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
quit