Now, however matters may have been in detail, one indisputable fact remains clear, _that the guarantee the Swedish delegates sought to effect by means of the identical laws, has been refused on the grounds of the Norwegian interpretation of the Communique_. This must be kept strictly in view, if any correct idea of the ensuing development of events is to be obtained. FOOTNOTES: [19:1] It is undoubtedly Russia's proceedings in Finland which have especially influenced the recent unionist-political views of BJOeRNSON. [21:1] The most effective power in the Committee was D:r SIGURD IBSEN, who is credited with having drawn up the drafts of the result of the Committee's debates. The rest of the members were the Swedish Ambassador BILDT at the Court of St James, the Consul General AMEEN in Barcelona, and the Consul General CHRISTOPHERSEN in Antwerp. [21:2] The Swedish members of the Committee indicate, incidentally, that they do not consider it to be altogether desirable. [22:1] NANSEN evidently looks upon the matter in this light (page 64): "No change in the Consular regulations was made, and it therefore, follows that even the _Swedish Commissioners_ did not think it incompatible with the terms of the Union, for Norway to have separate Consuls". And, of course, he mentions, "the _unanimous conclusion_ of the committee of experts from _both_ countries" (p. 72). [23:1] N:o 3. [23:2] The Swedish members were, the Premier, BOSTROeM, the Minister for Foreign Affairs Mr. LAGERHEIM, and State Secretary HUSBERG. The Norwegian members were, Prime Ministers BLEHR and QVAM, and State Secretaries KNUDSEN and IBSEN [24:1] N:o 3 These latter decisions in the Communique, which are conclusive in explaining the later standpoint taken by the Swedish government, are, of course, omitted by NANSEN. [25:1] The same difference also occurs in the drafts of laws which have been proposed at more recent dates. [26:1] It is manifest that it is on the part of Sweden that the idea of identical laws has arisen. In Norway they afterwards complained, especially the Radicals, of that "Massive instrument." [27:1] In the debate in the Storthing on April 27:th 1904 Mr CARL BERNER said he had heard that Mr BLEHR'S explanation in the Storthing respecting; the Communique before its publication was made known to the Swedish government: that the latter, neither previously, nor later on, had made any objections to it. To this State Secretary MICHELSEN sharply replied, that "Mr BLEHR'S explanation was only the explanation of the Norwegian government on the subject of the Communique."