ar question was exclusively a Norwegian matter,
which must be treated and decided upon by Norwegian authorities of State
alone; on the other hand the _winding up_ of the joint Consular Service
would be a cause of negotiations with Sweden. In plain words, the Royal
Decree must be given in a Norwegian Cabinet Council, not in a so-called
Joint Cabinet consisting of both Swedish and Norwegian members, which
according to the Act of Union must decide in all questions "concerning
the two Kingdoms[14:1]." And this one-sided right of decision was
maintained in spite of the common Consular statutes--the last in 1886
--having been confirmed by a Joint Cabinet, and in spite of the fact
that these statutes prescribed the settlement of Consular Affairs in that
Council alone. Added to this, the relations of the future Norwegian
Consular Service to the Swedish Minister for Foreign Affairs and
diplomatic representatives had also to be arranged. This matter might
certainly be considered, to belong to the negotiations relating to the
winding up of the joint Consular Service. But if Norway resolved that a
separate Consular Service should be established within a given time, it
would be Norway's prerogative to dictate the conditions of winding it up;
Norway might without further ceremony withdraw a portion of its Foreign
affairs from the joint Foreign administration.

Through its leader, EMIL STANG, the Norwegian Conservatives supported the
Union King's view that the matter was as yet too imperfectly developed,
and that it must be decided on in a joint Cabinet. But in 1892 the
Storthing resolved, with a majority of 14 votes, on the establishment of
a Norwegian Consular Service. The King was prepared to refuse the
sanction to this, in a Norwegian Cabinet Council, and then and there
began the conflict between King and Council, as witnessed by the events
of later times. The character of this conflict may be mentioned already
here, as Norway, in fact, was even then, in 1892, on the eve of the
revolution, which has now broken out.

[Sidenote: _"The King and the Ministry" according to the Norwegian
Constitution._]

When the Constitution of Norway was framed in 1814, the Continent was but
little acquainted with the pure parliamentarism, with a ruling Council
and a powerless King. The Constitution is instead based on the theory of
the division of the state power into three organs, and this is plainly
stated in the division of the Constitution. The