Mayhew records these comments on technique from a chimney sweep living in Bethnal Green in the 1840s:

"There are two or three ways of climbing. In wide flues, you climb with your elbows and your legs spread out, your feet pressing against the sides of the flue, but in narrow flues, such as nine-inch ones, you must slant it; you must have your sides in the angles, it's widest there, and go up that way."

Mayhew describes:

"Here he threw himself into position -- placing one arm close to his side, with the palm of his hand turned outwards, as if pressing the side of the flue, and extending the other arm high above his head, the hand apparently pressing in the same manner."

Here are two sketchs of four boys in various flue-cleaning positions, and another of four boys in adjacent flues.

"I have known eight or nine sweeps lost their lives by the sooty cancer. The private parts which is seizes are entirely eaten off caused entirely by 'sleeping black,' and breathing the soot in all night."

Repeated violations of Goldsmiths' Company regulations are noted throughout De Lamerie's career. In 1714, he was fined for "not having his work hallmarked"; further complaints were filed the following November because the fine remained unpaid. In 1715, he was accused of passing off work made by others as his own. Similar charges were made the next year. By 1717, he was known as the King's Silversmith, but was also named in a complaint for making and selling unmarked wares. In 1722, he was, of course, accused of cheating Armory, the chimneysweep's boy. And in 1726, he was involved in the trial of Robert Dingley, a goldsmith involved in exporting silver to Russia. Dingley was preparing to ship a large number of silver wares when the Goldsmiths' Company tried to intercept his shipment on the suspicion that pieces were not assayed and that the requisite duty was unpaid. Much of the wares, in fact, were unmarked, and around half of the goods were supplied by Paul De Lamerie. Nevertheless, Dingley avoided inspection by distracting Company officials in a tavern while the goods were being loaded and dispatched overseas.

While these violations did not affect De Lamerie's business in any significant way, in his extensive biography of De Lamerie, P.A.S. Phillips refers to Armory v. Delamirie as an "extraordinary incident in his career, which was to bring him into a different sphere of fame, although quite unintentionally and unexpectedly on his part."

[to be continued]

Prior to the lawsuit, De Lamerie's business had been flourishing. In 1717, he was admitted to the livery of the Goldsmiths' Company and would eventually secure the highest post offered by the Company, Prime Wardenship. Evidence introduced in the case revealed that in addition to a workshop, De Lamerie also kept an "open shop for ordinary trading purposes" where he also dealt in jewelry. This is confirmed by a document issued after his death for sale of his stock by auction.

In a recent article, De Lamerie is referred to as a "pioneer of what became the Industrial revolution, operating a workshop or factory with a retail arm; he also began by making all the works that bore his maker's mark himself, then devising a system whereby his designs were manufactured by other craftsmen working under his supervision." De Lamerie designed but probably did not assist in constructing his masterpiece of Rococo style, the Maynard dish.