charged that this £900 was and ought long since to have been paid out of the profits of the fourth part belonging to Steele; and Woolley and the others refused to inform Steele how much had been paid to Woolley. And at other times Wilks, Cibber, and Booth pretended that they, on the 24th January 1719[-20], were, together with Steele, suspended by the Lord Chamberlain from further acting, and that from the time of this suspension (whatever licence they afterwards obtained for proceeding therein), they were not answerable to Steele for any part of the profits; whereas Steele expressly charged that the suspension lasted only two days or thereabouts, neither could the Lord Chamberlain or any other person thereby or otherwise except by due course of law deprive him of his share of the profits, wherein he had a just freehold during his life by the Grant and Letters Patent from His Majesty; and therefore Wilks, Cibber and Booth ought to pay and be accountable to him for his just share as if no such suspension had been. And at other times the defendants pretended that by some provision in the aforesaid Articles of Agreement it was provided that neither of the parties thereto should at any time sell, mortgage, part with or incumber his or their share without the consent in writing of the rest of the said parties, and it was pretended that Wilks, Cibber, and Booth never gave such assent to the assignment made by Steele to Scurlock; whereas Steele and Scurlock declared that Wilks, Cibber, and Booth were well aware of the assignment before it was made, and had copies of it delivered to them severally afterwards, and although they did not give their consent in writing, yet they did not oppose or forbid the same; and if they had, yet the same being for the payment of Steele's creditors, it ought to be supported and made good by the Honourable Court, or at least it could not debar Steele from having an account of his share of the profits. Yet upon these and the like pretences the defendants not only refused to pay Scurlock, on behalf of Steele's creditors, but likewise refused to come to an account with Steele. Sometimes they pretended that they were entitled to a dividend of £10 a piece each week, or some such considerable sum, out of the profits, in consideration of their extraordinary trouble in the management of the theatre and their playing their several parts, previous to and exclusive of the dividend to be made under the Articles between them and Steele, and they had accordingly ever since the date of the said Articles appropriated these sums, regardless of Steele's share or interest. And they pretended to be entitled to the whole of the money given by His Majesty or any of the Royal Family when they were graciously pleased to be present at any performances, and they had kept such moneys; whereas the complainants declared that Steele had a right to his share of all profits whatsoever. And the defendants pretended