The following is also an interesting document, signed by Billingsley along with other artists:—“From the many injuries done to the trade by employing Women in Painting of China, &c., Particularly not being employ’d in London in any Painting or Gilding Shop whatsoever, we hope you will not withstand Granting us the favour of their not being employ’d here.

In this matter of opposition to the employment of women Billingsley seems, later on, to have relented, as will be seen by the following very nice letter from Bernice Banford, one of the female painters employed, and wife of one of the men:—“Sir, I hope you will excuse me for takeing the liberty to trouble you again, as my motive for writeing is to Return you thanks for the Favour you was pleased to confer in allowing me some work. I have only painted 4 Dozen and 3 plates, at 3d. each, which I believe is Charged Right, but know not whether I am so happy to merit your approbation in the Performance. Mr. John Duesbury would have sent me more work, but Mr. Banford Declin’d it till your return, as all the men (Mr. Bilinsley and Mr. Complin Excepted) treated him in a very unbecoming manner, and even threaten’d him if the work was continu’d to me, which would at this time be of the greatest service to my Family, and should be very happy to contribute to its support. Pardon me, Sir, if I presume to say I am certain one word from you would ease their Doubts and effectually silence them. I am, Sir, with the greatest Respect, your Obliged, Humble Servt., Bernice Banford.—March ye 3.”

Billingsley appears to have been paid from about £1 10s. to £2 per week at the Derby China Works, and several of his accounts and receipts are in my possession. In one of these (September 23rd, 1793), the balance due to him being £34 7s. 2d., he asks for “a draft on London for £30 at twenty-one days’ date,” on account, as usual, and acknowledges to having “lost some little time, which in some degree differs from our agreement, but it has been a matter of necessity, not choice;” and states that as he shall “in the course of a fortnight quit the public business,”—he at this time, as I gather, being landlord of a public-house (the “Nottingham Arms” in Bridgegate, Derby)—he shall be able to make up the time so lost. Again, receipts in 1793–4–5, show that he was still at that time in Mr. Duesbury’s employ in Derby. It may be well, before proceeding further, to say that, from a curious draft of an order to the painters employed at the Derby China Works, in my own possession, William Billingsley’s number which he was supposed from that time (not long before he left) to mark on such pieces as he painted was 7. The document is so curious, and will be so interesting to collectors, that I give it entire. It is as follows, and is in the second William Duesbury’s own handwriting:—

“Every Painter to mark underneath each Article he may finish, the number corresponding to his name, and any other mark which may be required, in such manner as he may be directed (viz.):—

Thos. Soar1
Jos. Stables2
Wm. Cooper3
Wm. Yates4
Jno. Yates5
6
William Billingsley7
Wm. Longdon8
Wm. Smith9
Jno. Blood10
Wm. Taylor (except on blue and white)11
Jno. Duesbury12
Jos. Dodd13

The Painter in fine blue, and in laying grounds to use for his mark the like colours.

Ditto, in other coloursOrange-red.
Ditto, in GoldPurple.

“On omission of the above Injunctions, for the first Offence (after this public notice), the person so offending shall forfeit to the Box which contains donations for the Manufactory at large, one-fourth of the value of the Article or Articles found to be deficient in marking; for the second, one-half of the value; and for the third, the whole of the value, and discharged the Manufactory. And if any Painter is found working at any hour contrary to those already appointed for Business, without Permission or Orders, such person shall, for the first offence forfeit to the Box 6d.; for the second, 1s.; for the third, 2s., and so on, doubling each time.”