London, 1 June 1874 

Dear Sir, 

A fortnight’s absence from London, and subsequently a slight 
cut in my hand which however disabled me for some time from 
writing, have caused some delay in my replying to your letter of 
the 16th April. 

When, in 1869, we discussed the conditions on which ultimately 
I left the business,** I certainly gave you reason to hope that, even 
after the lapse of the five years stipulated, I might consent to allow 
you to retain my name in the firm. But this was always made 
dependent upon certain contingencies. 

Had these contingencies been realised, I should have been quite 
willing, on application, to allow you to continue the use of my 
name in the firm. 

But certainly, no word ever uttered by me could have induced 
you to consider yourself entitled to continue using my name after 
the 30th instant as a matter of course, and without my express 
permission. 

The principal amongst these contingencies were: 

1) That there should occur no collisions between the Manchester 
house, and that of my brothers* in Barmen. I am glad to say, that 

a Hermann and Rudolf Engels 

none such have occurred, and that moreover, from what I heard 
of my brothers last autumn, none are likely to occur, the two 
houses scarcely ever coming into competition. 

2) That Mr Acton’s views as to my not incurring any liability 
should prove correct. 

Now I have consulted upon this point ever so many lawyers, and 
they are one and all unanimous as to my responsibility for all the 
debts of the firm so long as I allow my name to remain in the 
firm. 

If you would be good enough to send me Mr Acton’s opinion 
on the point written by himself, I believe I could make short work 
of this misunderstanding. 

The point is so notorious, that it is laid down in plain terms in 
all handbooks on the law of partnership. I quote from one by a 
barrister of high reputation: . 

‘If any retiring partner consent to be held out to the public as connected with 

the firm, as for instance by allowing his name to be written over the shop, or used 
in the advertisements or invoices of the firm, he will continue liable, 

So that, if there can be anything positive in English Law (which 
I should not risk to assert), it must be this point. 

But even supposing Mr Acton to be right on this point, and all 
the other lawyers wrong, the contrary opinion of the others would 
merely prove the point to be such a knotty one that, if the very 
improbable case now under consideration should ever occur, and 
if my money should not go to the Creditors, it would surely go to 
the Chancery Lawyers.” 

However, I shall be quite willing to give my consent to the old 
firm being continued for a period not extending beyond the 30th 
June 1875, on the condition of your giving me a distinct promise, 
that after the 30th of September 1875 my name shall not any 
longer appear as that of a partner on any goods sent out by the 
firm. 

You see I am quite willing to do everything to facilitate the 
change of firm, giving you the use of my name there, where it is 
of most value to you, on the tickets and wrappers, for three 
months longer than you ask for. 

Hoping that this letter will find you in good health and spirits, I 
remain 

Yours very truly, 
Fr. Engels