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 hands? In Norway much anxiety was expressed lest the negotiations should prove too binding,--Norwegian politicians hate, as previously mentioned, to be bound in any way--His Excellency BLEHR meanwhile imagined that he might be able to explain in the Storthing, in May 1903, that _the laws will not include any restrictions for either of the two Kingdoms, in the matter of their authority, in future, to decide on questions relating to the regulation of foreign administration_; or be reckoned as a proof that they had confirmed the existing terms, or bound themselves to carry them out. This explanation produced a calming effect, and it was confirmed in the following debate with satisfaction that the character of these laws could not be referred to, as showing, that Norway was bound in any way whatever. This interpretation was afterwards approved of by Mr HAGERUP, and may be said to form the Norwegian official standpoint in all negotiations. Now, was this also the Swedish interpretation of the Communique? It is evident that the Swedish standpoint in this respect must be of especial importance, considering it plainly referred to a guarantee demanded by Sweden[26:1], touching the nature of which the Swedish interpretation of the Communique must, of necessity, in an especial degree be one of authority.