ernment of the national funds would be unconstitutional. The
king's answer to this was an order closing the session. A new session
began early in 1863. The same controversy was renewed. The king had
introduced his new military scheme; he had used, under the plea of stern
necessity, money not voted by Parliament. He declared that the good of
the country required it, and demanded anew that the House make the
requisite appropriation. But the House was not to be moved. So far from
wishing an increase of the military expenses, the Liberal party favored
a reduction of the term of service from three to two years. The king
affirmed that he knew better what the interests of the nation required,
and, as the head of the army, he must do what his best judgment dictated
respecting its condition. Thus the session passed without anything of
consequence being accomplished. The House of Lords rejected the budget
as it came from the other chamber, and the delegates would not retreat.
Consequently another dead lock was the result. The mutual bitterness
increased. Minister von Bismarck, a man of considerable talent, but not
of spotless character, and exceedingly offensive in his bearing toward
his opponents, became so odious that the delegates seemed ready to
reject any proposition coming from him, whether good or bad. They tried
to induce the king to remove him. But this was like the wind trying to
blow off the traveller's coat. Instead of being moved by such
demonstrations to dismiss the premier, the king manifested in the most
express manner his dissatisfaction with such attempts of the House to
interfere with his prerogatives. One might think that he had resolved to
retain Bismarck out of pure spite, though he might personally be ever so
much inclined to drop him. The controversy became more and more one of
opposing wills. May 22, the House voted an address to the king, stating
its views of the state of the country, the rights of the House, etc.,
and expressing the conviction that this majesty had been misinformed by
his counsellors of the true state of public feeling. The king replied to
the address a few days later, stating that he knew what he was doing and
what was for the good of the people; that the House was to blame for the
fruitlessness of the session; that the House had unconstitutionally
attempted to control him in respect to the ministry and foreign affairs;
that he did not need to be informed by the House what public sentimen