complain, the two clerks would give no explanation
of this robbery, and were dismissed in consequence.
Mr. Hammond says that no Agent has
any power of patronage; but he immediately
afterwards explains that whenever there is likely
to be a vacancy, an Agent may come to him and
say, " Such and such a client of mine is a good
man. And," adds Mr. Hammond, naïvely,
"I might say that to the Secretary of State."

We are again assured that the employment
of an Agent is voluntary, but Mr. Elliot
says distinctly: " I have heard that there
was one person who had not got an Agent at
the Foreign Office; but I know of none now
in the diplomatic service." This solitary
exception was the officer alleged to have written
the exposure in Household Words. But how
can a system be called voluntary, when it is
kept up by the imposition of fines and
professional ruin, inflicted upon every officer who
does not subscribe to it? Mr. R. A. Earle,
another witness examined, states that he has
heard complaints of delay in the payment of
salaries. Mr. Earle thinks that while Agency
is nominally charged at the rate of one per
cent., no Agent condescends to receive less
than five pounds a year from any customer,
though no diplomatic salary granted to any
officer under the rank of Secretary of Legation,
reaches five hundred per annum, and many
consular salaries are below one hundred.

Mr. Sidney Locock, son of the eminent
physician, says that Agents are generally
understood to have influence in forwarding the
interests of their clients, and that it would be
difficult to effect so simple a thing as a change
of post, without their interference; and he
thinks that if he did not employ an Agent, his
chances of promotion would be damaged,
unless the whole system were swept away.

The Honourable Julian Fane states that the
system of Agencies is an anomalous proceeding
altogether. There may be persons in the
diplomatic service who do not think they get an
equivalent for their money. He has never been
able to discover what percentage he pays to his
Agent. He has often tried to ascertain what
proportion it was of his salary, but has never
been able to do so. Mr. Consul Featherstonhaugh
employed Mr. James Murray as Agent.
Had the highest opinion of him. Should have
been embarrassed if he had not had Mr. Murray,
who is an honourable and useful man. But
whereas Mr. Earle states the Agency fee to be
five pounds, it appears by the evidence of
Consul Featherstonhaugh that this honourable
and useful man took ten guineas.

This is the case upon which the clerks now
claim a compensation allowance, only less by
one-fifth than the amount of their present
receipts! Now, in 1858, when there was no
compensation in question, and when it was thought
advisable to divert public attention from the
large amount of these gains, the select
committee were repeatedly informed that the Agency
fees were under eighteen hundred a year. And
in answer to question two hundred and ninety,
Mr. Hammond distinctly explains, in correction
of a former statement, that they amounted on
an average of three years, to the precise sum of
seventeen hundred and ninety-eight pounds
per annum. How is it, then, that the agents
now claim compensation on four thousand one
hundred and ninety-seven pounds per annum?

Surely it cannot be alleged that an abuse
which lias been nearly one hundred years under
discussion, is abolished without sufficient warning.
Again, if the system be voluntary, the
loss for which the Agents claim recompense
may be purely imaginary, as they could never
have had any guarantee for the continuance of
chance custom which might have been
withdrawn at any time. If they have any right to
compensation on the abolition of Agencies, they
would have had an equal right to be paid an
equivalent out of the public taxation for the loss
of a single customer. It may be a subject of
inquiry whether these prosperous gentlemen,
who have enjoyed princely incomes so long for
doing nothing, have ever asked themselves where
the compensation they expect is to come from,
and by whom their exorbitant demand is to be
paid. It would be a hazardous process for
one of them to stop a respectable working man
going to his labour on a raw winter's morning,
with a scanty dinner tied up in his pocket-hand-
kerchief, and say to him: " I am a Foreign Office
agent. I have for many years received large
fees for doing nothing; I have still an income
of twelve hundred and fifty pounds (£1250) a
year, besides other large fees, for attending to
a light and agreeable business during a nominal
period of six hours a day. But, as I have
been deprived of a part of my income which
I am well aware I ought never to have received,
I claim to be indemnified by a slice of your
family loaf or a pair of your children's shoes,
and I will take them, and no denial."

This is a plain statement of the case of these
Agents; these are their arguments and their
demands recorded literally in their own
language, translated out of the Midge or official
jargon into English; and there is very little
doubt that, unless the case be promptly handled
by some competent and resolute member of the
House of Commons, the Midges will carry their
point as they always have done, and a hundred
years hence they may set public opinion at,
defiance as they set it at defiance one hundred
years ago.

NOTABLE IRISH ASSIZES.

THE Clonmel assizes opened in the spring of
1828, with the usual ceremonies. Till half a
century before, the Irish Bar, when on circuit,
travelled on horseback. The crown prosecutor,
rejoicing in a good jailful; the leading chiefs,
their saddle-bags brimming with record briefs;
the gay and sanguine juniors, reckless and
light-hearted, came riding into the town the day
before the assizes, in as close order as a
regiment of cavalry, holsters in front of their
saddles, overcoats strapped in tight rolls behind,
mounted servants following with saddle-bags