[Sidenote: _The question as to whether the Swedish government had broken the covenant of the Communique._] But the Norwegian accusations were not limited to the negotiators' (especially Mr BOSTROeM'S) bringing about the breaking off of the negotiations by their unreasonable demands. They went further; it was loudly proclaimed that the Swedish government had not kept their word, had broken their agreement etc. etc., and, when all of a sudden Sweden became identical with the government of Sweden she was pathetically pointed at as untrustworthy etc. etc. The amount of moral indignation contained in these Norwegian accusations has plainly been made manifest by late events. Their object--to throw on Sweden the responsibility of plans that were designed to be executed in Norway--was too transparent, but just on that account they must be explained, in order that the responsibility of Sweden for what happened in Norway, may appear in its true light. The most naive accusations of having broken their agreement, are based on the supposition that the Swedish government was bound by the Communique to bring the negotiations to a definite conclusion, which means about the same as, that Sweden had beforehand promised to accept the Norwegian demands which in future would be presented by the Norwegian side. This supposition requires no serious reflection, the Communique naturally implying only a promise _to try_ to come to a conclusion that would be satisfactory to both parties. This system of reasoning is, however, typical of Norwegian politics all through. It is illustrated in one way by the Norwegian government's peculiar way of practically commencing negotiations with an Ultimatum, and it has been characterised, in a very amusing manner, by professor TRYGGER in a debate in the First Chamber of the Swedish Diet, immediately after the publishing of the Communique. "Norwegians", he said, "are very fond of negotiations. I have sat with them in the Union Committee, for three years, and they have always taken great pleasure in negotiating with us, so long as we acceded to their demands". Far more serious is the accusation that the Swedish government had violated the grounds of the negotiations by exceeding the terms of the Communique[41:1]. It has evidently been privately expressed by the negotiating party in Norway, during the latter stage of the negotiations, and it was indirectly referred to by Prime Minister HAGERUP when he announced in the Storthing, that the negotiations were broken off. The Swedish government contradicted it, however, in their last letter, and offered to modify their proposition if it were proved that it exceeded the terms of the Communique. But the Norwegian government failed to produce the proofs, they preferring to cut off negotiations.