—A meeting of the Deputy Lieutenants of the county decided, by 25 votes to three, that Yarmouth was the most suitable place in the district at which to centre the three regiments of Norfolk Militia. At another meeting, held on February 25th, the former resolution was rescinded, and it was agreed “that the present Committee be empowered to receive estimates and tenders for building barracks for one regiment of Militia at Norwich, and for one regiment of Militia and one regiment of artillery at Yarmouth, on such plans as they may think best suited for the purpose.” 27.—Died near Holston River, in Knox County, East Tennessee, North America, Mr. William Forster, of Earlham Road, Norwich, in his 70th year. He was a member of the Society of Friends, and a brother-in-law of Mr. Fowell Buxton. He went out in the autumn of 1853 to carry petitions to the slave States of the Union, on behalf of the oppressed Africans. MARCH. 8.—At a meeting convened by the Mayor (Mr. Bignold), and held at the Guildhall, Norwich, petitions to both Houses of Parliament were adopted in favour of an Act “for the legal prohibition of the sale of intoxicating drink during the whole of Sunday (except to _bona fide_ travellers).” A committee was appointed to make arrangements for forming a Sunday Closing Association. 10.—A troop of the Carabineers marched from Norwich Barracks, to join the headquarters at Ipswich. The remaining troop left on May 1st. —In the Rolls Court, before the Master of the Rolls, was heard the case, the Attorney-General _v._ Hudson, in _re_ the Grammar School and Hospital at Norwich. This was an information filed by the Attorney-General, at the relation of certain inhabitants of the city, against the trustees appointed under the Corporation Act, of two charities called the Free Grammar School and the Great Hospital. The object of the information was to show that the Grammar School had not received a fair amount of the funds of the charity, and that undue preference had been given to the Hospital in their distribution. A decree was made, directing a scheme to be settled in Chambers. On December 18th it was stated in the Rolls Court that when the case was in Chambers a deed of covenant, contemporaneous with the letters patent of King Edward VI., and to which the Corporation were parties, had been found, by which the whole surplus, after the stipulated payments, was to be applied to the sustentation of the poor. The question then before the Court was how far this varied the case. It was contended that the Hospital and the poor were entitled to the entire surplus. The Master of the Rolls was of opinion that the deed did not control the letters patent, that no predominance or priority was given to one part of the charity over the other, and that the surplus rents should be equally divided, and in such a way as would be most consistent with the intentions of the founder. The case was taken before