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