The most difficult of all things to reconcile are liberty and royalty. "Monarchy," says MAZZINI, "has succeeded nowhere save in England." But why has it succeeded in England? Because there a foreign dynasty was brought in, after the expulsion of the Stuarts, to fill the throne, which having no power in the country, and owing its dignity altogether to the favor of the nation, or of a faction, was content to barter its prerogatives for the honors and emoluments of the kingly office. Monarchy has, in fact, succeeded in England, because in England monarchy is no longer itself, but a nomocracy -- a government of law, a government of the representatives of the people, not that of the individual, whether man or woman, who wears the crown. Various attempts have been made, in the present century, to establish English constitutionalism on the European Continent, vat if we excent the Nehterlands which have been ever free since they threw off the Spanish yoke, and the recently formed Kingdom of Italy, those attempts have everywhere proved partial or total failures. They have succeeded very imperfectly in the Peninsula; they have been utterly abortive in France; and, that they have fared no better in Prussia, let passing events proclaim.

This has sprung from that love of despotic authority which is rooted in the hearts of kings. The concession of constitutions to their subjects when the fires of revolution threatened to consume their sceptres, was, of course, an imperative duty, the performance of which could not with safety be declined or postponed. But these potentates had no idea of honestly discharging the responsibilities of their new position -- of honestly abiding by the terms of the contract into which they had entered with their people; and the moment the danger was past, the charters of liberty were cast aside, and regarded as of no more validity than an old almanac. To perfidities of this kind the Houses of Bourbon and Brandenburg have been especially prone. The descendants of Locis Quatorze have, however, made ample atonement for their political delinquencies, but the turn of the posterity of the Great FREDERIC is yet to come, and if it does not come quickly, the delay will certainly not be owing to any lack of provocation on the part of his present representative, who has again closed the Prussian Chambers -- again trampled on the Prussian Constitution -- again insulted the Prussian nation. The arbitrary act, though generally anticipated, was perpetrated suddenly, and took even the deputies by surprise. The report of the Finance Committee touching the vote of the Herrenhaus on the budget had just been read, and a resolution declaring that vote null and void adopted, when Count EULENBURG rose, and communicated a royal message which announced the immediate closing of the Diet. The warning was no sooner given than the blow was struck. On the very same day the usual Speech from the Throne was delivered at the White Hall, for the benefit of such members as chose to attend, and the off-repeated ceremony was gone through. The sins of omission and commission which provoked the indignation and wore out the patience of his Prussian Majesty are carefully enumerated in the speech aforesaid. The late Lower Chamber had dared to persist in maintaining that defiant position which had led to the dissolution of former Chambers. It had presumed to reject the bill by which VON BISMARK and his master had sought to alter the constitution, and to legalize their despotic acts. It had declined to discuss the budget of 1863 -- had cut down the expenditure for 1864, and by refusing that loan which the Government needed to carry cut their schemes in Schleswig, it had manifested its lack of patriotism, and its indifference to the military reputation of Prussia.

Such are the high crimes and misdemeanors which have brought down on the obnoxious Chamber the vengeance of royalty, and caused once more the dispersion of the deputies. Yet there is not a, single count in this elaborate indictment which would justify a jury in returning a verdict of guilty against the defunct representatives. Some of the acts charged are positively meritorious, and would entitle the accused in other States to public gratitude -- all of them were within the province of the members, and are strictly legal. Was it not the duty of the Chamber to persist in defending its own privileges? Was it not the duty of the Chamber to shield the constitution from the treacherous assaults of ministers ? And had not the Chamber a perfect right to reject the financial measures of the cabinet and to curb its extravagance, if of opinion that both were unnecessary and injurious?

The acts, which have roused the ire of his Prussian Majesty, and which he regards with such aversion, are, in fact obligatory on every representative body; and had the Lower Chamber shrunk from their performance, it would have been false to its constituents unworthy the confidence of the country. It is evident, then, that it was for opposing the aggressions of monarch and ministers, and for standing up in defence of the national liberties that the House of Representatives has been prematurely closed. Had its members been more courtly and less patriotic, it would have been borne with; but as they could be neither bribed nor bullied, it was guillotined. Such is constitutionalism in Prussia