The Sun.
London, England, 1867-08-09 00:00:00

these persons were away following up the trail
above-mentioned ; that he (the witness) went away
with Balls for a little distance, and that on his re-
turn the prisoner was standing near the body, and
could not have gone away to the tool shed or to the
place where the gun was found or where the powder
flask was found. In the course of conversation the
prisoner said, " My uncle had been uneasy about a
pheasant's nest ; this is the way he always came
first," upon which they two walked up the path-
way tp look for footmarks, but could not find any.
George Black, the son of the deceased, a little
boy ten years of age, was called to show that he
was with the prisoner and near him all day on th e
17th, going with him to a shop in the neighbour-
hood and to two publichouses, where he had some
beer.

This witness said, in cross-examination, that the
prisoner, who had gone to buy some things for his
mother, was very kind to him and hi 3 sister.
The surgeon, William Cator, who made a post
mortem examination of the body, proved that he
took 15 shots from the body, which were produced
in court, and were No. 2 shot.
Henry Scott, a shopkeeper at Fincham, a village
near Barton Bendish, though not so near as Swaff-
ham, stated that he sold the prisoner, on the 15th
of May, half a pound of No. 2 shot and some caps,
which he put into what he called sugar paper (a
coarse whitey-brown paper) ; he did not pay
for them then ; and that the prisoner came again on
the 16th, bringing with him a shot charger, capable
of holding two charges. There was shot in it. The
prisoner asked for an ounce and a quarter weight to
put into the scale and weighed the shot.
John Hudson, a detective attached to the police
force at Norwich, said he went from Norwich on
the day of the murder (Saturday) and accom-
panied the prisoner into the wood in the afternoon.
He asked him if he had a gun, to which the pri-
soner replied he had not had a gun for two years,
having sold the last one he bad to Mr. Richardson,
a tailor, at Fincham. He had borrowed one the
year before, at harvest, returned it, and had never
had one since. " I took him," said Hudson, "into
custody on Saturday, at 6 or 7 in the evening, when
he said, lam innocent of that job. Do you think
I could do such a thing and walk about with you
in the wood as 1 have done ? Besides, I told you I
had no gun.' " " Yes," said the detective, " but I
am told you have one ;" when be replied, " It is no
use telling any more lies. As soon as I heard my
uncle was murdered I got frightened. I thought I
should be suspected and get into trouble, so I went
to the shed in the wood, which had been broken
open, and got the gun. I will go with you and
show it you." Upon which they went together and
found it.
Sir H. Berney's agent stated that the prisoner
had no right to carry arms; this person, however,
did not show that the prisoner had been seeking to
get his uncle's place, as was opined ; and three wit-
nesses (two labourers and the wife of one of them)
spoke to his having uttered some very strong,
coarse, and threatening language against his uncle,
to the latter of whom he declared he would finish
him up one day, for, - him, he hated him
The case was not con'auded, and is not likely to
be over to-day.

The Business of the House of Lords.

- - -* - -

The select committee appointed to inquire into
the expediency of making such arrangements as
shall enable the House to meet at 4 o'clock, instead
of 5 o'clock, for the despatch of business, and to
consider if any and what changes may be desirable
for the better transaction of the business of the
House, report that the committee have met and con-
sidered the subject-matter referred to them, and
have agreed to the following report
1. The committee first directed their attention to
the proposal that the House should meet at an earlier
hour than at present. Iu making any such change
care must be taken that it will not interfere with the
morning sittings, or afford temptation to shorten
the time now given to judicial business. It is also
necessary to pay attention to the convenience of
the Lord Chancellor, who, after having presided
there from half-past 10 to 4 o'clock, has frequently
other official business then brought before him. The
committee having taken these circumstances into
consideration, do not recommend any change in the
present arrangement.
2. The use of proxies next engaged the attention
of the committee, and as the question is one which
has attracted much public notice lately, they con-
sider it desirable that they should communicate to
the house the result of their inquiries into this very
important subject.

The privilege which Peers have enjoyed of
being represented by their proxies in Parliament
when unable to attend in person is so ancient as to
have become a prescriptive right as inherent in their
peerages as that of being summoned to Parliament,
and one, consequently, of which no vote of the
house can alone deprive them. The use of proxies
has, however, been controlled by the house in seve-
ral particulars. A peer cannot hold more than
two. They may not be used in committee, or on
any judicial proceeding. They must be entered be-

fore 3 o'clock on the day on which they may be
called fer, and are vacated by any attendance after

entry.

4. Proxies are not used so frequently as many
suppose. From 1830 to the present year, both in-
clusive, they have, as will be seen by returns in the
appendix to this report, been called only 73 times
in 38 years, and with less frequency in the latter
than in the earlier part of that period. For the
first ten years proxies appear to have been used 30

times ; in the second, 22; in the third, 19 ; and in
the last eight years only twice. On eight occasions
only out of those 73 have proxies overruled the votes
of those present.
5. The committee are of opinion that the exer-
cise of the right of voting by proxy by Peers who
have had no opportunity of hearing the debate is
objectionable. It diminishes the attendance of
Peers i❑ the House, and tends to weaken in the
public mind the authority of the decisions at which
the house arrive. they therefore recommend that
the practice of using them should be discontinued,
and that a standing order should be agreed to against
their being called ; and that, to prevent such order
being lightly suspended, twice the usual length of
notice should be given for the suspension of such

order.
6. The attention of the committee has been drawn

to an increasing practice of asking questions on pri-
vate notice only. The advantages which arise from
the license which the House is able to allow for de-
bate on questions are materially lessened by the ab-
sence of public notice appearing ix the minutes.
Those Peers who may be the most qualified to ad-
dress the House on matters so brought before it may
be unprepared to discuss them, or absent on occa-
sions most interesting to them. Sometimes, indeed,
they are questions which do not admit of delay; but
the committee desire to express• their decided opi-
nion that notice of question should in all cases be
given in the minutes when there is no such urgency,
and in the event of the House confirming this re-
commendation they trust that it will be supported
by those to whom questions are proposed to be put,
by their declining to reply to any without such
notice is given, except where delay would be inju-
rious, or the answer is of a character not likely to
lead to a debate.
7. The committee have considered the system of
appointing Peers to sit on committees on private
business. They are of opinion that it has secured
committees which have generally given satisfaction
to the public. They believe, however, that it has
some disadvantages which might be removed, and
they recommend that the House should order the
Committee of S. Jection to exercise their discretion
in calling for the service of Peers, although they
may be absent from the House.
8. The attention of the committee having been
called to the manner in which the proceedings on
the reception of the reports of bills amended in corn,
mittee of the whole house are recorded, they recom-
mend that, instead of the report of such amend-
ments being entered as made formally by the Chair-
man of Committees, the name of the Peer who moves
the reception of the report and takes charge of the
bill in that stage should be substituted, in order that
it may appear in the journals.
And the committee have directed the minutes of
evidence taken before them, together with an ap-
pendix, to be laid before your lordships.