the 28:th May 1904 would, without any alteration worth mentioning, be accepted by the Swedish Cabinet "it would find no support from admissions either of the Swedish Cabinet or its delegates." Now, there were hardly any negotiations between the governments concerning the contents of the Consular laws till the time when the first definite Norwegian proposition was presented. The agreements which the Norwegian Cabinet considers would more nearly refer to the negotiations before the origin of the Communique, to the feigned conclusions of which the Norwegian government tried to attach the greatest importance. What was the character of these negotiations in relation to the contents of the proposed laws? They were in reality free discussions, during which the contents of the deliberations of the Consular Committee were inquired into. They were regarded by the negotiators themselves as a "preliminary", as the first preparatory step to negotiations, and that the results of many points were indistinct, is evident, as the Swedish Cabinet gave to understand that, on one or two occasions before the origin of the Communique, fresh negotiations were proposed, but in vain. The preliminary act of agreement to which the Norwegian Council referred, seems to have involved one or two particular points to which they firmly adhered, especially the one concerning the power of the Foreign Minister to give direct orders to the Consuls: in all the rest, they confined themselves to a general impression that there was a prospect of their agreeing. According to the authenticated assertion of the Swedish Cabinet with respect to the protocol, the materially new claims as the Norwegian Cabinet styled them, had been touched upon in their debates, though not even a preliminary agreement had been decided on, either with respect to them or any of the other points of the question. It is a generally understood fact, not even disputed on the Norwegian side, that his Excellency BOSTROeM brought forward casually several of the questions which afterwards raised so many disputes, and reserved to himself the right, later on, to shape his opinion on points to which be made objections. After first dealing with the deliberations of the Consular Committee, they proceeded to debate on the terms of the agreement, and during this last stage of the negotiations the contents of the intended laws were discussed only by special delegates from the two Cabinets[45:1].

Mr LAGERHEIM was uncontradicted by the Norwegian side when he explained in the Swedish Diet that in all these preliminary negotiations respecting the contents of the laws, matters concerning them, "must be subjected to further examination of a very minute and exhaustive nature".

According to just reasoning, it is therefore rather audacious of the Norwegian side to cite these preliminary negotiations, to which they also add a decided admission on the part of Sweden, and on which they build the accusations against the Swedish government, and especially Mr BOSTROeM of breach of agreement[45:2].

With reference to the connection of these negotiations with the Communique and its interpretation, it is firstly clear that neither the Swedish nor the Norwegian government had from the first intended by the Communique to cut off the possibility of pursuing, from different quarters, the points on which they had not expressed themselves to be in unity. And secondly, it is plain that by the same Communique it was not intended to cut off the possibility of advancing claims which during these very formless negotiations had not been brought forward, so long as the general decisions of the Communique, sensibly interpreted, were observed.

To this may be added one important circumstance. It is manifest that if it was considered necessary to come to some definite conclusion before the existence of the Communique, it was on account of the binding nature of the final agreement. It is evident that the Swedish government has endeavoured to secure the surest guarantee from a Swedish point of view, that Norway, of her own accord, would make no changes in respect to the Foreign Administration. Now the negotiation on the vital contents of the laws, were succeeded by this, and there is strong reason to suppose that the Swedish negotiators expressed their hopes of an eventual termination of the negotiations with respect to the detailed decisions of the laws, under the express supposition that safe guarantee would be granted by the Norwegians, against a one-sided disturbance of the Status quo in reference to the Foreign Minister. As meanwhile, through the interpretation which the Norwegian side chose to give the Communique, these—to Sweden—very desirable guarantees became an illusion, it may very reasonably be asked if the Norwegian side was entitled to exact too much from the Swedish delegate's possible optimism respecting the prospects of coming to a definite conclusion on the rest of the points.

Further demonstrations for the manifestation of the baseless grounds of the moral indignation which was eventually to give the Norwegian revolution an essential justification before an enlightened public, are unnessary. The terrible breach of agreement, on the part of Sweden, which was trumpeted all over Europe, on closer examination, vanishes into thin air.

FOOTNOTES:

[41:1] NANSEN (page 76): "The Swedish draft contained a number of demands quite unacceptable to Norway as they were opposed to the very basis and object of the negotiations."

[45:1] Different drafts of laws were especially to be discussed in this way. These outlines are, however, characterised by the ever well informed Norwegian politician Mr C. BERNER as "quite preliminary".

[45:2] In an earlier stage of the negotiations, the Norwegian Cabinet were evidently not under the impression that the most important of these preliminary negotiations was brought to a successful conclusion. C. BERNER says—in the Storthing debate Feb. 13th 1904—he had heard both from Norwegian and Swedish negotiators that to frame this laws in a quite satisfactory manner would be a very difficult thing.



VI.

[Sidenote: Norwegian policy after the grounding of the Consular negotiations.]

The breaking off of the Consular negotiations undoubtedly put Norwegian politicians into a very difficult situation. Thanks to the close connection between the Union policy and the internal party disputes in Norway, a popular interest has arisen for Union Politics which in comparison with the realities disputed over, may be regarded as extremely abnormal[47:1]. With the lack of consideration which in critical moments distinguishes a similarly excited state on the people's part, it was to be expected that the issue of the negotiations on the Consular question would rouse their passions

It can hardly be said that Norwegian politics stood the trial in the situation. To a Norwegian, that which followed may appear as a powerful and magnificent achievement. Outsiders can content themselves by stating that the high-flown Radical politics of the last 20 years now bear their fruit.

In these days much is said of "necessity" in the development of events. "Necessity", it is said, "has been stronger than the wishes of individuals". To those who in any degree believe in personal influence and personal responsibility, and not only the needs in the progress of history, it may be of interest to observe how those who now advance to the front in Norway—MICHELSEN, LOeVLAND, BERNER, ARCTANDER—belong to the old ranks of radicals from the beginning of 1890. Scarcely any leading men have more strongly emphasized the importance of creating public opinion than the Norwegian radical leaders, and few, with regard to this, have better conformed their conduct to their views. The road to do so these men pointed out was now followed at an unchecked pace. The Norwegian radical policy had reached a climax.

The following events in Norway point decidedly to an energetic and designing leadership organised from the beginning. It may be left unsaid how far back the plans that where brought to light after the foundering of the Consular question, were in existence. That they had already been discussed long before that period can hardly be doubted. Neither can it be doubted that just in reference to these plans, strong efforts had been set at work on the Norwegian side to get the Consular negotiations broken off[47:2]. And it is an indisputable fact that those men of action in Norway had scarcely dared to take the step, if the ever threatening danger in the east had not been allayed for a time; the real importance of the Union to which they had for some years been alive, could be laid to rest.

That the old traditions of the radicals now took the most prominent place became manifest in innumerable ways. One symtom of this, was the systematic labour of exciting opinions against Sweden. The orgies of Swedish hatred and "national persecution", which in Christiania were held in the Spring of 1905, far outstepped the limits of decency which even a Norwegian ought to feel. The coarsest invectives were flung against the government and people of Sweden. All Europe rang with accusations of breach of agreement, ambitions for the supremacy spread from Christiania. A few sensible and intelligent Norwegians, who really comprehended that the Swedish government's claims had legal grounds, and were not meant as an insult to Norway, made themselves heard[48:1] in the beginning, but their voices were soon silenced in the tumultuons confusion that reigned. In Norway feelings were excited, which more than ever gave Norwegian opinion a tone of unreasonableness.

Another symptom was the distinctness with which the Union separation shone as the goal. This was shown in the Cabinet meeting by the very tactless, but very Norwegian expressions when the break-down of the negotiations was officially announced. The old King was pleased to express his hearty wishes, "that the two Kingdoms which could soon celebrate the centenary of their Union, would never let any differences of opinion break their bonds, as it was the safest security for the independency, safety and happiness of the Scandinavian country and its two peoples". To this, the Norwegian Cabinet replied that they had taken the liberty in all humble submission to dissuade His Majesty from making this speech[48:2].

A third symptom, and the one most significant of the spirit that now dominated Norwegian politics was the road that they were soon unanimous on taking. One cannot help feeling that it is a punishment for old sins, that when Norway has to take a decisive step, and goes from words to actions, it is not done openly and with honest intent. Norway does not choose the straight road, it chooses winding crooked paths, which the peculiar advocacy of Norwegian politicians long ago staked out. Norway's breaking out of the Union is not a manly act committed under a sense of personal responsibility, it is a miserable judicial process, in which Norway, at the same time party to and self made judge in the case, artfully tries to establish the guilt of their opponents—Sweden and the Union King—in order to throw the burden of responsibility on them.

[Sidenote: The question of resuming negotiations.]

In the Cabinet meeting held on Feb. 7:th 1905[49:1] the Swedish Minister for Foreign affairs, Count GYLDENSTOLPE, pointed out that the chief cause of the wrecking of the negotiations was, that the Swedish Minister for Foreign affairs was supposed still to be at the head of the Foreign policy of the Union, and he advocated the desirability of resuming negotiations on this phase of the Union problem. The Minister for Foreign affairs only expressed what had in fact been the wish of the Swedish side all along, and what especially the Swedish negotiators during the first stage of the negotiations, had urgently insisted on. The opinion that the break down of the Consular negotiations ought to be immediate cause of the renewal of negotiations which were also to include the question of Foreign Administration, seemed at first to be regarded with favour from the Norwegian side. The majority of the Norwegian government led by Mr HAGERUP shared this opinion, though with one reservation. Evidently under the influence of the general feelings in Norway, Mr HAGERUP considered that if fresh negotiations respecting a revision of the Act of Union led to no results, the old state of things could not possibly be allowed to continue, but by voluntary agreements they must instead try to obtain "more independent bases for the Co-operation of the two Nations", in other words, prepare for the disssolution of the Union. In this way, said he, it will be possible to establish a peaceful and honorable Union Treaty. This was the programme he proposed in the Storting when he announced the termination of the negotiations, and he further developed it when he resigned in March.

A policy on those lines would at least have been open and honest, and even if the results had brought about the rupture of the Union, it would not have roused strong ill-will; it would, in fact, have preserved the possibility of establishing conditions of Co-operation on more independent lines. Though Sweden which, in the eyes of all Europe, was responsible for the Union, could never take the initiative in the matter of dissolving the Union, a Norwegian proposal in the terms presented by Mr HAGERUP had certainly not been refused without further consideration[50:1].

But it soon appeared that Mr HAGERUP'S programme was not likely to be favourably received in Norway. Immediately after the announcement of the termination of the negotiations, the Storthing had summoned a so called Special Committee to examine the conditions of the Union. The members of this Committee soon went against the majority of the government, and therefore, when the State Secretaries MICHELSEN and SCHOeNING at the end of February protested against Mr HAGERUP'S proceeding, in sending in his resignation, a complete crisis within the Cabinet was reached.

The king had, meanwhile, immediately after the termination of the negotiations, resigned the government to the Crown Prince in the capacity of Regent. After the Crown Prince Regent had conferred with the leading politicians in Christiania, he made known his personal opinion on the matter in a document adressed to the President of the Special Committee appointed by the Storthing[50:2] He earnestly expresses his conviction that the strength and prosperity of the two Kingdoms lies in the preservation of the Union. He emphatically declared that the Union was not the chief object for the dynasty, but it ought to be so to the two peoples concerned. He expressed warnings against the dissolution of the Union, and urged that fresh negotiations, on a broader basis, should be entered into for the settlement of all matters concerning the Union.

The persuasive tone of this document could not fail to make an effect, but the Norwegian press tried hard to explain away the contents by informing the public of their wonderful discovery, that the document was of no "Constitutional importance", and shrewdly trying to prove that the Crown Prince had no legal right to make known his opinion in that manner[51:1].

Those who now held the reins in Norway, had to carry out their plans before the worked up excitement cooled down. Therfore the way of the negotiations was so dangerous. The Crown Prince found it necessary to consent to a change of Ministry. Mr MICHELSEN, who was pointed out as the man equal to the situation, was summoned, also a so called mixed Cabinet consisting of Ministers of different parties; the two Prime Ministers, however, Mr MICHELSEN und Mr LOeVLAND, were rank radicals. In the beginning of March the Special Committee appointed by the Storthing were able preliminarily to communicate the plan to be followed; it was not a novel one, it was the old method from the beginning of the nineties to take matters, especially those relating to the Consular service, into "their own hands".

In the middle of March the Crown Prince returned to Stockholm, and here twelve members of the Diet were immediately summoned, according to decrees in the government regulations, in order to confer with the Crown Prince Regent on the matter.

On the 5th April the Crown Prince, as Regent, dictated a proposal in the joint Cabinet[51:2] that the two governments should immediately open negotiations in view of the settlement of all matters concerning the Union on the basis of the programme for a mutual Minister for Foreign affairs and separate Consular services. He, at the same time, declared himself willing to accept other proposals for the settlement of the matter so long as the joint control of Foreign affairs was allowed to remain undisturbed, as that was an indispensable guarantee for the continuance of the Union[52:1].

On the publication of the Crown Prince-Regent's proposal, the Prime Minister BOSTROeM, against whom the wrath of the Norwegians had especially been directed, resigned his office, which was immediately placed in the hands of State Secretary RAMSTEDT. The Crown Prince's proposal was immediately unanimously adopted on motions from the leading men in both Chambers of the Diet[52:2].

In this we thus find a clear and unevasive offer from Sweden to Norway, for the establisment of full equality within the Union, and that too in terms to which Sweden would never have consented but a few years back[52:3].

But the course of Norwegian politics could not be obstructed. The goal was already in sight. In a communication from the Norwegian government of the 17th April the reasons for the refusal are set forth. They are typically Norwegian. It refers to preceding negotiations, the failure of which is solely accountable to the circumstance that on the part of Sweden it has been found impossible to accede to all the Norwegian demands. The termination of the Consular negotiations had especially "given ground for great disappointment, and if increased by a renewal of similar unfortunate experiments, will threaten the gravest danger to the good relations existent between the two peoples". The Norwegian government knows what means to employ to produce "these good relations", namely, establishing its own Consular Service in the way prognosticated in the past. This accomplished, "that confidence, which is the mainspring of every friendly and fruitful inquiry into difficult and delicate relations in a Union, will have revived". Norway is thus always the injured one, and there is never a thought that Sweden on her part might have or possibly could find cause for displeausure over Norwegian Union Policy[53:1].

In a joint Cabinet in Stockholm on April 23rd the aforementioned statements were carried[53:2]. The Swedish Cabinet found it impossible, for the present, to resume negotiations. The Norwegian Cabinet stated imperatively—to those who would believe it—that it is not the object of Norwegian action to have the present Union dissolved(!), but they were in unity with the Swedish Cabinet. The Crown Prince deeply deplored being forced to let these decisions remain final.

In the beginning of May the Swedish Diet resolved, on the basis of the above mentioned motions, to address the King respecting the support they had given the Crown Prince's resolution[54:1]. The Diet deeply deplored the refusal already given by the Norwegians, but considered it possible that their unanimous support of the Crown Prince's programme would lead eventually to more favourable results.

[Sidenote: Norwegian agitation.]

While these efforts on the part of the Regent and Sweden were being made to bring Norway to reason, an energetic and designing agitation was being carried on from Christiania. The press went over almost entirely to the side of the programme; from Trondhjem alone, where union partisanship was not altogether inclined to submit to the dictates from Christiania, were heard hesitations.

Strong efforts were made in the Storthing to win over the doubting and unwilling ones, and they were in the main successful. Then followed a most energetic propaganda in order to win European opinion on Norway's side. The European press was well supplied with materials for forming an opinion of the situation, and with articles in German and English newspapers, it became possible to persuade the doubting ones at home, that Norway's cause was a righteous one,—all Europe saw that.

[Sidenote: Proposal from the Special Committee of the Storthing.]

When the ground was thus well prepared the Special Committee of the Storthing presented their proposals.

This recommends as before mentioned the old well-known tactics of the first days of the Consular dispute. The modifications which were added were only designed to hasten events, so that agitated minds should not have time to reflect, and reason in some way be restored. In the beginning of the 90's the so-called State subsidy line was followed, that is, a certain sum of money was voted for the purpose of establishing a separate Consular Service within a given time. This measure had meanwhile shown that a delay would occur which would under present circumstances be exceedingly inconvenient. Therefore the so-called legal measure was adopted. The Resolution on the Norwegian Consular Service should be presented to the King in the form of a law, the advantage in this being that according to the Norwegian Constitution, a law shall be laid before the King immediately after the resolution passed by the Storthing. But there was an obstacle to this: the King's right of veto! On the ground of the fundamental law, that if the King refuses his sanction to a bill three successive times after it has been passed by the unaltered resolution of the Storting, it becomes the law of the land without his assent, the personal wishes of the king with regard to legal matters had of recent times been to a certain extent respected. Thus so recently as 1900 the law applying to Consular Fees had been refused sanction by the Crown Prince-Regent against the decision of the Ministry, and the Prime Minister had countersigned the decision. But now the last vestige of Sovereign power was refused. By a resolution that the law should commence to act on April 1st 1906 all possibility of the King pronouncing his veto was cut off beforehand. The settlement of affairs should immediately be brought to a climax.

The proposed law made no provisions as to the relations of the Consuls to the Minister of Foreign affairs. That matter was to be settled by a Norwegian State Ordinance, dictated by the Ministry. It is easy to imagine its intended basis by the Special Committee emphatically declaring it to be their opinion that the Norwegian Cabinet had made too many concessions in the last Consular negotiations. To begin with, it was intimated in the Norwegian papers, that the matter referring to the Consular Service and Diplomatic Department would be settled by treaty with Sweden, a most illusive moderation, considering Norway, as previously mentioned[55:1], by fixing the date when the laws would first be in force, had alone the power of considering the basis of the possible agreement. But this intimation was very soon contradicted; Norway would take matters entirely into her own hands. And it was openly hinted, that if the King found that he ought to sanction the law, they would then proceed further with the question of their own Minister for Foreign affairs.

[Sidenote: The revolutionary basis of the proposal.]

The tactics in the whole of the procedings are characterised as being revolutionary against the Union, its object being by one sided Norwegian resolutions to dissolve the joint Foreign Administration. And as regards the Consular question it has been explained that to withdraw without consulting Sweden a part of the Foreign affairs from the Minister of Foreign affairs who was mainly responsible for them, was utterly unreasonable.

To what then did the Storthing invite the King? Simply this, to take a revolutionary step against the Union, to an initiatory dissolution of the Union, to a protracted undermining of the foundation of the Union, far more dangerous than severing it at one blow. And the ugly thought in the background was this: If the King did not submit to this, it would be shouted out all over the world, that the King was faithless to the interests of Norway, and had denied Norway's Sovereign rights; then he should bear the blame for what would happen, the revolutionary rupture of the bonds of Union. But not alone on him would the blame be thrown. The King in the first place should be put to the proof. But, if the King said 'No', "it cannot", Mr NANSEN says, "be the result of Norwegian influence, but on account of Swedish pressure"[56:1]. Here we are met by the dishonourable train of thought that has formed the foundation on which the Norwegian Radicals have built the whole of their work for undermining the Union, that is, never to acknowledge the true motive—piety towards the Union—when the King opposed the one-sided disloyal demands of Norway, but instead always point to Swedish interests as the ruling motive. And nevertheless, it is certain, that no Swedish-Norwegian King has kept in view the Union, and all it implied on all sides, more faithfully than King OSCAR II.

They closed all roads by which the King would be able to decide the Consular Question in a manner acceptable from a Union point of view; by this means, they forced the King to exercise his veto—and then they cast the responsibility of the revolution on him and Sweden. This is the basis of the tactics of the Norwegian Revolution. The characteristicness of this is sufficiently evident.

[Sidenote: The decision in the Storthing.]

The debate on the proposal of the Special Committee in the Storthing was fixed for the day after the National Anniversary, May 17th. National revelries were to precede to encourage and excite. In Christiania, especially, the day was celebrated in such a manner, that there could be no doubt as to what was in the wind. NANSEN used big words about Norway, and big words against Sweden, and in the presence of several thousand persons, a memorial wreath was laid—as on several previous years—on a Colonel KREBS' grave; during the short strife between Sweden and Norway in 1814, the man had succeeded in repulsing a Swedish regiment!

These imposing preparations were followed by the decision of the Storthing. It was first proposed to decide unanimously without any debate. But there were a few members in the Storthing who ventured to protest in words—in actions no one dared to protest.

With a frankness evidently embarrassing to all present, Mr HAGERUP pointed out the two only possible alternatives with reference to the decision; to retract, or to rupture. The latter alternative he evidently found most acceptable, and in Norway's real interest, he warned them as to what the issue might be. He proposed that the decision with respect to these eventualities—which might exceed both the Constitution and the Act of Union—should be deferred till after the new elections, as the Constitution with an almost torturing emphasis insists on caution when a change in the government system is contemplated. Even the rest of the few in the minority made known their different views, and among them the Shipowner JOeRGEN KNUDSEN openly confessed that he saw no forcible reasons for dissolving the joint Consular Service.

But the issue was plain. After Mr HAGERUP'S proposal for an adjournment was voted against with a minority of few the Consular law was passed unanimously.

[Sidenote: King Oscar's position in regard to the Consular law.]

Nothing remained now but to continue. The uncertainty in various quarters as to how king OSCAR would express himself, simply implied ignorance of the political situation in an historical light. No Norwegian acquainted with the real facts of the case, could be in doubts as to the King's reply. Norway herself had dictated it and the innocent distrust of NANSEN[58:1] and Norwegian newspapers, that the King, as they said, "would really refuse Norway her right" seemed rather unnatural.

[Sidenote: The Cabinet meeting. 27th May 1905]

On the 27th May a Cabinet meeting was held at the Royal Palace in Stockholm[58:2]. To the Norwegian Cabinet's appeal for sanction to the Consular law, the King replied that the present regulations for the joint Consular service as resolved in a joint Cabinet according to the Act of the Union Sec. 5, also under the same conditions, that is to say, by treaty with Sweden, must be dissolved, and refused his sanction. The Cabinet raised the strongest objections to this, and referred to Norway's loyal(!) endeavours to advance the cause. The King's decree implied a violation of Norway's independence and Sovereign right, and would undoubtedly lead to the dissolution of the Union. The Cabinet thereupon, sent in their resignations[58:3], which the King, meanwhile, refused to allow, as he had at present no prospect of forming a new Ministry. Then ensued a discussion between the King and the Ministers. The King maintained his right based on the Constitutional law, to exercise his veto according to his own judgment and maintained the duty of the Minister of State to countersign his decision. The Cabinet sought, on their side, to defend the interpretation given in later years to the fundamental law, that it presupposed the right of refusing countersignature, but could, as a precedent, for present circumstances, only quote the not altogether applicable opinion—after full consideration—of the Norwegian Cabinet in 1847[58:4].

[Sidenote: The situation after the 27nd May.]

Now the situation was as follows: The King had been forced to the extremity of exercising his undoubted right, according to Constitutional law, to form his decision according to his own judgment. It was furthermore the Prime Minister's undoubted duty to countersign his decree, the Cabinet, by raising protestations, were released from constitutional responsibility for the royal decree according to the rules of the fundamental law. But the Cabinet maintained another interpretation of the fundamental law, and sent in their resignations, which the King, meanwhile, refused to grant as he could not for the present—"now"— form a new Ministry.

This word 'now' in the King's refusal to the Cabinets appeal to resign, undoubtedly implies a reminder of earlier similar situations in the beginning of 1890, when the Ministry—on one or two occasions Radical —had remained in office some time after they had tendered their appeals to resign, as the King was unable to form a new ministry. It was also without doubt the legislative duty of the Ministry to remain at their post till the King released them. For, according to the general constitutional and administrative ideas of justice, it is the King who releases his Ministers; they have no legal right to retire of themselves.

It is not Norway's King who has transgressed the law, in spite of all the accusations to that effect from Norway's government[59:1]. The law was transgressed on June 6th by the Norwegian Cabinet, when they informed the King that they resigned office[59:2].

[Sidenote: The Norwegian Revolution.]

Their chief reason for this proceeding they declared to be their inability to be a party to the King's policy, which according to their opinion, was not in accordance with the Norwegian Constitution, and declared themselves to be 'free men' entitled to the right to resign office[60:1]. King OSCAR immediately sent protestations against this proceeding on the part of the Ministers, both to the Storthing and the Premier[60:2]. But before these came to hand, the next act was played out.

On the 7th June the Cabinet informed the Storthing of their resignation[60:3]. The Storthing forgetful of the very important little word now categorically recorded the fact that the King had declared himself incapable of forming a new government, and came to the conclusion that the Constitutional Royal Power was "no longer effectual", on which the late Ministers were admonished to take up the reins of government, which, according to Constitutional law, was the King's prerogative alone. The King was therefore deposed. But Norwegian logic went boldly further. King OSCAR having ceased to act as Norway's King, the declaration followed, that the Union with Sweden was dissolved[60:4]. This was all communicated in an address which the Storthing prayed to be allowed to deliver to King OSCAR by a deputation[60:5]. The King of course replied that he would not receive any deputation from the revolutionary Storthing[60:6].

It is now these resolutions which are not called revolutionary in Norway. They are, on the contrary, perfectly legal[60:7]!

The King was dethroned, because, supported by rights given by the Constitution, he refused to sanction a resolution in conflict with the principles of the Union, to which Norway, according to the first paragraph of her Constitution, is bound.

The Union with Sweden was declared dissolved without reference to Sweden, or observation of the terms in which the slightest change in the Constitution and the Act of Union must be carried out[61:1]. And this last resolution was carried in spite of the Constitutional prescription that changes in the same must not come in strife with the principles of State law, to which, if ever, the Union with Sweden belongs; as the freedom and independence of Norway, according to the first paragraph of the Constitution, are inseparably connected with this Union[61:2].

As aforementioned, all this is not revolution in Norway. Conceptions of laws and rights have long shown themselves in strange lights in that country.

[Sidenote: Protestations of Sweden and the Union King.]

On June 9th Sweden declared her protest against the Norwegian revolution. In the Cabinet Council to which the Swedish Chambers were summoned to meet in on Extraordinary session[61:3], the Prime Minister strongly emphasised the fact that the Norwegian Storthing's proceedings had deeply violated Sweden's rights.

The following day, June 10th, King OSCAR issued his protest in an address to the Norwegian Storthing[62:1]. In clear and convincing terms the King maintains his formal legal right to form his resolution in opposition to the Cabinet's opinion. And he, as forcibly, maintains that it was in the capacity of the chief representative of the Union that he had considered it his duty to refuse his sanction to the Consular law. As Union-King, he emphasizes his right and prerogative, even in opposition to Norwegian public opinion in general, to maintain the principles of the Union, and he finally refers to the decisions of himself and Sweden "if Norway's attack on the existing Union should lead to its legal dissolution".

[Sidenote: Address of the Storthing 19th June 1905.]

The reply to this address of the King was an address[62:2] from the Storthing on June 19th formally to His Majesty the King, but in reality to the Swedish nation. In this it is explained that the Norwegian people entertain no feelings of dislike or ill-will to the Swedish people, and appeals to the Swedish State powers to promote a peaceful agreement on both sides. The Storthing addressed this appeal to the people who by their magnanimity and chivalry had won such a prominent place in the ranks of Nations.

The Swedish nation had good cause for thinking that it might have received this compliment a little sooner, instead of the overwhelming mass of infamous accusations which it had formerly had to accept with a good grace. And above all, it is their opinion that if Norway had formerly adjusted its actions in accordance with their present ideas of the Swedish nation, the present situation would now have been different in all respects.

The document of the 19:th June contains also one detail, which has since, step by step, been forced to the front by the Norwegian agitation, and therefore deserves its separate explanation. This said that the Swedish government on the 25:th April had emphatically refused to resume negotiations, with the dissolution of the union as an alternative, in case unity on the new forms of the union could not be arrived at, and on this account, from Norway's side they have tried to cast the blame on Sweden for the revolution of June 7:th under the pretext that Sweden had already refused settlement by negotiation. What are the real conditions?

In the Norwegian Government's proposal of the 17:th April negotiations are firmly refused, before the Consular question has been settled. Therefore Norway has never proposed negotiations respecting the situation which followed upon the 27:th May, when the King exercised his veto against the Consular law. Furthermore, attention must be drawn to the Norwegian government's wording of the presuppositions for an eventual negotiation. It should be carried on "on an entirely free basis with full recognition of the Sovereignty of each country without any reservation or restriction whatever", and among other matters, it was stipulated, that, if the negotiations fell through, each Kingdom should be able to decide, of its own accord, "the future form of its national existence." Thus the Swedish government was to accept in advance the Norwegian Radicals legal conception of the Union, driven, to it by the contingency that if Norway did not get her will in the matter, she would break out, on her own accord, of the Union. It is manifestly against this method of negotiating matters, with its legal grounds and its premature threat to rupture the Union on Norway's side, that the Swedish Prime Minister appeals, when he speaks of a presupposition for negotiations on the Norwegian side "as incompatible with the Union and the Act of Union." The Prime Minister can never have intended to contest the absurdity, that the Union cannot legally be dissolved, so that it was not on that account that he refused to negotiate.

But the Norwegian Cabinet hastened, craftily, to construe the contents af the Prime Minister's speech, by maintaining that there was a possibility for dissolving the Union[63:1]. Of all the cunning devices, the object of which has been, on Norway's side, cowardly to cast the blame on Sweden, this has been one of the most disgusting, so much the more so as the majority of the Storthing itself opposed Mr HAGERUP'S proposal, and this was certainly not previous to, nor after the Council of the 25:th April, when it was seriously proposed, that a treaty for the dissolution of the Union should be drawn up, in the event of the King exercising his veto; the tactics that were adopted on 7:th June were made up a long time beforehand.—

On the 20:th June the Diet assembled.

FOOTNOTES:

[47:1] It must be remembered that in reality Norway had an almost entirely equal influence in the joint Consular service, as questions refering to Consular matters were decided in a joint Cabinet, and a Norwegian government department conducted the mercantile part of affairs.

[47:2] It does not follow, however, that at least the majority of the members of the Norwegian government tried to come to an agreement.

[48:1] A very sensible and intelligent article written by Mr FRITZ HANSEN, member of the last Union Committee, may especially be brought to notice.

[48:2] N:o 10.

[49:1] N:o 10.

[50:1] This is proved by the motion on the Union question brought forward in the Lower Chamber of the Swedish Parliament. See N:o 14.

[50:2] N:o 11.

[51:1] NANSEN does not even mention the document in his book.

[51:2] N:o 12.

[52:1] This last alternative was considered to imply proposals for a compromise, which had now and then been hinted at, namely, that a Chancellor of the Union should direct all matters concerning Union policy, but each of the Kingdoms should have its own Minister for Foreign affairs, chiefly with Consular affairs under their especial direction. The proposal was said to have been brought forward in the first place at the meeting of the last Union Committee by one of the Norwegian radical representatives.

[52:2] N:o 13 and 14.

[52:3] NANSEN (page 87) rouses suspicion in every possible way against this Swedish offer. He implies that the new offer, made immediately after the breaking off of the negotiations, which, of course, was caused by Swedish perfidy, was not likely to inspire confidence, and especially as it did not include "the same guarantees we had before". It must nevertheless be observed that this treaty contained far greater guarantees, partly on account of the unanimous decision of the Diet, partly on the grounds that the Crown Prince's programme was far easier to carry out than the programme of the Communique, which implied that the Consular question would solve itself. NANSEN also mentions that "the last Union Committee worked on a similar basis without being able to come to a decision, as the Swedish proposals were not acceptable to any section of the Norwegian Commissioners". To this it must be observed that this Swedish offer was more conciliatory towards the Norwegian wishes, than the Norwegian majority's proposal had been in the last Union Committee. Why therefore could it not be accepted by the Norwegians?

[53:1] N:o 15.

[53:2] N:o 16.

[54:1] N:o 17.

[55:1] Page 14.

[56:1] NANSEN (pag. 93).

[58:1] NANSEN page 93.

[58:2] There is no protocol of this Cabinet meeting, only a complete report, communicated to the government of Christiania by the delegates of the Cabinet.

Compare with N:o 19.

[58:3] N:o 18.

[58:4] Compare N:o 27.

[59:1] N:os 18, 19 and 21.

[59:2] On the Norwegian side they attach great praise to themselves for having given the King a few day's grace in order to form a new Ministry. The Norwegian Cabinet also blame the King (Compare with N:o 21) for not having made use of this truce, and plainly imply hereby, that the King in fact abdicated of his own accord. The King replied to this by alluding to the Cabinets open threats (Compare with N:o 19) that the man who, after being warned by the King, dared to approach the King as adviser, from that moment lost his national rights; in other words, however the King might act, the Revolution would come. The King is therefore reproached for not endeavouring to form a new Ministry, after he had been threatened with the revolution if the attempt had shown any sign of success. How truly Norwegian!

[60:1] N:o 21.

[60:2] N:o 22.

[60:3] The terms of this communication are almost word for word the same as in the address to the King.

[60:4] N:o 23.

[60:5] N:o 24.

[60:6] N:o 25.

[60:7] One reeds, for exemple, NANSENS arguments in real exaggerated Norwegian logic. (page 94).

[61:1] Compare N:o 1 Sec. 112 and N:o 2 Sec. 12.

[61:2] "The kingdom of Norway is a free, independent, indivisible and inalienable realm, united with Sweden under one King."

[61:3] N:o 26.

[62:1] N:o 27.

[62:2] N:o 28. They are careful not to confute the King's defence of the legality of his action.

[63:1] Compare, with N:os 15 and 16.



VII.

[Sidenote: The question of the Justification of the Norwegian Revolution.]

Revolutions are not to be condemned under all conditions. History—even the history of Sweden—records many revolutions, which are said to have been a vital necessity. But a revolution can only be morally defended on the grounds of its having been the extreme means of protecting most important interests.

[Sidenote: The Swedish "oppression".]

In these days there have been numerous comparisons made between Norway's breaking out of the Union, and Sweden's struggle for freedom from Denmark in the middle ages. Sweden's way of using its power has been stamped as an intolerable oppression. It can scarcely be necessary to give a more powerful confutation to these very idle fancies, than simply to refer to the fact that Norway's "struggle for freedom" has had for its object the enormously important cause—their own consuls!

[Sidenote: Sweden's loyalty in conducting the Foreign policy of the Union.]

The dominating position of Sweden within the Union has consisted simply in its administration of Foreign affairs of the Union; in everything else Norway has had an independent right of decision in full equality with that of Sweden. An Norway cannot complain that Sweden has conducted the administration of Foreign policy in a manner that has been injurious to the interests of Norway. This was emphatically conceded during the hottest days of the Stadtholder conflict in 1861. It is remarkable that in the present day, when the want to prove an antithesis in Norway, they can never produce anything but the episode from the beginning of the Union—the well known Bodoe affair in 1819-1821—an episode concerning which Norwegian investigations of recent date, have served to place Swedish Foreign administration in a far better light than what Norwegian tradition had done. The advantage given to Norway by the Swedish administration of Foreign affairs, is the inestimable gift of a 90 years' uninterrupted peace, which has given the people of Norway an opportunity of peacefully devoting themselves to the labour of material and spiritual development. Sweden has furthermore especially tried to insure interests so far that, in the direction of Foreign affairs, Norwegian assistance has been employed as far as the regulations in the organisation of the same would permit. It has already been mentioned that Norwegian counsels have used their influence in the council for Foreign affairs, that Norwegian influence on The Consular system has, for a long time, been as near as possible equal to that of Sweden. It may also be added, that Norwegians have always been appointed to posts in connection with those offices under the Foreign Office. In the Foreign Office itself Norwegians have always held office: even as Under Secretary of State— the next in rank to the Minister for Foreign affairs—a Norwegian has lately been in office. the posts at the Embassies at Foreign Courts, even the most important, have to a great extent been held by Norwegians. Of those Consuls sent abroad, by far the greater number are Norwegians. Norway has herself given the best proof that the Swedish administration of Foreign affairs has been conscientiously carried out to the interests of Norway, by, time after time, refusing the Swedish offers to give Norway greater influence in the settlement of Foreign affairs, offers, which even if they did not accede to all Norway's demands, would, if realised, have given Norway a far better position than it had previously held.

[Sidenote: Has Norway been denied its prerogative.]

But it has been said on the Norwegian side—and this has been brought forward as the main point—Norway has been denied her prerogative, as a "free and independent Kingdom". If by that, they mean that Norway has been denied equality in the Union, it is not true.

Sweden's only condition, that Norway, as they say, should enjoy her prerogative, has been, that this prerogative in its application should be subordinate to the demands stipulated by the Union, demands which Sweden on her side was quite prepared to submit to. That a right should be maintained under the consciousness that it has its limits in necessary obligatory respects, has been almost lost sight of by Norway. The chief impetus of the Revolution has been a reckless desire on the part of the Norwegians to be absolutly their own masters, that and nothing else. Norway has bragged about her prerogatives without any feeling of responsibility, like an unreasoning whimsical child. It must be declared, both on historical and psychological grounds, that it can never be politically defended. Norway must already have made the discovery that the great era of universal politics, is entitled, if ever, to political action under a strict sense of responsibility.

[Sidenote: Faults on Sweden's side.]

By this it is by no means our intention to deny that Sweden herself is to a certain extent to blame for things going as they have done. Looking back over the Union Policy of Sweden, it must, in the first place, be noticeable that there has been, to a certain extent, a lack of firmness and authority. And it cannot either be denied that there have been mistakes that have unnecessarily roused opposition. For instance, in the so-called Stadtholder question, in the sixties, Sweden's policy was undoubtedly too harsh. But whatever faults may be laid at the door of the Union Policy of Sweden, when the Swedish nation in these days tries to make a searching self examination, opinions are not little likely to be unanimous because Sweden has been too conciliatory towards Norways' demands.

[Sidenote: Swedish opinion.]

It is said that a foreigner recently travelling in the Scandinavian countries made the observation that Swedes always spoke kindly of the Norwegians, and the Norwegians always spoke ill of the Swedes. The observation doubtless contains a good deal of truth. It is, at least, true that Swedish public opinion, at large, has been distinguished by kindliness both to Norway and its people, and that every honest effort to smooth discussions has had the sympathy of an overwhelming majority of the people of Sweden. Swedes have been very unwilling to listen to the prophets of evil who have pointed to the deficiencies and deformities of Norwegian policy, and prognosticated trouble. It is just on that account that indignation from one end of Sweden to the other is so much the more intense when the veil is so rudely torn aside, and Norwegian politics are shown in their true light, such as they are and—have been. The revolutionary act of Norway has like a flash of lightning illuminated the past background of Norwegian politics, and exhibited to the people of Sweden all the unreasonableness, the craftiness and dishonesty which Sweden has had to put up with from Norway during the past decennials.

In this way, the memories of the history of the Union of the latest periods are revived with indignation among the people of Sweden. If the indignation is at times expressed in unnecessarily strong and ill-chosen terms, Norway has in truth no manner of right to complain.



ACTS TOUCHING THE SWEDISH-NORWEGIAN CRISIS.



1.

Extracts from the Constitution of Norway.

[— — —]

Sec. 1. The Kingdom of Norway is a free, independent, indivisible, and inalinenable realm united with Sweden under one King.

[— — —]

Sec. 5. The King's person is sacred. He must not be blamed nor accused. The responsibility is incumbent on His Council.

[— — —]

Sec.15. [— —] The Prime Minister reports the matters and is responsible for the documents issued being in accordance with the resolutions adopted.

[— — —]

Sec. 30. All matters dealt with in the Cabinet Council should be recorded. Each number of the Cabinet Council is bound to express, fearlessly, his opinion which the King is obliged to listen to. But it is reserved for the latter to take these resolutions according to His own judgment.

If a member of the Cabinet Council should find the Kings' resolution incongruous with the form of government, or the public laws of the country, or else obviously harmful to the realm, it is his duty to make strenuous remonstrance and to have his opinon recorded. He who has not issued a protest in this way, is considered to have agreed with the King and is responsible for it in the way subsequently indicated, and the Odelsthing can proeced against him before the Court of impeachment.

Sec. 31. All orders (ezcepting matters of military command) issued by the King himself, should be countersigned by one of the Prime Ministers.

[— — —]

Sec. 76. Each law shall first be moved in the Odelsthing, either by its own members or by the Government through a Cabinet Minister. [— —]

Sec. 77. When a resolution passed by the Odelsthing has been approved of by the Lagthing, or by the assembled Storthing, it is sent to the King if present, or else to the Norwegian Government with the request of obtaining the sanction of the King.

Sec. 78. If the King approves of the resolution he shall attach His signature to it, through which it passes into law. If He does not approve of it, He shall send it back to the Odelsthing with the declaration that He does not find it suitable, at present, to sanction it. In this case the resolution must not again be laid before the King by the Storthing then assembled.

Sec. 79. If a resolution has, in unaltered form, been passed by three ordinary Storthings constituted after three different consecutive general Elections and separated from each other by at least two intermediate ordinary Storthings without that, in the interval between the first and the last adoption of the resolution, a divergent resolution has been passed by a Storthing, and if it is then submitted to the King with the request that His Majesty may be pleased not to negative a resolution regarded as useful by the Storthing after mature consideration, then it passes into law, even if the King's sanction should not be obtained before the break-up of the Storthing.

[— — —]

Sec. 112. If experience should teach that some part of the Constitution of the realm of Norway ought to be altered, the motion for it shall be made at the first ordinary Storthing after a new general election and be issued from the press. But it can only to be one of the ordinary Storthings after the next general election, to decide as to whether the amendment moved should be accepted or not. Such an amendment, however, must never be contrary to the principles of this Constitution, but should only regard a modification of particular regulations, not affecting the spirit of this Constitution, and such an amendment should be seconded by two thirds of the Storthing.

[— — —]



2.

Extracts from the Act of Union.

[— — —]

Sec. 4. The King shall have the right to concentrate troops, commence war and to conclude peace, enter into and annul alliances, dismiss and receive ambassadors. [— —]

Sec. 5. Both the Norwegian Prime Ministers and the two Cabinet Ministers accompaning the King shall have a seat and vote in the Swedish Cabinet Council, whenever matters affecting both countries are there transacted. In such cases the opinion of the Government residing in Norway shall be consulted unless such a speedy decision be required that time does not allow of it.

When, in the Norwegian Cabinet Council, matters affecting both countries are transacted, three members of the Swedish Cabinet Council shall there have a seat and vote.

[— — —]

Sec. 7[72:1]. [— —] Matters concerning both the Kingdoms, but which in consequence of their nature, do not belong to the administration of any special Department, are reported by the Minister for Foreign Affairs and are despatched to each Kingdom, drawn up in its own language; to Sweden by the above mentioned reporter Minister and to Norway by her Prime Minister.

Diplomatic (Cabinet) matters are reported by the Minister for Foreign affairs, and are entered into a separate protocol[73:1]. [— —]

[— — —]

Sec. 12. Whereas the regulations contained in this Act of Union partly are copied from the Constitution of the realm of Norway, partly are additions to it, based on the right awarded to the present Storthing by the Constitution, they shall, with regard to Norway, have and retain the same authority as the Constitution of that realm, and they must not be altered but in the way indicated in Sec. 112 of that same Constitution.

[— — —]

FOOTNOTES:

[72:1] This paragraph describes the joint so-called provisional Government.



3.

Preliminary settlement of the Consular question between members of the Swedish and the Norwegian Cabinet Council, on March 24, 1903. (The so-called Communique).

The negotiations carried on in Stockholm during the last months of October, December, and January between the members of the Swedish and the Norwegian Government here subjoined, and regarding the Consular question, have been continued in Christiania during February and March.

During these negotiations the Swedish members maintained that the establishment of a separate Consular service for each of the United Kingdoms did not seem to them desirable in itself, and that they were not convinced that a dissolution of the existing community, in this respect, would convey any important practical advantages to either of the Kingdoms. On the contrary, there were reasons to apprehend lest this arrangement should lead to inconveniences.

Whereas, however, an opposite opinion has long been upheld by Norway and whereas, during the negotiations resulting from the report of the latest Consular committee made up by members from both countries, it has turned out not to be impossible to arrange, on certain conditions, such a system with separate consuls for each Kingdom as could, while it was meant to satisfy the desires expressed by Norway, also remove the principal apprehensions on the part of Sweden, the Swedish negotiators in order to attain the most important advantage of political concord between the two Kingdoms, have found it possible to recommend an agreement on the following terms:

1. Separate Consular services for Sweden and for Norway shall be established. The Consuls of each Kingdom shall be subordinate to the authority of their own country which the latter shall have to determine.

2. The relations of the separate consuls to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and to the Embassies shall be regulated by laws of th seame wording which cannot be altered nor abolished without the consent of the authorities, of both Kingdoms.

The Swedish negotiators have added to this that they realise in full and acknowledge that the position held for the present by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, does not correspond to the equality within the Union that Norway is entitled to claim. They have held forth the desirability of this question being made an object of negotiations, which, however, at present has not met with approval on the part of Norway. They have, however, declared themselves prepared to advise the King, whenever such a desire is expressed on the side of Norway, to lay before the Riksdag and the Storthing a proposition about such alterations of the Act of Union as can clear the way for the King to appoint a Swede or a Norwegian-Minister for Foreign affairs and render it possible to institute the minister's constitutional responsibility before the national assemblies of both Kingdoms.

To this the Norwegian negotiators have answered that they naturally concur in the opinion that the existing arrangement for the administration of Foreign affairs does not agree with Norway's justified claims on equality within the Union. It was therefore all the more evident that, on the part of Norway, no regulations could be accepted that were meant to bind it to this arrangement. At the same time, however, they wanted to express the hope that the question about a satisfactory arrangement of the administration of Foreign affairs might soon be made an object of negotiations between the Kingdoms.

When the present negotiations had been carried on by Norway under the supposition that the question about a change of this unsatisfactory state of things should be left untouched, it had been done so out of regard to the fact that the opinions about the best way of correcting this state of things were so different in the two countries that, for the present, an agreement could not be expected.

We Swedish and Norwegian negotiators, having thus been confined to try to bring about such an arrangement of the Consular question as will leave status quo undisturbed with respect to the position of the Minister for Foreign affairs and of the Embassies, have agreed upon that the relation between the Minister and the Diplomacy on the one hand, and the separate Consular Services on the other, should be regulated by laws of the same wording which cannot be altered by one of the parties alone and which both shall guarantee that the Consuls do not overstep the limits of their authority and at the same time shall add security to the necessary co-operation between the management of foreign affairs and the Consular Services of both Kingdoms.

In conclusion we also want to express the hope that the time shall not be remote when, by conciliatory advances on both sides, the question of arranging the management of Foreign affairs can be made an object of negotiations and find such a solution as can produce satisfaction in both countries and enduringly secure the futurity of the Union.

FOOTNOTES:

[73:1] These enactsments show plainly that the Act of Union only recognizes the Swedish Minister for Foreign affairs as the leader of the Foreign Policy of the Union.



4.

Extracts from the Norwegian Government's draft of laws of the same wording in order to regulate the relations between the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the legations on the one hand, and the separate Consular services of the two countries on the other hand. Dated May 28, 1904.

I.

The Consular administration by which is understood the authority the Consuls are subordinate to, has to inform the Minister for Foreign affairs of:

a) the establishment, the suppression, the alteration, or the division of Consular Services, the appointement or employment of Consuls, their power of attorney, leave of absence, suspension, recall, or discharge:

b) the general regulations and precepts issued with regard to the Consular Service;

c) measures particularly regarding the relations to Foreign Powers, as e. g. regulations to be observed by Consuls in time of war; orders to, or proceedings against Consuls owing to complaints lodged by a Foreign Power against their actions; instructions to Consuls as to the interpretation and the application of international laws or agreements and as to matters simultaneously subject to Diplomatic and to Consular treatment.

[— — —]

III.

Of matters that have assumed or may be anticipated to assume a diplomatic or political aspect and that seem to require a speedy decision, the Consul has to send the Minister for Foreign affairs an exact statement. This proceeding shall particularly be observed in case of an infringement of international agreements; of obstacles raised by the local authorities to the Consul's discharge of his official duties; of troubles for warships in foreign ports; of illegitimate confiscation of traders; of arbitrary imprisonment of citizens; of difficulties originating from outbreak of war or insurrection; and of reclamations already committed to diplomatic treatment, but requiring a speedy acquirement of additional information.

In matters of this kind where there is reason to apprehend lest a negligence of immediate interference should convey considerable inconveniences, the Minister for Foreign affairs can make direct inquires of, and give direct injunctions to a Consul concerning the diplomatic or political side of the matter.

The Consul must not refuse to submit to an inquiry or an injunction addressed to him by the Minister for Foreign affairs, because of finding the matter in question not to be of the kind alluded to above.

IV.

When the interest of the country or its citizens require being looked after, the legation is entitled to gather information from, and to give orders to the Consul concerned. Such orders must not conflict with actual law and statute, nor with instructions or other regulations given by the Home authority.

With regard to a Consul's duty to obey the injunctions mentioned above, the last passage of Sec. 3 should be applied.

[— — —]



5.

Extracts from the outlines for laws of the same wording drawn up by His Excellency Bostroem, in November 1904.

[— — —]

[— — —]

With regard to the relations between the Minister for Foreign affairs and the Consular administration, and in addition to general precepts as to their duty of mutual cooperation and of mutual interchange of information about such resolutions and steps, etc. as may be of importance for them to know it should be directed:

that a new Consulate must not be established until the Minister for Foreign affairs has stated as to whether any obstacles to its establishment are raised on the part of Foreign Powers;

that, before the appointment of a Consul, the Foreign Minister shall have an opportunity of making the remarks he may find appropriate, as to the persons possible to be taken into consideration for the appointment;

that, for obtaining a Foreign Power's recognition of a Consul, the Consular administration has to make a proposition of it to the Foreign Minister just as is the case when, in other matters belonging to the province of the Consular administration the question arises about applying to the Government of a Foreign Power;

and that if, in matters being dealt with by the Consular administration, the Minister for Foreign affairs has given instructions to a Consul, the Consular administration must not give the Consul an order conflicting with such an instruction.

As to the Foreign Minister's relation to the Consuls and vice versa, the law should say that the Consuls are subordinate to the Minister for Foreign affairs in such a way:

that, in matters belonging to his province, he has the right to request information directly from the Consul and to give him instructions;

and that the Consul on his part is bound not only to execute implicitly what he is thus requested to do, but also, in such matters dealt with by him as, owing to their nature and other circumstances, may be supposed to affect the relation to a Foreign Power, to send of his own accord a report of the origination of the matter as well as of its further development.

Besides it should be instituted:

[— — —]

that, in case a Consul should act in such a way as may have a disturbing effect upon the friendly relations between the United Kingdoms and the Foreign Power concerned, and also in case a Consul should neglect to execute the instructions of the Minister for Foreign affairs or the Legation, the Foreign Minister shall have the right to address a humble request to the King about the Consul's revocation, whereupon the Consular administration concerned should be informed of the resolution.

In order to regulate the relations between the Legation and the Consuls concerned, it should, apart from the general precept of their duty of mutual cooperation, be laid down in the law:

that the legation is bound to guard the Consul's rights and to lend him necessary assistance and, in matters belonging to the province of the legation, entitled to demand information from the Consul and to give him instructions;

that the Consul has the same duties towards the Legation as towards the Minister for Foreign affairs;

and that, if the Consul, by participating in political demonstrations or in another way, should openly disregard the consideration he is bound to have for the authorities of the country he is employed in, or if an action affecting his civil repute should he brought against him, the legation has the right to suspend him from his office until further notice.



6.

Extract from the answer given by His Excellency Hagerup to the preceeding draft, on November 26, 1904.

[— — —]

2. No approval on the part of Norway can be expected for an arrangement that would give Swedish authorities the possibility of interfering with measures taken by a Norwegian authority. Also in this respect we merely adhere to the Communique and the Protocols of December that, as a basis of agreement, give prominence to the establishment of a separate Consular service for Sweden and for Norway, in which case "the Consuls of each Kingdom shall be subordinate to the authority of their own country which the latter shall have to determine." This arrangement does not however preclude, as is also presupposed in the Norwegian draft, a certain possibility for the Foreign Minister to address direct requests to the consuls.

[— — —]

With particular regard to the demand expressed in the "outlines" that the Swedish Minister for Foreign affairs shall have the right—this is the, intention according to your Excellency's verbal declaration—to discharge in ministerial—consequently in Swedish—Cabinet Council a consul appointed in Norwegian Council, I ventured to point out 1) that this demand was entirely contrary to the Norwegian Constitution, 2) that an arrangement by which a Swedish authority of state might nullify a resolution adopted by a Norwegian authority of state would, according to the general principles of political and international law, impress upon Norway the stamp of a dependency, and 3) that it would therefore from a national point of view signify an enormous retrograde step as compared with the present arrangement of the Consular service.

[— — —]



7.

Extracts from the draft of laws of the same wording made by the Swedish Government in December 1904.

[— — —]

Sec. 8.

If in a matter being dealt with by the Consular administration, the Minister for Foreign affairs has informed that he has taken such a measure as is alluded to in Sec. 9, it is for the Consular administration to observe that, from its side, no such instructions are given to the consul concerned as are conflicting with any reorder relating to this matter given by the Minister for Foreign affairs and known to the Consular administration.