, 1874-01-14

S ~HO ~ ASS~A
ty yields to that OF expediency. Mr..
Sch6rring and those who followed him in
Joining the Left, are accordingly accused
of inconsistency in not having taken this
step before, for, if the legality is now on
the side of the majority, it was SO six
months ago, when these members were
against the parliamentary doctrine Of the
Lett. On the other hand the papers of
the Left express themselves as if they
were far from being satisfied with the ad-
dress, but, as one of them said, "the party
in voting for Sch0rring's address does not
relinquish its claim for parliamentary gov
ernment,-Could vote for it." "Those
who find the germ of parliamentarism in
the constitution as we'll as those who do
not, could both vote for the address," as
was observed by Count Holstein Ledre-
borg, who, although personally against
that system, voted for the address. The
Count seems to be a candidate forl the
premiership of an eventual new Ministry,
and Scavenius, another great landed pro-
prietor, who voted on the same side, has
also been alluded to as a probable Minister.
The mover Of the address, Mr.. Sch0r-
ring, opened the debates, of which we
only pretend to give the general drift.
The main point of his speech was a repe-
tition of the standing complaint that the
demands of the times for reform would not
be satisfied with laws only exhibiting the
highest legal skill, without e~ffecting those
changes which the necessities of the times
actually demanded. If the session should
be as barren as the last, he, the speaker,
would not sit in it. The Church-Reforms
anxiously looked for with constantly in
creasing Impotence by the people, would
not be furthered neither the School Law.
Reduction in the Tariff would not take
place the Army Law would be buried in
a committee; building of vessels would
be refused, etc. etc. New conflicts might
arise between the Ministry and the House;
new dissolutions and consequent election
eering preliminary Budget and accusa-
ton of Ministers. The majority could
vote for the address, parliamentarism being
only postponed, not abandoned. Several
members spoke in favour of the address,
but none of the leaders of the Left.
Among those whospokeon the ministerial
side, the most ~incisive was Fenger, who
said that the conduct of the Government
had not been appreciated as it deserved.
Both internally and externally the present
Ministry had done much. Those in favour
of q change only regarded what seemed
expedient for the moment. Hindenburg
maintained that it was incorrect to say
that the opposition had been directed sole
ly against the present Ministry the Frij's
Ministry had met the same treatment from
the same side. Billie (the former editor of
"Dagbladet') criticised the address sharp
ly and humouristically andsaid that the con-
aict was in reality between two constitu-
tionaI doctrines-Limited Monarchy and
Parliamentarism.
The "Dagblad" which hitherto, with
many other leading papers, has argued the
improperly Of the retiring Of the Ministry,
now winds up a leading article by saying:
1.-The Ministry can now withdraw Just on
account Of the emptiness of the amended
address," ''Nor could any one find it at
all to be wondered at" says the same
paper, elf it's members were weary of their
present political life, and it is not impro-
bable that at least several of it's members
personally desired nothing more than to
be allowed to withdraw from a harassing