The Sun.
London, England, 1859-04-22 00:00:00

CITY OF LONDON ELECTION:

The committee for conducting the election of
Lord Stanley beg to forward to the editor a letter
addressed by his lordship to their chairman. While
this letter intimates his lordship's inability to take
any active steps as a candidate, they believe that
it justifies them in entertaining the confident
assurance that he would, if elected, unhesitatingly
accept the representation of the City in Parliament ;
and they are, therefore, fully resolved to continue
their efforts to place him at the head of the poll at
the ensuing election.
London Tavern, April 21, 1659.

23, St. James's-square, April 20, 1850.
SlR,—The importance of the proposal which you
made to me on Monday, in the name of the gentle-
men who acemitpanied you, and of those who signed
the requisition,to Mr. Baring and myself must be
my excuse for having deferred my reply to that
proposal until to-day.
I need not here repeat that which I stated ver-
bally on the occasion of our interview, that to
represent the City of London was in my judgment
an honour of which the most experienced and
distinguished public servant might be proud ; and
that to have been thought worthy of such an honour
by more than 2,000 of the electors of London was a
compliment for which I could never cease to feel 't
grateful to those by whom it was paid. rX.)
Various circumstances, however, have forced 41E3
me the conviction that I ought not to come foiwrric4„
as a candidate for the representation of the oy,
even were success assured, and were it certain that

I should be able to retain, on a future occasion, the
support of all by whom I might be supported now.
The claims of so vast and important a constituency
must necessarily interfere with the due performance
of those official functions for which even at present
the utmost energies that I can put forth barely
suffice. It would be neither satisfactory to myself
nor just to the electors that I should accept the
office of their representative on the implied condi-
tion of leaving unfulfilled many of the duties which
that office imposes ; nor could I reasonably expect
that such a condition would be assented to by those
whose interests it affected.

It would not be possible for me, engaged as I am,
to enter upon a canvass or to attend meetings of the
electors ; and I cannot but be aware that to engage
in a contest without those preliminaries would be
greatly to increase the risk of failure.
On all these grounds I feel compelled to decline
availing myself of the very flattering offer which
you have made me.
It is with sincere regret and with a feeling of
gratitude to which these few and hasty lines will
do but scanty justice.

I remain, Sir,

You obliged and obedient servant,
Coleridge J. Kennard, Esq. STANLEY.

A GREEN ROOM SQUABBLE.

In the Wolverhampton County Court, a few days
ago, Mr. Richard Norman, described as an actor,
sought to recover the sum of £1 155., being one
week's salary alleged to be due him from Mr. Tames
Rogers, late lessee of the Wolverhampton Theatre.
Mr. J. Underhill appeared for the plaintiff, and
Mr. Thurstans for the defendant. The main points
in the dispute were the nature of the plaintiff's en-
gagement with the defendant, and the duration of
the season. In opening the case Mr. Underhill
produced several letters which had passed between
the plaintiff and the defendant prior to the engage-
ment being determined upon. In the first of these
the defendant, speaking of the line of business for
which the plaintiff would be required, said, " The
line would include all the first heavy line, Richard,
Othello, Macbeth, Virginius, &c. Ido occasionally
appear myself, but I wish to play as seldom as
possible. On such occasions I have played Romeo
or Rolla, and then the leading man has played the
Friar or Pizarro." The terms then offered to the
plaintiff were 30s. a week, but plaintiff represented
to the defendant that the salary was not sufficient,
and some further correspondence ensued, in which
the defendant agreed to give 355. and the third of
a benefit, and in the same letter remarked that he
could not promise to require the plaintiff's ser-
vices after Easter, the end of the season. The plain-
tiff entered upon his engagement at the theatre,
and appeared several times very successfully. In
the month of March the defendant announced the
engagement of a Mr. Evans, and the plaintiff on
going to a rehearsal, saw in the green-room the cast
for the ensuing week, in which he was cast to play
Macduff to Mr. Evans's Macbeth, Pizarro to that
gentleman's Rolla, and lago to his Othello. Im-
mediately upon seeing that announcement the
plaintiff felt that it was not in accordance with
the terms of his engagement, and accordingly he
declined to play the parts, in consequence of which
the defendant, on the sth of March, gave him a
formal notice to leave. The plaintiff held that
according to his engagement he was justified in
refusing to act ; and further that the notice to leave
was informal, inasmuch as the agreement was
binding up to the end of the season. The plaintiff
proved the above facts as detailed by Mr. Underhill,
and further stated that he had never refused to act
according to the terms of his engagement. In
cross-examination the plaintiff said he had pre-
viously played second rate characters to Mr. Evans
at the Theatre Royal, Dublin; but it was then
according to the terms of the engagement. Was not
aware that it was the usual custom upon the tem-
pmoar en
narytopgla m
agye
second
df
tao"
hstiamr f." oTrhteh ews
usually commences in September and terminates a ,
on ct ke
r leadingseasot
Easter. Never knew it end before Easter. There
were no witnesses in support of the plaintifs case.
For the defence Mr. Thurstans raised several points,
first, that the engagement was simply an agreement
between master and servant, andthatt hedefendant
was at liberty to discharge the plaintiff when he
thought proper, upon giving a fortnight's notice ;
next, that the engagement being for a season, that
term must be considered to be an indefinite period,
`
terminable at the discretipn of the defendant ; next,
that the defendant ,had not violated his agreement
; arid: further, that it was the
neral custom for alstar to t k d of
withha tdh
on
bpj plaintiff in
oin casting him to play the parts
he
ge a e prece ence
the stock leading man. This line of defence was
substantiated by the evidence of Mr. Jas. Rogers,
the defendant, Miss Kate Percy, Mr. Evans and
Mr. Charles James. - Mi..Underhill, in replying
upon the evidence, relied upon the point that there
had been a 'written engagement between the plain-
tiff and the defendant, in which the plaintiff was,
engaged to play a certain class of characters, and.,
that no evidence of custom could affect the issue of
the present case. The learned judge said he would'
take time to consider his decision.— Wolverhampton
Chronicle.

COLLISION AND Loss OF FIVE LlVES.—Consider-
able excitement was caused yesterday at Greenwich by the
intelligence that the master and five of the crew of the fish-
ing smack Chance, belonging to that town, were drowned
in consequence of being run down by a vessel whilst in a
small boat engaged in their occupation of fishing at a point
known as the Well-bank," about twenty miles seaward
from the port of Harwich. The Chance has returned to
Greenwich with the remainder of the crew, and confirms
the melancholly intelligence. Mr. Cook, the muter, was
also part owner of the vessel.

a., ,r..,iltritr.,Al4l-.1 lilt 3C:.. ,

Z 4 'l4ll