The combination of these chapels or the formation of tacit understandings between them created a sort of trade union, and the combination of their funds made possible the raising of the large amounts of money necessary to employ counsel and carry on the litigations against the employers. The employers, often backed by the authorities, strove throughout this period to prevent these combinations. They understood fully the tactical value of the precept “divide and rule,” and they did their best to keep the journeymen divided and at the same time to strengthen the bonds of their own union. In this, however, they were only partially successful. In spite of edicts to the contrary, the chapels, though unable to form an open, strong organization which could meet the Community on equal terms or to act with the openness and authority of the modern trade union, nevertheless maintained a very real and often effective organization through correspondence, conferences, and other methods of securing mutual agreement and common action. In addition to the general settlements of industrial conditions which were sought by legislation, individual disputes in particular shops or localities were often settled by arbitration. The great difficulty about these arbitrations, which rendered their results unsatisfactory and was never obviated during this whole period, arose from the impossibility of agreeing on a satisfactory board of arbitrators. The masters insisted that all these arbitrations should be referred either to the courts or to the syndics. To this the journeymen seriously objected. They felt that the courts would not really arbitrate but would settle the matter by an application of the statutes, and they knew by experience that the statutes were generally construed against the journeymen wherever possible. They were on the whole very law-abiding people. They had no disposition to break the statutes, but the questions which they wanted decided were either as to the application of the statutes or as to points not covered by them. On the other hand they felt that the syndics were entirely unqualified to act as arbitrators for the reason that they were masters and consequently interested parties. The masters were insistent whenever possible that these cases should go to the syndics, although as an alternative they were willing that they should go to the courts. The journeymen desired that arbitration boards should be composed of masters, workmen, and citizens not connected with the industry. They maintained that only thus could the interests of all be fairly represented and an impartial arbitration secured. To this type of board the masters almost invariably objected, and they generally refused to submit to its findings. In this regard the journeymen appear to much better advantage than the masters throughout this period. The main points of dispute have already been indicated and were on the whole not different from similar difficulties today.