t
was, since Prussia's kings were accustomed to live among and for the
people; and that, a further continuance of the session being manifestly
useless, it should close on the next day. Accordingly it was closed
without the passage of any sort of appropriation bill, and the
Government, as before, ruled practically without a diet.

We do not propose to arbitrate between the affirmations of the
Conservatives, on the one hand, that the _animus_ of the opposition was
a spirit of disloyalty toward the Government, an unprincipled and
unconstitutional striving to subvert the foundations of royalty, and
introduce a substantially democratic form of government, and the
complaints of the opposition, on the other hand, that the ministry was
trying to domineer over the House of Delegates, and reduce its practical
power to a nullity. We may safely assume that there is some truth in
both statements. Where the dispute is chiefly respecting motives, it
must always be difficult to find the exact truth. In behalf of the
Conservatives, however, it may be said that the Liberals have
undoubtedly been aiming at a greater limitation of the royal power than
the constitution was designed by its author to establish. Frederick
William IV. proposed to rule _in connection with_ the representatives of
the people. The idea of becoming a mere instrument for the execution of
their wishes, was odious to him, and is odious to his successor. That
such a reduction of the kingly office, however, is desired and designed
by many of the Progress party, is hardly to be questioned. But, on the
other hand, it is hard to see, in case the present policy of the
Government is carried through, what other function the diet will
eventually have than simply that of advising the king and acting as his
mere instrument, whenever he lays his plans and asks for the money
necessary for their execution. This certainly cannot accord with the
article of the constitution which declares that the legislative power
shall be 'jointly' (_gemeinschaftlich_) exercised by the king and the
two Houses.

It is all the less necessary to consider particularly the character of
the measures proposed and opposed, and the personal motives of the
prominent actors in the present strife, inasmuch as the parties
themselves are fighting no longer respecting special, subordinate
questions, but respecting the fundamental principle of the Government,
the mutual relation which, under the constitution, king