In my book on the above subject I was unable to give factual 
proof of individual points. In order not to make the book too 
thick and indigestible, I had to consider my statements sufficiently 
proven when I had confirmed them by quotations from official 
documents, impartial writers or the writings of the parties whose 
interests I was attacking. This sufficed to guard me against 
contradiction in those cases where I was unable to speak from 
personal observation when describing particular living conditions. 
But it was not sufficient to produce in the reader the incontestable 
certainty which can only be given by striking, irrefutable facts, and 
which, especially in an age in which we are obliged by the infinite 
“wisdom of the fathers” to be sceptical, can never be generated by 
mere reasoning, no matter how good the authorities. Above all 
when it is a question of important consequences, of facts coales- 
cing into principles, when it is not the condition of separate, small 
sections of the people that has to be described, but the position of 
whole classes in relation to each other, then facts are absolutely 
essential. For the reasons just mentioned, I was unable to provide 
these in all cases in my book. I will now make good this 
unavoidable deficiency and, from time to time, will present facts as 
I find them in the sources available to me. In order, at the same 
time, to demonstrate that my account is still correct today, I will 
only use facts which have taken place since I left England last 

year, and have become known to me only since my book was 
published. 

Readers of my book will remember that I was chiefly concerned 
to describe the position of the bourgeoisie and the proletariat in 
relation to each other and the necessity of struggle between these 
two classes; and that I attached especial importance to proving 
how completely justified the proletariat was in waging this strug- 
gle, and to rebutting the English bourgeoisie’s fine phrases by 
means of their ugly deeds. From the first page to the last, I was 
writing a bill of indictment against the English bourgeoisie. I will 
now provide a few more choice pieces of evidence. However, since 
I have already displayed enough passion over these English 
bourgeois it is not my intention to work myself up over them once 
again and, so far as I can, I will keep my temper. 

The first good citizen and worthy paterfamilias we are going to 
meet is an old friend, or rather there are two of them. By 1843 
Messrs. Pauling & Henfrey had already had Lord knows how many 
conflicts with their workers, who, refusing to be dissuaded even by 
the best of arguments from their demand that they should receive 
increased wages for increased work, stopped work. Pauling & 
Henfrey, who are important building contractors and employ 
many brickmakers, carpenters, and so on, took on other workers; 
this led to a conflict and in the end to a bloody battle with guns and 
cudgels in Pauling & Henfrey’s brickyard, which resulted in the 
transportation of half a dozen workers to Van Diemen’s Land,!% 
all of which is dealt with at length in my book.? But Messrs. 
Pauling & Henfrey have to try something on with their workers 
every year, otherwise they are not happy; so they began baiting 
them again in October 1844. This time it was the carpenters whose 
well-being the philanthropic building contractors were anxious to 
promote. From time immemorial the custom had prevailed among 
the carpenters of Manchester and the surrounding area of not 
“striking a light” from Candlemas> to November 17, ie., of 
working from six in the morning till six in the evening during the 
long days, and of starting as soon as it was light and finishing as 
soon as it began to get dark during the short days. Then from 
November 17 onwards the lights were lit and work carried on for 
the full time. Pauling & Henfrey, who had long had enough of 
this “barbaric” custom, decided to put an end to this relic of the 
“Dark Ages” with the help of gas lighting, and when one evening 
before six o’clock the carpenters could not see any longer and put 
away their tools and went for their coats, the foreman lit the gas 

and said that they had to work till six o’clock. The carpenters, 
whom this did not suit, called a general meeting of the workers in 
their trade. Mr. Pauling, much astonished, asked his workers if 
they were dissatisfied about something since they had called a 
meeting. Some of the workers said that it was not they who were 
directly responsible for calling the meeting, but the committee of 
the craft union, to which Mr. Pauling replied that he didn’t care a 
fig for the craft union, but he would like to put a proposition to 
them: if they would agree to the lights being lit he would be 
prepared in return to give them three hours off on Saturdays, 
and— generous fellow—also to allow them to work an extra 
quarter of an hour every day for which they would get extra pay! 
They on their part should work half an hour longer when all 
other workshops began to put on their lights. The workers 
considered this proposal and calculated that as a result Messrs. 
Pauling & Henfrey would gain a whole working hour every day 
during the short days, that each worker would have to work 
altogether 92 hours, ie., 9'/, days extra without getting a farthing 
in return, and that taking into account all the workers employed by 
the firm, the above-named gentlemen would save £400 (2,100 
taler) in wages during the winter months. So the workers held 
their meeting and explained to their fellow-workers that if one 
firm succeeded in putting this through, all the other firms would 
follow suit and, as a result, there would be a general indirect 
reduction in wages which would rob the carpenters in the district 
of about £4,000 a year. It was decided that on the following 
Monday all the carpenters employed by Pauling & Henfrey should 
hand in their 3-months’ notice and if their employers did not 
change their minds, should stop work when this notice expired. 
The union on its part promised to support them by a general levy 
in the event of a stoppage of work. 

On Monday, October 14, the workers went and gave in their 
notice, whereupon they were told that they could leave right away, 
which of course they did. The same evening another meeting of 
all the building workers took place, at which all categories of 
building workers pledged their support to the strikers. On the 
Wednesday and Thursday following, all the carpenters in the 
vicinity employed by Pauling & Henfrey also stopped work and 
the strike was thus in full swing. 

The building employers, left so suddenly high and dry, im- 
mediately sent people out in all directions, even as far as Scotland, 
to recruit workers since in the whole vicinity there was not a soul 
willing to work for them. In a few days thirteen men did arrive’ 

from Staffordshire. But as soon as the strikers found an opportu- 
nity of talking to them and explaining the dispute and the reasons 
why they had stopped work, several of the new arrivals refused 
to continue working. But the masters had an effective way of 
dealing with this: they had the recalcitrants, along with those 
who led them astray, brought before Daniel Maude, Esquire, 
Justice of the Peace. But before we follow them there, we 
must first put the virtues of Daniel Maude, Esq., in their proper 
light. 

Daniel Maude, Esq., is the “stipendiary magistrate”? or paid 
Justice of the Peace in Manchester. The English magistrates are 
usually rich bourgeois or landowners, occasionally also clergymen, 
who are appointed by the Ministry. But since these Dogberries 
understand nothing about the law, they make the most flagrant 
blunders, bring the bourgeoisie into ridicule and do it harm, since, 
even when faced with a worker, they are frequently reduced to a 
state of confusion if he is defended by a skilful lawyer, and either 
neglect some legal form when sentencing him, which results in a 
successful appeal, or let themselves be misled into acquitting him. 
Besides, the rich manufacturers in the big towns and industrial 
areas have no time to spare for passing days of boredom in a 
court of law and prefer to instal a remplacant.’ As a result in these 
towns, on the initiative of the towns themselves, paid magistrates 
are usually appointed, men versed in law, who are able to take 
advantage of all the twists and subtle distinctions of English law, 
and when necessary to supplement and improve it for the benefit 
of the bourgeoisie. Their efforts in this respect are illustrated by 
the following example. 

Daniel Maude, Esq., is one of those liberal justices of the peace 
who were appointed in large numbers under the Whig Govern- 
ment. Among his heroic exploits, inside and outside the arena of 
the Manchester Borough Court,° we will mention two. When in 
1842 the manufacturers succeeded in forcing the workers of South 
Lancashire into an insurrection, which broke out in Stalybridge 
and Ashton at the beginning of August, some 10,000 workers, 
with Richard Pilling, the Chartist, at their head, marched on 
August 9 from there to Manchester 

“to meet their masters on the Exchange and to see how the Manchester market 

be 

was . 

When they reached the outskirts of the town, they were met by 
Daniel Maude, Esq., with the whole estimable police force, a 
detachment of cavalry and a company of riflemen. But this was all 
only for the sake of appearances since it was in the interest of the 
manufacturers and liberals that the insurrection should spread 
and force the repeal of the Corn Laws. In this Daniel Maude, 
Esq., was in complete agreement with his worthy colleagues, and 
he began to come to terms with the workers and allowed them to 
enter the town on their promise to “keep the peace” and follow a 
prescribed route. He knew very well that the insurgents would not 
do this nor did he in the least wish them to—he could have 
nipped the whole contrived insurrection in the bud with a little 
energy but, had he done so, he would not have been acting in the 
interest of his Anti-Corn Law friends but in the interest of Sir 
Robert Peel. So he withdrew the soldiers and allowed the workers 
to enter the town, where they immediately brought all the 
factories to a standstill. But as soon as the insurrection proved to 
be definitely directed against the liberal bourgeoisie and complete- 
ly ignored the “hellish Corn Laws”, Daniel Maude, Esq., once 
more assumed his judicial office and had workers arrested by the 
dozen and marched off to prison without mercy for “breach of 
the peace”—so that he first caused the breaches and then 
punished them. Another characteristic feature in the career of this 
Manchester Solomon is revealed by the following. Since the Anti- 
Corn Law League was several times beaten up in public in Man- 
chester, it holds private meetings, admission to which is by 
ticket only—but the decisions and petitions of which are pre- 
sented to the public as those of public meetings, and as manifesta- 
tions of Manchester “public opinion”. In order to put a stop to 
this fraudulent boasting by the liberal manufacturers, three or 
four Chartists, among them my good friend‘ James Leach, secured 
tickets for themselves and went to one of these meetings. When 
Mr. Cobden rose to speak, James Leach asked the Chairman 
whether this was a public meeting. Instead of answering, the 
Chairman called the police and had Leach arrested without more 
ado. A second Chartist asked the question again, then a third, and 
a fourth, all were set upon one after the other by the “bluebottles” 
(police) who stood massed at the door, and packed off to the 
Town Hall. They appeared the next morning before Daniel 
Maude, Esq., who was already fully informed about everything. 
They were charged with having caused a disturbance at a meeting, 
were hardly allowed to say a word, and then had to listen to a 
solemn speech by Daniel Maude, Esq., who told them that he 

knew them, that they were political vagabonds who did nothing 
but cause uproar at meetings and disturb decent, law-abiding 
citizens and a stop must be put to this kind of thing. There- 
fore—and Daniel Maude, Esq., knew very well that he could not 
impose any real punishment on them—therefore, he would 
sentence them to pay the costs this time. 

It was before this same Daniel Maude, Esq., whose bourgeois 
virtues we have just described, that the recalcitrant workers from 
Pauling & Henfrey’s were hauled. But they had brought a lawyer 
with them as a precaution. First to be heard was the worker newly 
arrived from Staffordshire who had refused to continue working 
at a place where others had stopped work in self-defence. Messrs. 
Pauling & Henfrey had a written contract signed by the workers 
from Staffordshire, and this was submitted to the magistrate.* The 
defending lawyer interjected that this agreement had been signed 
on a Sunday and was therefore invalid. With much dignity Daniel 
Maude, Esq., admitted that “business transactions” concluded on a 
Sunday were not valid, but said that he could not believe that 
Messrs. Pauling & Henfrey regarded this as a “business transac- 
tion”! So without spending very much time asking the worker 
whether he “regarded” the document as a “business transaction”, 
he told the poor devil that he must either continue working or 
amuse himself on the treadmill for three months ——O Solomon of 
Manchester! — After this case had been dealt with, Messrs. Pauling 
& Henfrey brought forward the second accused. His name was 
Salmon, and he was one of the firm’s old workers who had stopped 
work. He was accused of having intimidated the new workers into 
taking part in the strike. The witness— one of these latter — stated 
that Salmon had taken him by the arm and spoken to him. Daniel 
Maude, Esq., asked whether the accused had perhaps used threats 
or beaten him?—No, said the witness. Daniel Maude, Esq., 
delighted at having found an opportunity to demonstrate his 
impartiality—after having just fulfilled his duty to the bour- 
geoisie— declared that there was nothing in the case incrimi- 
nating the accused. He had every right to take a walk on the 
public highway and to talk to other people as long as he did not 

* This contract contained the following: the worker pledged himself to work 
for Pauling & Henfrey for six months and to be satisfied with the wages which they would 
give him; but Pauling & Henfrey were not bound to keep him for six months and 
could dismiss him at any moment with a week’s notice, and although Pauling & 
Henfrey would pay his travelling expenses from Staffordshire to Manchester, they 
were to recover them by a weekly deduction of 2 shillings (20 silver groschen) from 
his wages. How do you like that really marvellous contract?— Note by Engels. 

indulge in intimidating words or actions—he was therefore 
acquitting him. But Messrs. Pauling & Henfrey had at least had 
the satisfaction, by paying the costs of the case, of having the said 
Salmon sent to the lock-up for a night—and that was something 
after all. Nor did Salmon’s happiness last long. For after having 
been discharged on Thursday, October 31, he was up again before 
Daniel Maude, Esq., on Tuesday, November 5th, charged with 
having assaulted Messrs. Pauling & Henfrey in the street. On that 
same Thursday on which Salmon had been acquitted, a number of 
Scotsmen arrived in Manchester, decoyed by false statements that 
the disputes were over and that Pauling & Henfrey could not find 
enough workers in their district to cope with their extensive 
contracts. On the Friday a number of Scottish joiners who had 
been working for some time in Manchester, came to explain the 
cause of the stoppage to their countrymen. A large number of 
their fellow-workers — some 400— gathered around the inn where 
the Scots were quartered. But these Scotsmen were kept there like 
prisoners with a foreman on guard at the door. After some time, 
Messrs. Pauling & Henfrey arrived in order to escort in person 
their new workers to their place of work. When the group came 
out, those gathered outside called to the Scots not to take work 
against the Manchester rules of the trade and not to disgrace their 
fellow-countrymen. Two of the Scots did in fact lag behind a little 
and Mr. Pauling himself ran back to drag them forward. The 
crowd remained quiet, only prevented the group from moving too 
quickly and called to the Scots not to interfere in other people’s 
business, to go back home, etc. Mr. Henfrey finally lost his 
temper; he saw several of his old workers in the crowd, among 
them Salmon, and in order to put an end to the affair, he gripped 
the latter by the arm. Mr. Pauling seized him by the other arm 
and both shouted for the police with all their might. The police 
inspector came up and asked what charge was being made against 
the man, at which both partners were greatly embarrassed. But 
they said, “We know the man.” “Oh,” said the inspector, “that’s 
enough then, we can let him go for the time being.” Messrs. 
Pauling & Henfrey, needing to bring some kind of charge against 
Salmon, considered the matter for several days until finally, on the 
advice of their lawyer, they lodged the above charge. After all the 
witnesses against Salmon had been heard, W. P. Roberts, the 
“Miners’ Attorney General”, the terror of all magistrates, suddenly 
rose up on behalf of the accused and asked whether he should still 
call his witnesses, since nothing had been brought against Salmon. 
Daniel Maude, Esq., let him question his witnesses, who testified 

that Salmon had behaved calmly until Mr. Henfrey took hold of 
him. When the proceedings for and against had been concluded, 
Daniel Maude, Esq., said that he would pass sentence on Saturday. 
Clearly, the presence of “Attorney General” Roberts led him to 
think twice before he spoke once. 

On Saturday, Messrs. Pauling & Henfrey brought an additional 
criminal charge of conspiracy and intimidation against three of 
their old workers— Salmon, Scott and Mellor. By this they hoped to 
deliver a mortal blow to the craft union and, in order to be secure 
against the dreaded Roberts, they called in a distinguished 
barrister from London, Mr. Monk. As his first witness, Mr. Monk 
produced Gibson, one of the newly engaged Scotsmen, who had 
also acted as witness against Salmon the previous Tuesday. He 
declared that on Friday, November 1, as he and his companions 
came out of the inn, they were surrounded by a crowd of people 
who pushed and pulled them and that the three accused were 
among the crowd. Roberts now began to cross-question this 
witness, confronted him with another worker, and asked whether 
he, Gibson, had not told this worker the previous night that he had 
not known he was under oath when he was giving his evidence the 
previous Tuesday and that he had not really understood what he 
was supposed to do and say in court. Gibson replied that he did 
not know the man, he had been with two men the previous 
evening but could not say whether this man was one of them as it 
had been dark. It was possible that he said something of the sort since 
the form of oath in Scotland was different from that in England; 
he couldn’t quite remember. Mr. Monk then rose and declared 
that Mr. Roberts had no right to put questions like that, to which 
Mr. Roberts replied that objections of that kind were quite in 
place when one was representing a bad cause, but that he had the 
right to ask what he wanted, not only where the witness was born 
but also where he had stayed every day since that time, and what 
he had had to eat every day. Daniel Maude, Esq., confirmed that 
Mr. Roberts had this right but gave him the fatherly advice to 
keep to the point as much as possible. Then, after Mr. Roberts 
had obtained from the witness a statement that he only really 
began working for Pauling & Henfrey on the day after the 
incident on which the charge was based, that is, on November 2, 
he dismissed him. Then Mr. Henfrey himself appeared as a 
witness and repeated what Gibson had said about the incident. At 
this, Mr. Roberts asked him: Are you not looking for an unfair 
advantage over your competitors? Mr. Monk again objected to this 
question. 

Very well, said Mr. Roberts, I will put it more clearly. Mr. 
Henfrey, do you know that the working hours of the carpenters in 
Manchester are fixed by certain rules? 

Mr. Henfrey: I have nothing to do with those rules, I have the 
right to make my own rules. 

Mr. Roberts: Quite so. On oath, Mr. Henfrey, do you not 
demand longer working hours from your workers than other 
building contractors and master carpenters? 

Mr. Henfrey: Yes. 

Mr. Roberts: How many hours, approximately? 

Mr. Henfrey did not know exactly and took out his notebook in 
order to calculate. 

Daniel Maude, Esq.: You need not spend a long time working it 
out, just tell us roughly how many. 

Mr. Henfrey: Well, about an hour in the mornings and an hour 
in the evenings for six weeks before the time when the lights are 
usually turned on, and the same for six weeks after the day when 
it is usual to stop putting on the lights. 

Daniel Maude, Esq.: So every one of your workers has to work an 
extra 72 hours before the lights are turned on and 72 hours after, 
that is, 144 hours in 12 weeks? 

Mr. Henfrey: Yes. 

This statement was received with signs of great indignation by 
the public. Mr. Monk looked angrily at Mr. Henfrey and Mr. 
Henfrey looked at his barrister in confusion and Mr. Pauling 
tugged at Mr. Henfrey’s coat-tails—but it was too late; Daniel 
Maude, Esq., who obviously saw that he would have to play at 
being impartial again that day, had heard the admission and made 
it public. 

After two unimportant witnesses had been heard, Mr. Monk 
said that his evidence against the accused was now concluded. 

Daniel Maude, Esq., then said that the plaintiff had not made 
out any case for a criminal investigation against the accused, not 
having shown that the threatened Scots had been taken on by 
Pauling & Henfrey before November 1, since there was no proof 
of a hire contract or employment of the men concerned before 
November 2, while charge had been lodged on November Ist. 
Thus on this date the men were not yet employed by Pauling & 
Henfrey and the accused had every right to try and deter them by 
every legal means from going to work for Pauling & Henfrey. In 
reply to this, Mr. Monk said that the defendants had been 
engaged from the moment they left Scotland and boarded the 
steamer. Daniel Maude, Esq., remarked that it had indeed been 

stated that such hire contract had been made out but this 
document had not been produced. Mr. Monk replied that the 
document was in Scotland and he asked Mr. Maude to adjourn the 
case until it could be laid before the court. Mr. Roberts inter- 
vened here to say: this was something new to him. Evidence for the 
plaintiff had been declared concluded and now the plaintiff was 
demanding that the case be adjourned in order to introduce new 
evidence. He insisted that the case proceed. Daniel Maude, Esq., de- 
cided that both pleas were superfluous since no substantiated charge 
was before the court—upon which the accused were dismissed. 
Meanwhile the workers had likewise not been inactive. Week 
after week they held meetings in the Carpenters’ Hall or the 
Socialist Hall, called for aid from the different craft unions, which 
was given in plenty, never ceased to make known everywhere the 
behaviour of Pauling & Henfrey and finally sent delegates in all 
directions in order to inform their fellow craftsmen in all the areas 
where Pauling & Henfrey were recruiting workers, of the reasons 
for this recruitment and to prevent them taking work with this 
firm. Only a few weeks after the strike began there were seven 
delegates on their way and posters on the street corners in all the 
big towns in the country warned unemployed carpenters about 
Pauling & Henfrey. On November 9 some of the delegates who 
had returned reported on their mission. One of these, named 
Johnson, who had been in Scotland, described how Pauling & 
Henfrey’s representative had recruited thirty workers in Edin- 
burgh but as soon as they heard from him the real facts of the 
case they decided they would sooner starve than go to Manchester 
in such circumstances. A second delegate had been in Liverpool 
keeping watch on the arriving steamers, but not a single man had 
arrived and so he found that he had nothing to do. A third man 
had been in Cheshire but wherever he went he found he had 
nothing more to do, for the Northern Star, the workers’ paper, had 
broadcast the real state of affairs far and wide and had put an end 
to any desire people had of going to Manchester. Indeed in one 
town, Macclesfield, the carpenters had already taken a collection in 
support of the strikers and promised to contribute a further 
shilling per man should the necessity arise. In other places he was 
able to stimulate the local craftsmen to initiate such contributions. 
In order to provide Messrs. Pauling & Henfrey with another 
opportunity of coming to an agreement with the workers, all the 
craftsmen employed in the building trade gathered at the Carpen- 
ters’ Hall on Monday, November 18th, elected a deputation to 
present an address to these gentlemen and marched in procession 

with flags and emblems to the premises of Pauling & Henfrey. 
First came the deputation followed by the strike committee, then 
the carpenters, the brick-moulders and kiln-workers, the day 
labourers, bricklayers, sawyers, glaziers, plasterers, painters, a 
band, stonemasons, cabinetmakers. They passed the hotel where 
their “Attorney General’, Roberts, was staying and greeted him with 
loud hurrahs as they marched by. Arrived at the premises, the 
_ deputation fell out while the crowd marched on to Stevenson 
Square where they were to hold a public meeting. The deputation 
was received by the police who demanded their names and 
addresses before allowing them to proceed any further. When 
they had entered the office, the partners Sharps & Pauling told 
them that they would accept no written address from a crowd of 
workers brought together merely for the purpose of intimidation. 
The deputation denied that this was their aim, since the proces- 
sion had not even stopped, but had at once gone on its way. While 
this procession of 5,000 workers continued its march, the deputa- 
tion was finally received and taken into a room in which were 
present the Chief Constable, an officer and three newspaper 
reporters. Mr. Sharps, a partner in Pauling & Henfrey, usurped the 
Chairman’s seat, remarking that the deputation should be careful 
what it said as everything would be duly recorded and, in certain 
circumstances, would be used against them in court.—They 
now began to ask the deputation what they were complaining about, 
etc., and said that they wanted to give the men work according 
to the rules customary in Manchester. The deputation asked 
if the men picked up in Staffordshire and Scotland were working 
according to the regulations for craftsmen prevailing in Manchester. 

No, was the answer, we have a special arrangement with these men. Then your 
people are to be given work again, and on the usual conditions? Oh, we are not 
going to negotiate with any deputation but just let the men come and they will find 
out on what conditions we are willing to give them work. 

Mr. Sharps added that all firms with which he was connected 
had always treated their workers well and paid them the highest 
wages. The deputation replied that if, as they had heard, he was 
associated with the firm of Pauling & Henfrey, this firm had 
fiercely opposed the best interests of the workers.— A brickmaker, 
a member of the deputation, was asked what the members of his 
craft had to complain about.— 

Oh, nothing just now, but we’ve had enough.* 

* See above—the bloody fight at Pauling & Henfrey’s brickyard.— Note by 
Engels. 

Oh, you’ve had enough, have you? answered Mr. Pauling with a 
sneer, and then took the opportunity of delivering them a long 
lecture about craft unions, strikes, etc., and the misery to which 
they brought the workers—whereupon one of the deputation 
remarked they were not by any means disposed to allow their 
rights to be taken away from them bit by bit, and, for example, to 
work 144 hours a year for nothing, as was now being demanded.— 
Mr. Sharps remarked that they ought also to take into account the 
loss incurred by those taking part in the procession because they 
were not working that day, as well as the cost of the strike, the loss 
of wages suffered by the strikers, etc. One of the deputation said: 

That’s nobody’s business but ours and we won’t ask you to contribute a farthing 
from your pocket. 

With that the deputation left and reported to the assembled 
workers in the Carpenters’ Hall, where it was revealed that not 
only had all those in the area working for Pauling & Henfrey 
(those who were not carpenters and were therefore not on strike) 
come to take part in the procession, but that many of the newly 
imported Scotsmen had also struck that very morning. A painter 
also declared that Pauling & Henfrey had made the same unjust 
demands on the painters as they had on the joiners but that they 
too intended to resist. In order to simplify the whole business and 
shorten the struggle it was decided that all building workers 
employed by Pauling & Henfrey should stop work. This they did. 
The painters stopped work on the following Saturday and the 
glaziers on the Monday, and on the new theatre for which Pauling 
& Henfrey had received the contract only two bricklayers and four 
day labourers were working after a few days instead of 200 men. 
Some of the new arrivals also stopped work. 

Pauling & Henfrey foamed with rage. When three more of the 
new arrivals stopped work they were hauled before Daniel Maude, 
Esq., on Friday, November 22. The previous reverses had had no 
effect. A worker called Read was the first to be dealt with, charged 
with breach of contract; a contract which the accused had signed 
in Derby was laid before the court. Roberts, who was again 
defending, stated at once that there was not the slightest connec- 
tion between the contract and the charge, they were two quite 
different things. Daniel Maude, Esq., saw the point right away 
once the formidable Roberts had made it, but it took him a long, 
harassing time to make it clear to the Counsel for the other side. 
Finally, the latter asked permission to alter the charge and after a 
while he came back with one that was much worse than the first. 

When he saw that this would not do either, he asked for a further 
adjournment of the case and Daniel Maude, Esq., gave him until 
Friday, November 29, that is, a whole week, to consider the 
matter. I have not been able to find out whether or not he 
succeeded because the one issue of the paper which must have 
contained a report of the verdict is missing from my files. 
Meanwhile, Roberts went over to the offensive and had several of 
the recruited workers and one of Pauling & Henfrey’s foremen 
brought before the court for forcing their way into the house of 
one of the strikers and assaulting his wife; in two other cases some 
of the workers on strike had been attacked. To his great regret, 
Daniel Maude, Esq., had to find all the accused guilty but he dealt 
with them as leniently as he possibly could and only bound them 
over to keep the peace themselves in future. 

Finally, at the end of December, Messrs. Pauling & Henfrey 
succeeded in getting sentence against two of their opponents, 
likewise on charges of assault against one of their workers. But 
this time the court was not so lenient. Without more ado, it 
sentenced them to a month’s imprisonment and bound them over 
to keep the peace after their release. 

From here on news about the strike becomes meagre. It was still 
in full swing on January 18. I have found no later reports.” It 
has probably come to an end like most others; in the course of 
time Pauling & Henfrey will have secured a sufficient number of 
workers from distant parts and from a few turncoats from the 
workers’ side; after a longer or shorter strike and its accompany- 
ing misery, for which the strikers will have been consoled by the 
consciousness that they have nothing to reproach themselves with 
and that they have helped to maintain the level of wages of their 
fellow workers, the majority of them will have found jobs 
elsewhere. And as for the points in dispute, Messrs. Pauling & 
Henfrey will have learnt that they cannot impose their will so 
rigorously, since for them also the strike involved considerable loss, 
and the other employers, after such a fierce struggle, will not think 
of changing the old rules of the craftsmen carpenters so soon. 

Brussels