And while the constitution of Norway makes it the most
democratic monarchy in Europe, that of Sweden gives much greater power to
the throne. Thus the people of Norway for many years had reason to be
well content with the situation, though they jealously kept watch over
the preservation of their rights, and at times radical parties promoted
an irritation that might have led to blows had it been sustained by the
people at large.

The difficulty that led to their final separation was a commercial one.
Norway has always been a country with the sea for its province, rugged
and unproductive as compared with Sweden, but with a long sea-coast
inviting maritime pursuits. As a result, during the century its commerce
grew much more rapidly than that of Sweden and it ended the century with
a shipping three times as great. Its commercial interests thus made
free-trade the economic doctrine of Norway, while protection became that
of Sweden, and this was the wedge that in time forced the two countries
asunder.

In 1885 began the disagreement which led to separation twenty years
later. In that year the king made the minister of foreign affairs
responsible to the Swedish parliament, thus depriving Norway, as she
claimed, of any important influence in foreign politics. Negotiations
followed, but Sweden resisted, and irritation arose. Finally the question
of a Norwegian minister of foreign affairs was dropped and only that of
the right to a separate system of foreign consuls remained.

Let us now very briefly epitomize the course of events. In 1891 Norway
established a consular commission and made a strong demand for separate
consuls to represent her interests in foreign ports. Violent quarrels
with Sweden followed, but no agreement was reached. In 1898 the question
became serious again, but still there was no agreement, and the same was
the case when it came up once more in 1901.

A new consular commission was appointed in 1902, its report favoring the
demands of Norway, and finally, in 1903, King Oscar gave his sanction to
an agreement for separate consuls. But the king's voice did not settle
the question; it came before parliament, and after long consideration a
decision was reached which avoided the point in dispute and announced
principles which were declared in Norway to be in violation of its
constitution and at variance with the king's sanction of 1903.

This ended the negotiations. The incensed Norwegian legislators appointe