affected by the matter
in Norway, Commercial men and ship-owners--were in opposition for a
long time; not even in 1891 did the separatists venture to lay the
Consular Committee's deliberations on the subject before the mercantile
authorities. One Norwegian, who was well competent to judge of the
matter, acknowledged openly, when the question was first broached, that
"the grounds of the proposition for a complete separation as being of
benefit to the shipping, commerce, and industry of the country, are so
weak, that it would be impossible for them except, through persistent
agitation to gain conviction, either among the classes most interested,
or amongst the masses of the people". There are principally two reasons
for the proposed reform, first that Sweden and Norway have a different
Tariff-System, secondly, the frequent rivalry between Swedish and
Norwegian trade articles of export. The first reason is baseless, as the
different Tariff-Systems are of importance chiefly for the imports, and
not for the exports[12:1]; the second reason loses its chief point by the
fact that consuls are not commercial agents, that it is not their
business to promote trade for private individuals, but only to give
reports of the possibilities of trading with different countries. It is
also worthy of mention, that in Sweden not the slightest wish has been
expressed in this direction, though at present the majority of the
Consuls abroad are Norwegians. And as regards the much-talked of fears,
that in the administration of the Consular Service by the Foreign Office,
partiality might be exercised in the interests of Sweden, the fact _that
for a long time past the whole of the mercantile portion of the Consuls'
duties have, on Norway's side, been performed by one of the Norwegian
Government Departements_, proves how vain those fears were.

[Sidenote: _The real object of raising the consular question._]

Norwegian separatists, among others MICHELSEN himself, long ago, in a
moment of rare sincerity, have acknowledged that other motives besides
the practical have been at the root of the claim for reform. A Norwegian
Consular Service meant, in itself, a step in the direction of the rupture
of the bonds of Union, and was therefore even then an object worth
striving for. But it was also openly declared, that a Norwegian Consular
Service would necessarily be succeeded by a Norwegian diplomatic
representation and a Norwegian Minister for Foreign Affair