348] FOEEIGN HISTOEY. [1899.
severely criticised by its opponents, and the Government was blamed for not paying sufficient attention to the strained financial situation which prevailed, more especially in the Norwegian capital. The railway votes were considered too generous, under the circumstances; to the military grants was raised the additional objection that they were given a political colouring, which must of necessity have been un- palatable to the Swedish nation.
This remark applied still more to the " pure " flag question, which, politically speaking, was by far the most important event of the year. Vain hopes were entertained in some quarters that the matter would have been allowed to stand over. This was not to be; it was carried to the bitter end, and Norway, or rather the Eadical Government, in so doing did not commit any violation of the Constitution, although an opposite view was held by many in Sweden. This view, however, hardly lessened the painful impression produced on the other side of the Kolen Mountains. What the Norwegians decided on was to remove the emblem of the Union from the Norwegian flag; whilst Sweden continued to carry it in her flag, the emblems in each case being the colours of the other country.
The action of the Norwegian Government was bound to call forth, and did call forth, a storm of bitter indignation in Sweden. The matter was before the Joint Council of State in Stockholm, and two days later a special edition of the Swedish official paper contained an announcement that the King, in Joint Council of State, had decreed that the Norwegian Flag Act should be promulgated. This Act came into force from having been three times passed by the Norwegian Storthing, the King's sanction being thereby dispensable. The King, consequently, in this case was forced to authorise the publication of an act from which he had withheld his sanction. In the first Coun- cil of State (Oct. 6) the Swedish Foreign Minister, Count Douglas, pointed out that the position of the Norwegian Government was settled by the royal letter of June 20, 1844, which had hitherto been the authority for the style of the flags of the two countries. He argued, therefore, that the Norwegian authorities had not acted correctly in ignoring his view, and that, in his opinion, the royal letter still remained in force, and that any alteration in the existing situation could only be passed by the Joint Council of State. At a subsequent meeting of the Joint Council of State (Oct. 11) the Swedish members protested against the resolution of the Norwegian Government to notify its decision on the flag question to the ambassadors as well as to the consuls. The Foreign Minister maintained his original position, but the Premier, M. Bostrom, pointed out that the Foreign Minister was in this matter at variance with the other members of the Ministry. (Count Douglas, the Foreign Minister, subsequently resigned.) The King's views in the
