JOHN GRUBB & THE THEATRE ROYAL, DRURY LANE
KENNETH P. GRUBB

John Grubb of Horsenden (1751-1812) has appeared in these pages before.( 'Grubbing Around') In the Summer 2003 Newsletter, his portrait was featured accompanying a short article on the man himself. However, the article in question left one question unanswered, that of whether John Grubb faced financial ruin as a result of his friendship with the dramatist and playwright, Richard Brinsley Sheridan (1751-1816) in the early 1800's. Was his downfall the result of investing in the re-building of the Drury Lane Theatre in 1791 or as a result of the fire which burnt the theatre down in 1809?

It was mentioned in the earlier article that some confusion had also been engendered as a result of a comment in 'Grubbs about the Globe' (p.38) that it was, in fact, John Grubb (1786-1846), son of John, who had faced financial ruin through investing in a new London theatre as result of his friendship with the dramatist, Addison. As a result, he was forced to sell Horsenden Manor in 1841 and emigrated to Prince Edward Island.

This involvement of John Grubb Junior can be completely discounted since Addison lived from 1672-1719 and the events surrounding the disasters at Drury Lane took place in the early 1800ís as we have already seen when John Junior would have been a mere boy. Suffice it to say John Junior and his family did eventually emigrate to Prince Edward Island under straitened circumstances.

However, an opportunity to throw more light on John Grubb Senior's possible involvement with Drury Lane has now come about as result of a new website which provides on-line access to the archives of The Times newspaper. Regrettably, the service is restricted to libraries and institutions but, after joining any library which has the facility, members can log on to the site via their own computers.

The first indication that John Grubb had any involvement with the Theatre Royal was through the good offices of Member Joseph Grubb who found a reference in the British Library manuscript catalogue. This states that amongst the correspondence of Sheridan are to be found two items dated 1795 and 1797 bearing the signature of John Grubb as joint proprietor of the theatre.

To ascertain how John Grubb became involved in the management of the Theatre Royal in the first place, it is necessary to briefly review the history of the theatre and the circumstances surrounding its rebuilding.

REBUILDING THE THEATRE

Until 1775, the Theatre Royal, Drury Lane had been managed by David Garrick, the famous actor/manager/playwright. He also owned a half share in the 'patent', a license which dated back to the time of Charles II and gave both the Theatre Royal and Covent Garden Theatre the monopoly of presenting spoken drama in London. It was this half share, worth £35,000 at the time, which Garrick sold to Sheridan in 1776.

In fact, Sheridan bought it jointly with two other parties, his own share of the purchase price being raised through mortgages and two annuities. The whole structure was thus founded on 'the quicksands of loans and mortgages' as an early Sheridan biographer described it. By 1788, he had not only purchased the other half share of the 'patent' but had bought the share of one of his original partners though it was a secret even to his wife as to how he had conjured up the sums required. All would have gone well if he had concentrated on acting and managing the theatre but he had political aspirations and became a Member of Parliament and the close friend of Charles James Fox, the rising leader of the Whigs in Parliament. As a result the management of the theatre was less than satisfactory.

We now move forward to 1791 when at the end of the summer season, the old theatre at Drury Lane was closed down. For some time, its structure had been in a dangerous condition. Originally built by Wren, it had reached a state where it could no longer be repaired. Sheridan's plans for its replacement was a theatre capable of holding twice the number of patrons as previously. New land was acquired to provide the extra space and the costs were met by issuing debenture stock worth £150,000 to the public. Since shares of this nature normally guaranteed a fixed return on the investment at regular intervals it would appear essential that Sheridan's new venture should be a success. We read, however, that he continued to pursue a political career and we read later in The Times for 9 August 1798 the brief news item that 'It is now understood that Mr. Grubb is to be the Drury Lane manager next season' suggesting that John Grubb was to relieve Sheridan of part of the responsibility of running the theatre. It is strange, however, that John Grubb is not mentioned in either of the biographies consulted.

The subsequent history of the reconstruction and the financial problems which ensued, together with John Grubbís involvement, is best described by the report in The Times of a law suit which came before the Court of Chancery, where civil suits were heard, in November 1801 and which related to the management of the new theatre. In this suit, the plaintiffs were the Trustees for the debenture holders and Sheridan was the defendant. The court proceedings lasted for three days and the report occupied most of one page of the broadsheet each day.

FINANCIAL PROBLEMS

The Times felt it necessary to enlighten its readers regarding the background to the case and the following account is taken straight from the paper:-

'When Drury Lane Theatre was rebuilt, there were 300 new Renters shares created for £500 each, for each of which shares the holder was entitled to an annuity of 2s.6d per night, for each night of performance for a term of 103 years. By a deed executed in 1793, Messrs. Hammersley, Wallace and Ford were appointed Trustees for these Renters and a sum of £40 was to be paid to them for the purpose of covering the rent due upon these shares.

In the year 1796, it became necessary to borow more money for the finishing of the theatre and 37 new rent charges of £1 each per night were created and sold for £2000 each and 12 other annuities of £50 a year. Of these Renters, Mr. Hammersley was also the Trustee by deed between him on one part and Messrs. Sheridan, Grubb and Richardson on the other'.

The subsequent report becomes more and more complex but, in simple terms, it would appear that the main problem for the Trustees acting for the Renters (apparently these investors held preference shares) was to obtain sufficient funds to pay the Renters their dues. As one biographer points out '..takings, along with the rest of the receipts, more often found their way into Sheridan's pockets than the treasury'.

By March 1799, the situation had got to the stage where the Trustees took out a suit against Sheridan on the grounds that, with regard to the 1793 share issue, a Receiver should be appointed who should take the proceeds from the theatre and allocate them according to the 1793 agreement, i.e that Renters would be paid the monies owing them. Lengthy negotiations followed and it was not until March 1801 that a court order was issued that the Trustees should appoint two persons to receive the whole of the money collected at the Pit door, to pay the necessary disbursements and then to pay any surplus to Sheridan at the end of the year!

A further but separate order was placed against Sheridan, Grubb and Richardson regarding the 1796 share issue by which they would receive any surplus left over after the relevant Renters and other expenses had been paid.

At this point, it is worth looking further at John Grubb's involvement. Sheridan, himself, claimed during the suit that finding himself short of money in 1796 to complete the new theatre, he had made a share issue as described above and had sold four shares to John Grubb and Joseph Richardson, agreeing also to admit them into 'two-sevenths of the profit and loss of management'. He had objected to them being called Joint Proprietors in law, contending that he was the sole proprietor of the property. Later in 1800, Joseph Richardson, an old friend and fellow playwright, had been persuaded to buy a quarter share in the theatre for £25,000 which left no doubt that he was a Joint Proprietor.

If any reader is finding the story to date somewhat confusing then they are not alone since the Court found it equally baffling. The two receivers appointed in March 1801 to collect the daily proceeds of the theatre did so until October 1801 when Joseph Richardson dismissed them on the grounds that the theatre could not survive if a major part of the proceeds was going to the Renters. Since the performers were suffering as result of going unpaid then there was some merit in his argument.

Meanwhile, Sheridan whose management of the theatre had significantly contributed to the present situation, brought a counter suit on the grounds that he had been coerced into accepting a situation whereby he would be paid any surplus owing him at the end of the season under the threat that if he did not do so then a General Receiver would be appointed (presumably as a forerunner to bankruptcy? However, at the moment he felt the two existing court orders were not in everybodyís interests and he asked for them to be revised.

REFERENCES

'Richard Brinsley Sheridan - A Life', Linda Kelly, Sinclair-Stevenson, London, 1997
'A Traitor's Kiss - The life of Richard Brinsley Sheridan', Fintan O'Toole, Granta, London, 1997

(TO BE CONTINUED)