evidence, how far he was justified in drawing the inference
he did." The general charges of corruption implied
in speeches of the Solicitor-General for Ireland and
Mr. G. H. Moore, in 1852, the committee do not think
were sustained by the evidence of those gentlemen.
Respecting the charges of corruption made by Dr. Gray
and Mr. Lucas, the committee find that, as regards
Dr. Gray, the examination of witnesses has not sustained
the charge; and as regards the case instanced by Mr.
Lucas, that he "has not substantiated them in proof."
The cases upon which, at the instance of Mr. Lucas, Mr.
Napier, Mr. Butt, Mr. Moore, Mr. Macartney, and Mr.
Bright, were examined, "have been examined into and
found groundless." With reference to the charge made
against the Solicitor-General for Ireland, the committee
have given it the fullest investigation, and pronounced
it to be "false and unfounded." Against Mr. Somers,
the committee say, "no proof has been made to
implicate him in any improper or corrupt transaction."
The committee thus expresses its opinion in reference
to the subject generally:—"It appears to your committee
that the persons who have preferred, against a section of
the Irish members, the charges which have led to this
inquiry, have failed to support them. Your committee
have given every facility for this purpose, and extended
their inquiries to a latitude which has not unfrequently
involved them in the reception of idle gossip, and the
investigation of groundless calumnies. Your committee
are of opinion that those who gave to the public these
statements ought to have been prepared to support
them; and they cannot but regard it as matter both of
regret and animadversion that even the excitement of
political passion should have induced gentlemen to place
before the public allegations so vitally affecting the
honour of one class of Irish representatives, allegations
which, when they had the opportunity of sustaining
them, they failed to substantiate by any reliable proof.
Your committee have, however, to add, that respectable
witnesses have stated that in Irish society there is a
general belief that practices of the gross traffic indicated
in these charges have existed. Not that such practices
have been general, but that in some few instances there
have been Irish members who have been in the habit of
using their influence over government patronage to
obtain pecuniary advantage for themselves. The extent
of the impression has been described to your committee,
'as far as it can be traced, as resolving itself into an
accusation against not more than three or four.' This
impression appears to have existed for some years, and
the period over which it ranges to have included many
parliaments. With every anxiety to discover the origin of
a belief which is too general to be entirely disregarded,
your committee have not been able to trace it to any
ground more satisfactory than rumours and suspicions
which have acquired a certain hold upon the public mind.
In estimating the value which is to be attached to this
general belief, it must not be forgotten that many cases
have been brought before your committee which at first
appeared to warrant that belief, but which when
thoroughly sifted, were found to supply no foundation for it
at all. Your committee have had many instances which
establish that in Irish society there is a readiness, upon
very light grounds, to accept conclusions detrimental to
the character of political opponents, and, to some extent,
a willingness to damage that character without very
scrupulous inquiries as to the grounds upon which the
impeachment rests. It is impossible to reconcile the
notoriety of such transactions alleged by some persons
with the unquestionable fact, that with all the anxiety
manifested to establish the charge, and the latitude
given by your committee, not a single case has been
proved. At the same time, considering the secrecy
which would most naturally be observed, the unwillingness
of parties to place themselves in the position of
accusers, the fact that your committee had no means of
searching for evidence, but were limited to such as might
be offered, and the want of the power of examining
witnesses upon oath; and further, that in more than
one instance their inquiries have been stopped by direct
contradiction in the evidence of those examined, your
committee are of opinion that no investigation of the
nature, and with the powers of that entrusted to your
committee, can satisfactorily ascertain to what extent
there may have existed grounds for the belief to which
so many witnesses have deposed."

The Returns of the Revenue exhibit a decrease for the
quarter ending on the 5th inst. as compared with the
corresponding period last year. In the Customs there
is a decrease on the quarter of £367,494, as compared
with the corresponding quarter of 1853; but this result
is more than accounted for by the recent reduction of
duties, and by the altered circumstances of our foreign
trade. The Excise shows a falling off of £171,609—
a decline which, considering the remissions of taxation
which have been effected, and the enhanced cost of
most articles of large consumption, is less than might
have been expected. In the Stamps there is an increase
of £30,485. In the Taxes we find a decrease—arising
wholly from the reductions effected last session—of
£74,556. The property-tax exhibits an augmentation of
£48,567; and this is in no degree to be attributed to
the recent addition to the rate of assessment, which has
not yet come into operation. In the Post-office there is
the large increase of £128,000. The Crown Lands show
a diminution of £135,888, and the Miscellaneous, of
£34,649. On the eight heads of Ordinary Revenue,
taken collectively, we find a decrease of £577,144 for the
past three months, as compared with the corresponding
three months of 1853. As regards the returns for the
year, compared with that ended 5th July, 1853, the
result is more satisfactory—the decrease in the Ordinary
Revenue not exceeding £430,376. In the Customs we
find a falling off of £450,524, and in the Excise of
£435,336. In the Stamps there is an increase of £48,076.
The Property-tax shows an improvement to the extent
of £435,165; and in the Post-office we have an
augmentation of £166,000. In the Taxes, however, there is a
decrease of £33,902; in the Crown Lands, of £132,888;
and in the Miscellaneous, of £26,967. When we add to
the above results an increase of £58,477 in the Imprest
Moneys, and a decrease of £102,470 in the Repayments
of Advances, we find that the aggregate decrease for the
year is £474,369; but the decline on the Ordinary
Revenue for the twelve months does not exceed £430,376.

The Convocation of the Clergy for the Province of
Canterbury resumed its sittings on the 20th inst.;
both houses meeting to receive reports from committees.
In the upper house, the members present were the
Bishops of London, Lincoln, Oxford, and Salisbury.
The Bishop of London presented a report from the
committee appointed to consider what reforms might
be needful in the constitution of convocation to enable
it to treat of such matters as the Queen might permit.
This report suggests several changes in the election
of the lower house, with a view to the fuller representation
of the clergy; and recommends that all beneficed
clergy, curates, and chaplains, being in priest's orders
and licensed by the bishop, shall have a vote at the
election of a proctor. It also sets forth rules and
regulations, chiefly founded on precedents, for
facilitating the transaction of business. The questions of
bringing the convocations of Canterbury and York to
deliberate together, and of introducing the lay element,
are passed over, not as trifling, but because they are
questions that can be more profitably discussed by the
clergy in convocation. The Bishop of London presented
reports from committees appointed to consider what
adaptations of the church's rules are needful to enable
her to meet the spiritual necessities of the increased
population. The reports suggest the division of the
morning and evening services, under the sanction of the
bishop of any diocese; provided the whole of these
services, respectively, be used once on the Sunday.
Daily services, formed from the Prayer-book, are also
recommended. The laity are called upon to cooperate
more extensively in works of Christian charity; and it is
suggested that literate persons should be admitted
by the bishops to deacon's orders; and that a special
body of missionary clergy should be organized to preach,
under a bishop's sanction, throughout his diocese. All
these reports were received. Two committees were
appointed, on the motion of the Bishop of London, one
"to consider the question of church-rates," the other to
consider and report on what it may be expedient to
recommend for the better enforcement of church
discipline.—The chief business of the lower house was