rty 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 p