March 22nd.—A fine pike, weighing upwards of 25lbs., had been shot in one of the neighbouring Broads.

April 18th.—At the Guardians’ Election the new and largely augmented constituency was polled for the first time. There was a regular party fight, Mr. John Cooper acting as Conservative agent, and Mr. F. Danby-Palmer for the Liberals, the following being the result:—

NorthWard.

J. F. Neave (L)

844

H. Blyth (L)

662

S. Nightingale (C)

662

J. T. Buston (C)

567

J. Rant (L)

542

S. Barge (C)

478

MarketWard.

J. A. Norman (L)

621

Wm. Laws (C)

476

J. G. Overend (L)

427

R. Dumbleton (C)

418

R. B. Ellis (C)

397

RegentWard.

R. D. Barber (C)

470

W. Worship (C)

426

J. H. Norman (L)

375

C. Diver (C)

367

J. Clowes (Grocer) (L)

289

R. Bryant (L)

198

St.George’s Ward.

J. W. de Caux (L)

557

J. Scott (L)

478

J. Rivett (L)

371

W. J. Foreman (C)

298

W. Harrison (C)

248

D. Gooch (C)

244

T. Todd (C)

115

NelsonWard.

F. Palmer (L)

966

C. Woolverton (C)

934

J. Bracey (C)

766

J. Clowes (Solicitor) (L)

678

W. T. Fisher (L)

534

T. C. Foreman (N)

376

G. Harvey (C)

267

J. H. Harrison (N)

8

Previous to the declaration of the numbers by the returning officer,

Mr. John Cooper, on behalf of the Conservative candidates, who had met the previous night, announced his intention not to proceed with the scrutiny before the returning officer, who had no authority to call witnesses, but stated that the whole conduct of the election would be laid before the Poor Law Board with a view to a thorough enquiry being instituted. The election had been conducted in a fraudulent manner. Mr. Cooper, in support of his assertion, instanced the case of Hurr, one of the collectors, who, he alleged, had only returned 113 papers out of 300. Names had also been put on various papers without authority, while the collector (Hurr) had taken his papers to the house of one of the candidates, where they were examined and sorted. Another collector in the Liberal interest, named Norman, had been convicted and sentenced to twelve months’ imprisonment for robbery. Mr. Cooper went on to say that in the Market Ward (Hurr’s district) upwards of twenty papers had never been called for, and he understood that there were upwards of 50 which had been signed by one person. The election had been conducted in such an unfair and scandalous manner, that the Conservatives had resolved upon demanding a Poor Law enquiry.

Mr. Livingston said it would be for Mr. Cooper and his friends to make good the allegations just made. He hoped if there had been any irregularity it would be fully enquired into.

Mr. J. A. Norman (who headed the poll for the Market Ward) supposed that Mr. Cooper had suspected the Liberals had been adopting the former tactics of their opponents, and had taken a leaf out of their book. (Laughter.)

Mr. Overend (another successful candidate for the Market Ward) denied that the papers had been sorted in the shop as alleged, and said the collector called for information.

Mr. Cufaude (the Returning-officer) said the collector ought not to have done this, as it was most irregular and contrary to the instructions given to the collectors. He then gave the return as above, and the proceedings closed.

The result has caused considerable heart-burning among the Conservatives, who have so long held the sway in all matters pertaining to local administration, and they cannot be expected to view with equanimity the storming of one of their chief strongholds by the enemy.

April 22nd.—Mr. Bowgin, who had died at the age of 90, had left a considerable sum of money to local charities.

April 26th.—At the first meeting of the recently elected Board of Guardians, Mr. Frederick Palmer and Mr. John A. Norman were respectively elected chairman and vice-chairman, in the place of Mr. C. Woolverton and Mr. W. Laws.

The smack “Sevastopol” (belonging to Mr. H. Fenner) had been destroyed by fire on the fishing grounds.

Judge Worlledge had been appointed Chancellor of the Diocese in the place of Mr. Howes, deceased.

May 6th.—The Free Lance, a notorious local newspaper, had been proceeded against for libelling Mr. King, of Gorleston.

May 10th.—Records the death of Richard Hammond, Esq., as follows:—“It is with deep regret that we announce the death of this much respected gentleman, who expired at his residence, Regent Road, on Saturday morning last, after a rather lengthened illness. Mr. Hammond during his long career has occupied so prominent a position, and has ranked so high in the opinion of all classes of his fellow-townsmen, that his death, although regarded as imminent, created much sensation. The deceased, who was born in 1792, and was consequently at the time of his decease in his 79th year, was one of the oldest Magistrates of the borough, having been called to the Bench in 1841. During the long period that Mr. Hammond was associated with the administration of justice he was remarkable for his uprightness and thorough independence of character. Wealthy, but yet conspicuous for his unostentatious mode of life, he was at all times accessible to those of his poorer fellow townsmen, many of whom were wont to seek his counsel, and advice. In the exercise of his magisterial functions, he was ever disposed to temper justice with mercy, and in his death there must be many who must feel that they have lost a true and valued friend. The deceased for many years occupied a leading position as among the most prominent, forward, yet consistent members of the Liberal party, and although he had of late ceased to take any active part in political controversies, he was always deeply interested in everything that pertained to the advancement of the cause which he had so greatly at heart. Mr. Hammond, who was largely connected at one time with the fisheries, had also a considerable stake in the shipping of the port, and accumulated a large property, the bulk of which will, doubtless, have been bequeathed to his three nieces, as he was unmarried. Out of respect to the deceased, the flags on the Town Hall, public buildings, and shipping have been hoisted half-mast, while many private families have shown similar marks of regard to the memory of the deceased.”