2.—The following candidates were nominated for the representation of Norwich:—Mr. James Bedford, 388, Bethnal Green Road, E., tailor (Gladstonian); Mr. Jeremiah James Colman (Gladstonian), and Mr. Samuel Hoare (Conservative). The polling on the 6th resulted as follows:—Hoare, 7,718; Colman, 7,407; Bedford, 6,811.
—The nomination of candidates for South Norfolk was held at the Town Hall, Aylsham. Mr. John Cator, of Woodbastwick Hall, was the Unionist, and Mr. Herbert Hardy Cozens-Hardy, the Gladstonian candidate. The polling was on the 16th, and the declaration on the 18th:—Cozens-Hardy, 4,561; Cator, 3,278.
—For the representation of Lynn were nominated Mr. Thomas Gibson Bowles, of Newton Tony, Salisbury, hon. lieutenant in the Royal Naval Reserve (Unionist), and Mr. Thomas Richardson Kemp, Q.C., 5, Queen’s Gate Terrace, London (Gladstonian). The polling on the 4th resulted as follows:—Bowles, 1,319; Kemp, 1,308.
5.—The nominations for East Norfolk were made at the Shirehall, Norwich. Sir Edward Birkbeck, Bart., was nominated by the Unionists, and Mr. Robert John Price, barrister-at-law, 104, Sloane Street, S.W., by the Gladstonians. The polling took place on the 12th, and the poll was declared on the 13th as follows:—Price, 4,743; Birkbeck, 4,303.
—The nomination of candidates for South Norfolk was held at the Shirehall, Norwich. Mr. Francis Taylor, of Diss, was the Liberal-Unionist, and Mr. Albert George Kitching, Chase Court, Enfield, the Gladstonian nominee. The polling took place on the 11th, and the declaration on the 12th: Taylor 4,288; Kitching, 3,535.
—Polling took place at Yarmouth. The candidates were Mr. J. M. Moorsom, Q.C., London (Gladstonian), and Sir Henry Tyler (Conservative). The contest resulted as follows:—Moorsom, 2,972; Tyler, 2,704.
7.—Mr. Justice Romer delivered judgment in the action, Micklethwaite v. Vincent, which raised an important question as to the rights of the public over the Norfolk broads. The plaintiff asked for an injunction to restrain the defendant from shooting or fishing on that part of the Hickling Broad which was in the parish of Hickling, and from boating over it except in a certain channel. The defendant contended that the Broad was open to the public for all purposes, and that he as one of the public was entitled to shoot and fish over it. The judge held that the plaintiff had established his right to the part of the Broad in question. Admittedly there was a public way over the Broad, but this was restricted to the channel. The plaintiff asked for an injunction to restrain the defendant from going on the Broad at all except in this channel. He was satisfied on the evidence that this right of way was not so restricted, and that part of plaintiff’s claim failed and must be dismissed. It was not necessary for his lordship to decide how far the plaintiff’s right extended beyond the channel. The plaintiff must get from the defendant the bare costs of the action, except so far as those costs had been increased by the claim to restrict the right of way to the channel, which had failed. So far as the defendant’s costs had been increased by the last mentioned claim he would get them from the plaintiff with the set-off.
8.—Mr. P. P. Marshall, City Engineer, of Norwich, resigned his office, in which he was succeeded by Mr. Buchan.
14.—Polling took place in North-West Norfolk. The candidates were Mr. Joseph Arch, President of the National Agricultural Labourers’ Union, of Barford, Warwickshire (Gladstonian), and Lord Henry Bentinck, of Congham Hall, and 58, Sloane Street, S.W. (Unionist). Result: Arch, 4,911; Bentinck, 3,822.
15.—The South-West Norfolk election took place. The candidates were Mr. Thos. Leigh Hare, Stow Bardolph (Unionist), and Mr. Henry Lee Warner, the Paddocks, Swaffham, (Gladstonian). The poll was declared at Swaffham on the 16th as follows:—Hare, 4,077; Lee Warner, 3,739.