a Republic in which all Republicans will acquiesce; and will not every decided step towards a Republic break the spell that binds the Monarchical parties, and especially the Legitimists and Imperialists, to temporary inaction? M. Thiers looks upon himself as the only possible moderator among French political passions. He feels as if a single step of his might release the pent-up forces and disturb the world's balance. He stands alone between law and anarchy, between order and civil war. Hence he is not even ready with an answer to the Orleans Princes, who ask for leave to discharge the duty they owe to their constituents by taking their seats in the Chamber. He has no answer ready-no affirmative and no negative answer. He puts the Princes off till to-morrow or next day. It does not seem to strike him that by his hesitation he give importance to a matter which it might have been wiser to treat with indifference. He does not appear to consider that difficulties may be aggravated by too great a reluctance to grapple with them; that by too shrinking a dread to mix himself up with any party a ruler may equally estrange himself from all parties, and end by arraying them all against himself. M. Thiers evidently has no horror of isolation. He is sure of himself, and he apparently refuses to venture on any irrevocable course till he feels that he can be equally sure of France. Though we are not disposed to give M. Thiers a very conspicuous place in the political Pantheon, we do not for a moment dispute the wonderful and versatile powers which he possesses. He is one of the most lively and clever men that ever lived. The late Lord Lansdowne -no mean judge-who had met most of the clever men of two generations, used to say that M. Thiers was incomparably the best converser that he had ever listened to. It was that power, no doubt, which, in the It first instance, led to his success. is equally true that, as an orator, he possessed rare gifts. Of dwarfish stature, with a strong nasal twang, with awkward and uncouth movements, he was still able to fascinate his audience. He succeeded from the very first. There was in him great vivacity, considerable power of illustration, and a happiness in taking hold of the points which would interest his audience, that at once gave him a hold in the Chamber. At first he spoke in a somewhat formal and measured manner: some people laughed at him; but, as usually happens, the clever man was too much for the grinning idiot. But when he had obtained more confidence in himself, and more familiarity with his audience, he changed his manner completely, and adopted that easy, conversational style of speaking and reasoning, which, when well done, is so delightful to listen to. There is no doubt that he was the most agreeable and the most persuasive of speakers. We will quote a passage from M. de Cormenin, written more than thirty years ago, on his power as a speaker: Ce n'est pas de l'oraison, c'est de la causerie, mais de la causerie vive, brillante, légère, volubile, animée de traits histo toriques, d'anecdotes et de reflexions fines; et tout cela est dit, coupé, brisé, lié, délié avec une dexterité de langage incomparable Sa pensée naît si vite dans cette tête-là, si vite qu'on dirait qu'elle est enfantée avant d'avoir été conçue. Les vastes poumons d'un géant ne suffraient pas à l'expectoration des paroles de ce nain spirituel. La nature toujours attentive et compâtissante dans ses compensations semble avoir voulu concentrer chez lui toute la puissance de la virilité dans les fréles organes du larynx. Sa parole vole comme l'aile de loiseaumouche, et vous perce si rapidement qu'on se sent blessé sans savoir d'où trait part. Il s'arrête quelquefois tout-à-coup pour répondre aux interrupteurs, et il décoche sa replique avec une prestesse et un à-propos qui les étourdit. Si une théorie a plusieurs faces les unes fausses, les autres vraies, il les groupe, il les mêle, il les fait joure, et rayonner devant vous d'une main si vive, que vous n'avez pas le temps d'attraper le sophisme au pas sage. Je ne sais si le désordre de ces improvisations, ni l'incohérent entassement de tant de propositions hétérogènes, si le bizarre melange de toutes ces idées et de tous ces tons est un effet de son art; mais c'est de tous les orateurs celui dont la réfutation est la plus facile quand on le lit, la plus difficile quand on lécoute. C'est le roué le plus amusant de tous nos roués politiques, le plus aigue de nos sophistes, le plus subtil et le plus insaissisable de nos prestidigitateurs. C'est le Bosco de la tribune. We have no doubt that M. de Cormenin's clever criticism on the speaking of M. Thiers is equally applicable to his writing. As a writer, he has the power of being eminently popular-partly from a certain felicity of style, but much more because he never rises above a very ordinary reader. This is particularly the case in the History of the Consulate and the Empire. There is an easy, self-contented mannerabout the writer; he is not too scrupulous about facts, and he flatters the French reader to the top of his bent. Of late, we are happy to see that he has found in M. Lanfrey, one of the best of the liberal writers in France, a ruthless and un-sparing critic. THE SURE ESTATE. WHAT signify the care and pain The loss of Love--the Love in vain, The crime of being poor? I've an estate of solid earth, Nor broad nor very deep, Where wild winds blow and daisies grow, 'Tis six feet long and two feet wide, It shall be mine some happy day,— Till trump of doom it shall be mine, Lost health, lost heart, lost love, lost hope! IRISH JUDICIAL AND CRIMINAL STATISTICS. 1 DR. NEILSON HANCOCK'S annual Reports on the Judicial and Criminal Statistics of Ireland are justly reckoned among the most valuable contributions made by Government to statistical science, and in them selves are almost sufficient to justify the existence of the Statistical Office at the Four Courts. Dr. Hancock does not muddle together a mass of raw material for scientific inquiry, nor does he merely present his own conclusions. He gives the facts and the figures as they are collected from police reports and legal records, but side by side with them he offers an analytical summary of information which otherwise to the vast majority of readers would be unmanageable and useless. The details of the story, told in fragments by unconnected witnesses, are skilfully pieced together until we gain something like a comprehensive view of the year's battle between lawlessness and civilisation in Ireland. If any one suspects that Dr. Hancock is distorting facts to support a theory, the authentic information printed within the same blue covers will supply the means of exposing fallacious reasoning or unfair statement. We must say for ourselves, however, that Dr. Hancock's explanatory analysis of the phenomena of crime in Ireland during the year 1870 appears to be, in Baconian phrase, purely lumen siccum. The acquiescence which has ratified the cool judgments of his previous reports may be expected, therefore, to stamp this present one with general approval, though even the most dispassionate of statisticians must feel when he is treating of Irish social Suppositos cineri doloso. The most noticeable fact in regard to the statistics for the year 1870, as, indeed, for those of the four preceding years, is the struggle that is going on in Ireland with various success between the forces of orderly government and those of disaffection and agrarian crimes. In 1866 agrarian crime in Ireland had reached its minimum point; in that year only 87 offences of this kind. were reported. But in the latter months of 1869 and the commencement of 1870 an appalling outburst of agrarian crime occurred, which led, as will he remembered, to the enactment of the Peace Preservation Act of 1870. This statute became law on the 5th of April, and four months later the Irish Land Act received the Royal assent. Now, it is most important to note how these measures have co-operated, by strengthening the hands of the law and by promoting popular contentment, to suppress agrarian outrages. In the eight months ending March 31, 1870, the number of agrarian crimes reported was 1622; in the eight months ending March 31, 1871, it was 212. In the same periods heinous crimes, not of an agrarian character, but specially reported to the Constabulary, fell from 2040 to 1722. It is more than probable that the outbreak of agrarian crime in 1869 was indirectly the result of the treasonable agitation that broke out in 1866. It is satisfactory to learn that, partly by the same 1 Criminal and Judicial Statistics, 1870. Ireland: Dublin., Alexander Thom. means which have controlled the former, the latter has been almost stamped out. In 1866, 535 treasonable offences were reported; in 1867, 530; in 1868, 111; 1869, 47; and in 1870, 37. It is further gratifying to know that in the last-mentioned number no serious infractions of the law were included; there were 35 cases of seditious language and two cases of defacing proclamations. These important results have been attained rather by the menace of stringent coercive measures than by their actual application. The powers of the Government, the magistracy, and the police have, indeed, been largely increased; but, notwithstanding, personal liberty in Ireland has suffered little practical abridgment. The first portion of the Peace Preservation Act, which prohibits the bearing of arms without a licence, and imposes other similar restrictions, is applied to the whole of Ireland, with the exception of part of Ulster. All the counties of Ireland were proclaimed in 1870 under the Act, except Tyrone and some baronies of Antrim, Down, Donegal, Fermanagh, and Londonderry; all the cities and towns were so proclaimed, with the single exception of Carrickfergus. The second portion of the Act, which authorises the arrest of strangers and of persons found in suspicious circumstances, the closing of public-houses, &c., was applied during 1870 to Mayo, Meath, and Westmeath, and to parts of Cavan, King's County, Longford, Roscommon, Tipperary, and Sligo. Proceedings were taken under the Act in 8or cases, but the majority of these were unimportant. Three persons were punished for refusing to give evidence, and three warrants were issued against absconding witnesses; 75 strangers were arrested, but only 14, who were unable to give satisfactory explanations or security, were detained in custody. Turning from the details of this struggle with treasonable and agra rian crime to the more general features of the statistical record, we have to remark, in the first place, that the number ofindictable offences reported contrasts unfavourably with the returns of the previous year. In 1870 the total number of indictable offences not summarily disposed of was 9517; in 1869 it was 9178; similarly in 1870 the total number of indictable offences summarily disposed of was 19,599; in 1869 it was 19,421. On the other hand, offences (not indictable) disposed of summarily were 224,406 in 1870, as against 219,969 in the previous year. Crimes against human life appear at first sight to be more numerous in 1870 than in 1869, but the returns are on this point misleading-the fact being that under this head are now enumerated the offences previously unclassified, of "endangering safety of passengers in railways," and "unlawfully abandoning infant children." Riots, we find, have increased by 34 per cent., perjury by more than 28 percent., and malicious offences against property by 9 per cent. At the same time it should be observed that Ireland still maintains its reputation for comparative freedom from immoral and abominable offences, from suicide, bigamy, and forgery; under all these heads the returns of 1870 show a diminution. The decrease in minor offences is principally due to the falling off in prosecutions under the Ways Acts, which, however, is almost balanced in prosecutions for drunkenness. Dr. Hancock calls attention to the fact that the increase in a single year amounts to 7 per cent., indicating, he contends, "the need of legislation for dealing with habitual drunkards." The distribution of crime throughout Ireland is a matter both of political and of statistical interest, and the recent Census has rendered it possible to exhibit the proportion of offences to population with the utmost exactitude. The average of of heinous crimes-i.e., of offences not summarily dealt with, is, for the whole country, 177 to every 10,000 persons, and this proportion chances to be precisely attained in the county of Longford. But considerably more than half the entire number of heinous crimes were committed in the city and county of Dublin, where the proportion rises to more than seven times the average. Next to Dublin in discreditable prominence come Westmeath, with an average of 265; Kildare with 25'3, the City of Cork with 22.5, and Meath with 18.8 per 10,000 of the population. Ulster, on the other hand, exhibits the most favourable record; the counties of Down, Donegal, and Antrim, and the towns of Belfast and Carrickfergus, also are conspicuous among the districts which showed in 1870 a decrease in the number of offences as compared with 1869. Offences disposed of summarily in 1870 were in the proportion of 433 to every 10,000 of the population; but Dublin nearly trebles this average; Cork, Waterford, and Belfast more than double it. In these large towns doubtless the excess is to be accounted for by the number of prosecutions for drunkenness and disorderly conduct. The case of Dublin, however, if we include in our view both serious crimes and minor offences, appears to call for special notice, particularly at a time when the administration of justice in that city is far from being as secure as we could desire it. Of the minor offences an increase is noted in Dublin for the year under review from 1182 to 2224 per 10,000 persons. Again, the proportion of offences against property in Dublin, as compared with the whole of Ireland or the next largest town, Belfast, is very startling. Out of 9725 cases of robbery and theft summarily prosecuted in Ireland, 5047 occured in Dublin and only 794 in Belfast; out of 657 offences against property with violence prosecuted in Ireland, 320 were committed in Dublin and five in Belfast; out of 73 cases of forgery and offences against the currency 41 were committed in Dublin and none in Belfast. The whole of Ulster, it should be added, has a right to share in the good character thus sustained by its great manufacturing town. An interesting and instructive part of Dr. Hancock's report is his comparison of the statistics of crime in Ireland with those of England and Wales, and this is becoming every year more easy of accomplishment by the gradual assimilation in form of the Irish to the English returns. In regard to heinous crime, Ireland, on the whole, compares favourably with this Kingdom; the number of indictable offences not disposed of summarily in Ireland is less by one-third than the number occurring in a portion of the population of England equal to that of Ireland. Some classes of crime of a very disgusting and detestable kind are almost unknown in Ireland, owing mainly, no doubt, to the power wielded by the Roman Catholic clergy. Forgery and coining are also far less frequent in the sister island than with us, so are bigamy, child-stealing, and abortion, and offences against property with violence. When we read, however, that perjuries are less numerous by 43 per cent. in Ireland than in England, we are disposed for a moment to question the absolute perfection of statistics. On the other hand, offences against human life are slightly less numerous in proportion on this side of St. George's Channel than on the other. Riots, assaults, and malicious offences against property, which are matters of daily occurrence in Ireland, are comparatively infrequent here. Among indictable offences summarily dealt with, these returns show that Ireland compares favourably with England in the number of cases of theft, and of brutal |