whatever. Mrs. Robertson is a good performer, and extremely happy in low comedy. Mrs. Manly improves every season; her Julio, in Deaf and Dumb, was given in an excellent style, and can only be equalled by her comic abilities, in Beda. In Mrs. Sidney we find a full compensation for the loss of Mrs. Pero, in the characters of old women. Miss Valentine is still at the head of the vocal department: we are sorry there is no gentleman adequate to support her in the many fine duets which occur in musical afterpieces. Miss Courtney made her first appearance here this season; she is a good figure, and a promising actress. The weakness of her voice seems, in a great measure, the mere effect of timidity. Mrs. O'Brien has particularly excelled in comedy, but time has begun to arrest her steps in the more lively characters. The company, on leaving this town, make their first appearance at Rochdale.

Halifax.

SANCHO.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY,

RESPECTING THE AFFAIRS OF

THE THEATRE-ROYAL DRURY-LANE.

Continued from Page 434, vol. xii.

1

LINCOLN'S-INN HALL, DEC. 23.

The Solicitor General, when the cause was called on, observed, that he hoped his lordship would suffer their client, Mr. Sheridan himself, to be heard, as he could explain much better than they could do, many things connected with the business before the court.

Mr. Shertdan said he wished to address his lordship; but as he stood there as defendant of the cause, he wished to have an opportunity of hearing all that' was said on the other side, in order to give it such explanation and answer, as the case might require.

Mr.

stated, that he appeared for Mr. Westley, the late treasurer, who had an annuity charged on the theatre, which he contended ought to be provided for, as a charge upon the property.

Mr. Troward, as counsel for Mr. White, the proprietor of a part of Killigrew's old patent, stated that his client was entitled to consideration from the court, as the proprietors were deriving an advantage from that patent of £. 250 per ann.

Mr. Agar, for Mr. Grubb, at great length, went into those circumstances which he contended evinced Mr. Grubb to be a proprietor.

The Chancellor interrupted him, and asked Mr. Agar whether, if Mr. Grubb was a proprietor, certain debts, by being suffered to accumulate, were not converted from a charge upon the fund of the theatre, to a personal claim; and whether he was not called upon to distinguish between such as had given personal credit, and those giving credit to the fund.

Mr. Agar continued, that those persons who now affected to treat Mr. Grubb

H 2

as no proprietor, had on many occasions given him that character. It would appear by the trust deed of 1798, to which Sheridan, Richardson, and Grubb were parties, and in which Grubb was described as a proprietor. He admitted that there was an indorsement upon the deed, but he contended that it ought not to be construed to invalidate the solemn contents of that instrument. But it did not rest here. Mr. Sheridan had drawn bills of exchange to his own order, in which he had named Mr. Grubb as a proprietor. Mr. Woodrife had seen these bills, and in his affidavit had sworn that they were drawn by Mr. Sheridan, and accepted by Mr. Peake, the treasurer, for Messrs. Sheridan, Richardson, and Grubb, as proprietors of Drury-lane theatre. He stated that he, Mr. Agar, had instructions to draw a bill, calling upon Mr. Sheridan to complete his agreement with Mr. Grubb, and he now asked of him, whether he was ready to give them explicit answers upon this occasion? Mr. Grubb, he stated, had advanced £. 10,000 for the use of the theatre, and that he had received only £.300 in return. Beyond what he had advanced, he was also implicated for £. 40,000. He complained much of a scarcity of materials from which he was obliged to draw his proofs, but he said he had a rough draft of an agreement, the original of which they allowed to be in the hands of Mr. Sheridan himself, by which he contracts to convey two sevenths of the ultimate property to Mr. Grubb. This was signed by Mr. Sheridan, Mr. Richardson, and Mr. Grubb. There was no affidavit to deny these facts. Having from these premises argued that Mr. Grubb must be considered a proprietor, the learned gentleman next proceeded to the state of the theatre, as to its expenditure and disbursements. By the constitution of the theatre, and by the trust deed of 1793, he observed, that the actors were first to be paid, and afterwards the renters. If, then, they were not paid, but the debts were suffered to accumulate, Mr. Grubb having accepted bills for such debts accruing before he became a proprietor, and without consideraton, it ought never to have been done. With respect to the new rent-charges created by the deed of 1798, Mr. Grubb had been prevailed to execute them as an Escrow, but he knew not how many of them had been disposed of. He trusted that his lordship would call upon Mr. Sheridan to state how much money had accrued from this fund, and to what purposes it had been applied? If the new rent charges, to the number of 37, were all sold, it amounted to the sum of £.148,000-this added to the sum of £. 10,000 received from Mr. Grubb, and the sum of £. 40,000 for which he stood implicated, the whole amounted to the enormous sum of £.350,000 which Mr. Sheridan had received on account of the theatre. Of this sum, he said, that £. 276,000 had not been accounted for; yet this was the state of the theatre which Mr. Sheridan had represented so lucrative, as to induce Mr. Kemble to become a purchaser of onefourth of the concern. From the patience and forbearance already manifested by the creditors of the theatre, he did not doubt but that they would readily acquiesce in any arrangement to be made by his lordship, and that in such case Mr. Grubb might enjoy that personal freedom, which, being the only one of the proprietors out of parliament, he was at present deprived of. Mr. Agar then commented upon the deed of annuity to Mr. Westley, and argued that it being a voluntary grant, it was of no avail against the creditors.

Mr. Holland said, that he wished to address the court very shortly. It was

stated by Mr. Sheridan, that his original estimate was £.75,000 and that he had expended £. 140,000, and with that increased expenditure had also left the theatre unfinished, and that it was in consequence of this, that distress and confusion had fallen upon the concern. That this was not the case, had since been most unequivocally admitted. His affidavit had heen filed several days before the last cause. Mr. Sheridan on the contrary had withdrawn his affidavit, had since filed a petition, and in all these documents, drawn, as it was to be presumed, at his leisure, he had not gone the length of contradicting what he (Mr. Holland) had stated. Another point which he thought it was material the public should know was, why were not the buildings finished? He would tell his lordshipThere were two reasons which were not stated upon his affidavit ; the first, he considered as a great cruelty upon the workmen, and a great reflection upon the trustees. By the original instrument for rebuilding the theatre, it was held out that there was £.80,000 vested in trustees for that purpose, and, if that should not prove sufficient, that fifteen private boxes should be sold to complete the work. So stood the original proposal. This he knew to be the case: Now how did the business terminate? They worked early and late, to forward the business. He was urged to dispatch by Mr. Sheridan, who said, though it increased the expence, yet that the produce of early opening would more than counterbalance it. He believed that the fact warranted the statement of Mr. Sheridan, for he held in his hand an account of one night's produce, which amounted to £.900. It was at that period that those concerned in forwarding the work were angels, and pronounced worthy to be crowned with laurels; but they were soon obliged to desist, from want of payment. Besides this, there was another circumstance. A gentleman on the floor, (Mr. Gotobed, the Duke of Bedford's solicitor) had sworn, that the Duke of Bedford would not grant leases until the ground round the theatre was covered with buildings; but this ground was proposed by the estimate to be covered in a different way, namely, by letting it to builders on building leases. These were the two facts upon which he wished most particularly to explain himself, and which he had in part explained on another day. But it was also stated by the affidavits of Messrs. Sheridan, Fosbrook, and Johnson, that the theatre was left a mere shell, and that great sums were expended to make it fit for representation. What these great sums were, it was not ascertained. At the other end of these affidavits was also the little Carpenter Jacobs. He might consider a pot of porter in an alehouse as a considerable sum; but he averred, that instead of leaving it a shell, it was, as he left it, one of the completest theatres in Europe. He did not mean to deny but that it wanted scene rooms and some other accommodations; but he left more of the estimated fund than would complete it. Here Mr. Holland went through the several items which had been expended, which he insisted did not amount to more than £. 4831. He insisted that all that was necessary to put the theatre in a state fit for representation, could not have amounted to more than £.1000. Having gone through this calculation, he said it was evident that the misfortunes of the theatre did not originate with him, and that no charge was imputable to him, as causing the embarrassments of the concern. It was the misfortune, he said, of the theatre, that his plans had not been pursued, and the abandonment of them, in a small instance, had occasioned a considerable loss.

Supposing the ground round the theatre to have been let to builders, it would' produce £.500 per ann. and the receipts would have amounted to £. 5000. He had often reflected upon the loss of property round the theatre, and taking the whole into his consideraton, he believed it would not amount to less than £. 10,000. There was one point more-when he was called upon to furnish an estimate, he calculated upon the large square, and not in the particular. Every circumstance, however, since that time, had run with him. The estimate, notwithstanding, was never reduced into actual contract; but if it had, there were so many alterations made in the progress of the building that it could not he applicable. He said he would have undertaken to have completed the building for £80,000. If that sum had been paid, both he and all the workmen would have had good profit. But he again said he was never called upon as a contractor. There were a variety of other topics, which he could explain if called upon, but which at present he would not enter into.

Mr. Sheridan spoke to the following effect :-"My Lord, having listened with all patience to every word which has been delivered in this cause, and having waited for every claim which might be advanced from every quarter-for it was my earnest wish that none should be kept back. I trust the moment is come when, in consequence of the cessation of the learned gentlemen, I am to state every circumstance relative to this business which has fallen within my knowledge; and I am the more encouraged to be clear and explicit in my statements, from a thorough conviction that your lordship will do full and ample justice to all the parties whose interests are involved in the decision of the court. After what has fallen from the Solicitor General in the course of these proceedings, your lordship will not, I hope, think it presumption in me to plead my own cause. My counsel are, no doubt, fully competent to the task; but I have rather considered this as a question of character and property---for the character of the principal proprietor of the theatre, must be allowed to form a part of the property. In spite of the insinuations thrown out by a gentleman near me; (Mr. Holland) in spite of the prejudice which these suggestions tended to create; he may rest assured that I shall not attempt to avail myself of any flowers of eloquence, or to vindicate myself by any of those figures of rhetoric to which he has alluded. I shall proceed upon authentic documents, content myself with the statement of incontrovertible facts, and assert nothing but what I can establish, proof by proof. To pursue a contrary line of conduct, would, indeed, be a weak attempt to impose upon your lordship's enlarged and enlightened mind. It is upon facts only that I am desirous to pursue my public character and my private honour. I have first to notice the claim set up by Mr. Grubb, and in the statements and observations I have to make, with respect to that gentleman and the other parties, I trust I shall not be precluded from taking la general view of the business; and that, if I even touch upon matter not seeming at first sight relevant, the patience of the court will hear me out until I shall be enabled to make the application. Mr. Grubb's pretensions have, I readily admit, been supported in a very able manner by the learned gentleman, who says he has proved that Mr. Grubb is a proprietor. I ask, where are his documents? What are his roofs ?---None! While I maintain, that if the papers on which he rests his case be properly examined, they must prove directly the contrary.

Mr. Grubb's first affidavit says, that he purchased one fourth of Drury-lane theatre. He swears that the memorandum was drawn up by me, and subscribed by me. It was naturally to be supposed, that having positively sworn to this very material circumstance, he would have produced the memorandum, but no such paper was to be found. Mr. Richardson, on the contrary, says, that the "draft was drawn and subscribed by him, and not by me. Mr. Grubb then finding himself mistaken only in the initials and the form of the memorandum, next comes forward with an agreement, by which I am to sell to him two shares, of £3000 each, and write two plays, to increase the value of the property; and for what? For the sum of £5000. He also states, that I am to make over to him one seventh of the whole property, for the term of one hundred years. He is to share in the profits, while the arrears of the theatre are to be entirely left out of the question. The sum of £16,000 was to be provided to finish the theatre according to the estimate. The most material articles were to be be supplied in an establishment where there was no property immediately applicable to its objects---where there existed no wardrobe, and where a great expence was necessarily to be incurred, in getting up new plays as well as in reviving old ones. Yet, upon this seventh share of the property, which I am supposed to have made a present of to Mr. Grubb, he founds a right to his dividend of £10,000 in the course of a few years. There is surely nothing to warrant a belief, that I could have given to Mr. Grubb, for his £5000, what, taken together, amounts to no less than £32,000. I must, indeed, have been miraculously affected by the charms of his countenance; wonderfully smitten with his · physiognomy, and fascinated beyond all credibility with his arbanitas morum, to have made him a present, after an acquaintance of only four days, of £32,000. These gentlemen may suppose me careless in concerns of moment, but I hope they will not suppose me so completely a madman, as to have agreed to such a donation. Mr. Grubb, however, admits, that the agreement was not drawn up by me, nor signed by me, after swearing the contrary. He next swears that a fair copy of the agreement was in each person's possession. It cuts a bad figure as an original, and a worse as a copy, for it is blotted, scratched, and interlined. How comes it to be without date, without the year, the month, or the day? Can that be a copy of an agreement, signed by three men in the least degree capable of transacting common business? But, when he is desired to produce the original, he next hints it to be in my possession. What then is the conduct of Mr. Grubb? He receives, as a present, one seventh part of the property; £10,000 of the profits; and, leaving the original of the memorandum in my hands, he contents himself with a copy. There is, however, an agreement which was signed at his house, and drawn up by myself. As he was anxious to have some memorandum on the subject, three copies were made of that agreement, and Mr. Grubb, Mr. Richardson, and myself, took each a copy; its object was to settle the final terms, by arbitration; and at our meeting upon that occasion, the only mutual understanding was, that I had a right to part with Mr. Grubb, whenever I pleased, on paying the penalty of £.500. I did agree and engage to abide by such arbitration, and the persons chosen to arbitrate were Mr. Pigot, Mr. Const, and Mr. Morris, while it was left to Mr. Haminersley and Co. to name a fourth. I am ready to admit, that Mr. Grubb forgot several