The Sun.
London, England, 1859-01-08 00:00:00

so frequently spoken of, that the repetition
palled, and the people finding themselves so fre-
quently excited without due cause at length, be-
came indifferent, and at last were taken by sur-
prise when the crisis arrived. The publc vigilance
that was of such vital importance, wa; relaxed, and
there was not the vigorous or organised defence
that might naturally have been anticipated. We
must not suffer ourselves to fall into a similar
trap. Although we could not by any possi-
bility take the part of Austria, or assist her
in riveting the chains on Italy or Hun-
gary, we may become involved, in one way or
the other, and it is essential that we should
interpose to prevent any breach of the peace which
might give us a renewal, or possibly an increase of
the Income-tax.

The EMPEROR has been very indiscreet, but that
very indiscretion has warranted our interference.
We may tender our good offices, and if the most
important and valuable provision in the Treaty of
Paris be not a mere humbug, our arbitration, or
that of some other friendly power, must be ac-
cepted.

We do not suppose that, at present, any attack
on Austria is impending, but these formidable
hints are quite sufficient to create alarm,
and are only less injurious to the best
interests of society than war itself would be.
It would be well if we could discover the real in-
tentions of the EMPEROR,. If he means mischief,
we ought to know it, and make our arrangements
accordingly; but if, on the other hand, it was a
mere expression of ill-temper, he would be like the
man who raised an unfounded alarm of fire at a
public meeting, and who would be justly liable
for all the injury thereby occasioned.

At a period when the Parliamentary Reform
agitation has been directing popular attention in
this country to the contrast presented between the
political institutions of England and America, it is
interesting to note the official statement recently
put forth on the other side of the Atlantic as to the
extent and the cost of the regular army of the
United States. It is in this direction, we conceive,
that we might most reasonably look with advan-
tage to the course pursued by cousin JONATHAN.
There is something preposterous in talking about
the visionary ' day-dreams of democracy coming
within the scope of our realisation. American
institutions are, no doubt, extremely admirable in
a raw new country like that of the great Anglo-
Saxon Republic in the Western Hemisphere. We
don't call a Yankee preference for those institutions
either fanaticism or infatuation. But at the same
time the political alternative in this country is
certainly not a mere choice between a Federal
Republic and a Constitutional Monarchy. English-
men have made their choice in that alternative
long ago definitively. The Commonwealth formed
from first to last an episode of no more than ten
years altogether in English History. Beginning
in 1649 with the execution of CHARLES outside
Whitehall—and ending in 1659 with RICHARD
CROMWELL'S resignation. It was in many re-
spects, no doubt, a glorious episode, but if
demonstrative in a political sense of any one thing
more than another, it was certainly demonstrative
of the fact that purely republican or democratic
institutions are not only not indigenous, but are
not to be transplanted and firmly rooted in the soil
of England. Why, long before the demise of old
OLIVER,the Protectorate had grown to all intents and
purposes into a sovereignty. In 1653, on the 20th
of April, upon the forcible dissolution of the Long
Parliament by military intervention and the orders
of CROMWELL, the latter (as that familiar passage
in our national annals relates) had even the bauble
of the Speaker's mace removed from sight as a
symbol of authority in every way repugnant. Yet
only four years afterwards, on the 26th June, 1657,
he was seated in state on the dais at the upper end
of Westminster Hall, grasping a sceptre of gold
in his hand, and robed in a purple velvet mantle,
bound with ermine, like the robes of coronation.
Even during those brief ten years ofithe Common.
wealth-1649-1659—it was a Republic only in
name. There was besides the House of Commons
—"another place," in Parliamentary phrase, though
that " other place" did not happen to be called
the House of Lords. There was the supreme Ruler
of the State above the two houses who, instead of
being spoken of as his Majesty,was termed his High-
ness. Under a difference of forms, and names, and
ceremonials, it was, to a very considerable extent,
the same identical constitution. A trifle more arbi-
trary perhaps—the sword of State clanking in the
scabbard slung by the thigh of the ruler, in lieu
of being carried point upwards before him by one
of his great nobles in a court procession. The same
—with this difference—there were the KING, the
Lords, and the Commons, making up as ever (with
an occasional dissonance from some of the leading
instruments being in unaccustomed hands)—" The
according music of a well-mixed state." No—even
the annals of the Commonwealth proclaim, as
clearly as can be, that our national political con-
dition is that of a constitutional monarchy. What
we may learn, however, with some advantage from
the teachings of the United States of America is a
lesson in administrative reform in state economy,
in what is most expressively signified as Cheap
Government.

Here, according to the last military returns of
the American Republic, is the extraordinary fact
(which it would surely be well to bear in mind)
that the whole army of the United States amounts
to no more than 17,498—1e5s than the authorised
number of upwards of 18,000 ! That the disburse-
ments in the Quartermaster's Department amount,
in the aggregate, for this last year, to 10,000,000
dollars ! That, out of less than 17,500 men, there re-
main, over and above those engaged in regular duty,
no more than thirteen regiments, or 11,000 men,
ready for actual service in the field. ALISON
long ago remarked upon the smallness of the
American army as compared with the vastness of
the American dominions—that it is just the strength
of a Roman legion, or one of NAPOLEON'S divisions.
" It is not a fifth of the military force of Bavaria,"
writes Sir ARCHIBALD (Hist. of Eur., vol xiii., p.
308, library edition), " nor a half of that maintained
by Saxony or Wurtemburg ;" adding, "Such as it
is, this lilliputian force is scattered over fifty forti-
fied posts on the frontier and twelve arsenals in the
interior, stretching over an extent two thousand
miles in length—being not, on an average, 250 men
to each post." "Of all marvels," observes the histo-
rian of Europe, " this amount of military force is
the most marvellous, when the magnitude and re •
sources of the Repablic are taken into view, the
vast extent of frontier they have to defend, and the
arrogant tone which they assume in their diplo-
matic intercourse with foreign natious." Never has
the tone of American diplomacy been more arro-
gant than it is at present. Yet, as we see, the
aggregate of the whole regular army of the United
States does not reach the full authorised number of
18,000—and of these there only remain for active
service in the field 10,000 ! True that the militia
of the States, even eighteen years ago, was said,
even them, in 1841, to include within it, as capable
at any moment of emergency of being called out to
support the banners of the republic, upwards of
1,500,000 combatants. Contrast with all this our