The Ceramic Art of Breat Britain Volume 1 (of 2)

LOCAL SECRETARY OF THE SOCIETY OF ANTIQUARIES OF LONDON;
HON. AND ACTUAL MEMBER OF THE RUSSIAN IMPERIAL ARCHÆOLOGICAL COMMISSION, AND STATISTICAL
COMMITTEE, PSKOV;
MEMBER OF THE ROYAL ARCHÆOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND;
ASSOCIATE OF THE BRITISH ARCHÆOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION;
HON. MEMBER OF THE ESSEX ARCHÆOLOGICAL SOCIETY AND OF THE MANX SOCIETY, ETC.;
COR. MEMBER OF THE ROYAL HISTORICAL SOCIETY,
ETC. ETC. ETC.

In issuing my present work I have two distinct personal duties to perform, and I hasten, in these few brief lines of introduction, to discharge them. First, I earnestly desire to ask indulgence from my readers for any shortcomings which may be apparent in its contents; and next, I desire emphatically to express my thanks to all who have in any way, or even to the smallest extent, assisted me in my labours. The preparation of the work has extended over a considerable period of time, and I have had many difficulties to contend with that are, and must necessarily be, wholly unknown to any but myself—hard literary digging to get at facts and to verify dates, that is not understood, and would scarce be believed in, by the reader who turns to my pages—and hence errors of omission and of commission may have, nay, doubtless have crept in, and may in some places, to a greater or less extent, have marred the accuracy of the page whereon they have occurred. I can honestly say I have left nothing undone, no source untried, and no trouble untaken to secure perfect accuracy in all I have written, and yet I am painfully aware that shortcomings may, and doubtless will, be laid to my charge; for these, wherever they occur, I ask, and indeed claim, indulgence. I believe in work, in hard unceasing labour, in patient and painstaking research, in untiring searchings, and in diligent collection and arrangement of facts—to make time[viii] and labour and money subservient to the end in view, rather than that the end in view, and the time and labour and money expended, should bend and bow and ultimately break before time. Thus it is that my “Ceramic Art” has been so long in progress, and thus it is that many changes have occurred during the time it has been passing through the press which it has been manifestly impossible to chronicle.

I have the proud satisfaction, however, of knowing that my work is the only one of its kind yet attempted, and I feel a confident hope that it will fill a gap that has long wanted filling, and will be found alike useful to the manufacturer, the china collector, and the general reader.

When, some twenty years ago, at the instance of my dear friend Mr. S. C. Hall, I began my series of papers in the Art Journal upon the various famous earthenware and porcelain works of the kingdom, but little had been done in that direction, and the information I got together from time to time had to be procured from original sources, by prolonged visits to the places themselves and by numberless applications to all sorts of people from whom even scraps of reliable matter could be obtained. Books on the subject were not many, and the information they contained on English Ceramics was meagre in the extreme. Since then numerous workers have sprung up, and their published volumes—many of them sumptuous and truly valuable works—attest strongly to the interest and pains they have taken in the subject. To all these, whoever they may be, the world owes a debt of gratitude for devoting their time and their talents to so important a branch of study. To each of them I tender my own thanks for having devoted themselves to the elucidation of one of my favourite pursuits, and for having given to the world the result of their labours. No work has, however, until now been entirely devoted to the one subject of British Ceramics, and I feel therefore that in presenting my present volumes to the public I am only carrying out the plan I at first laid down, and am[ix] not even in the slightest degree encroaching on the province of any other writer.

I think I may safely say there is scarcely a manufacturer—even if there be one at all—in the length and breadth of the kingdom with whom I have not frequently communicated in the progress of this work. Except in some few solitary instances I have received the information I have sought, and my inquiries have met with the most cordial and ready response.

To all those who have thus assisted me with information or otherwise, and especially to my friend Mr. Goss, who has greatly assisted me over the onerous task of some of the Staffordshire potteries, I offer my warmest thanks; and to those few others, who from inattention, shortsightedness, or other cause, have not responded to my inquiries, I would express my sorrow if, through that inattention on their part, I have been unable to give as full particulars regarding their potteries as I could have wished. To thank by name those who have assisted me with information would require a long list indeed; I therefore tender my acknowledgments to all in the one emphatic good old English expression—“Thank you!”

CHAPTER I.

The history of the ceramic art in our own country is one of intense interest and of paramount importance. I open my present work, which I intend to devote to its consideration, with this assertion, and before it is done I hope I shall have proved its truth.

CHAPTER I.
	PAGE
Practice of the Art in England—The Celtic Period—Classes of Vessels—Cinerary Urns—Food Vessels—Drinking Cups, &c.—Modes of Ornamentation—Food Vessels—Immolation Urns or Incense Cups—Handled Cups	1
CHAPTER II.
Romano-British Pottery—Upchurch Ware—Durobrivian Ware—Roman Potters’ Kilns—Pottery in London—Salopian Ware—New Forest Ware—Yorkshire, Oxfordshire, Lincolnshire, and other Wares—Varieties of Vessels: Amphoræ, Mortaria, &c.—Sepulchral Vessels—Tiles—Tile Tombs—Clay Coffins—Lamps—Penates—Coin Moulds, &c.	24
CHAPTER III.
Anglo-Saxon Pottery—Forms of Vessels, from Illustrated MSS.—Culinary Vessels—Pitchers and other domestic Vessels—Cinerary Urns—Cemeteries at Kingston, King’s Newton, Bedford, &c.—Modes of Ornamenting	64
CHAPTER IV.
Pottery of the Norman and Mediæval Periods—Examples from Illuminated MSS.—Norman Potworks at Burley Hill—The Ferrars Family—Mediæval Pottery—Grotesque Vessels—Costrils—Mammiform Vessels—The Cruiskeen or Cruiska—Godets, &c.—Simpson’s Petition—Rous and Cullyn’s Patent—Bellarmines—Ale-pots—Salt-glazing—Butter-pots—Dr. Plott—State of Staffordshire Potteries—Combed Ware—Ariens Van Hamme—John Dwight—The Brothers Elers—The Tofts—William Sans—Tygs—Candlesticks—Cradles, &c.	76
CHAPTER V.
Pottery in England in the Eighteenth Century—Delft Ware—Posset Pots—Billin’s Patent—Redrich and Jones’s Patent—Benson’s Patents—Ralph Shawe’s Patents—Trial of Right—The Bow Works—Heylyn and Frye’s Patents—The Fulham Works—White’s Patent—The Count de Lauraguais’ Patent—Staffordshire Wares—The Plymouth Works—William Cookworthy’s Patent—Josiah Wedgwood—Crease’s and other Patents—Ralph Wedgwood’s Patents—Progress of the Art during the Century	107
CHAPTER VI.
The Fulham Works—Dwight’s Inventions and Patents—First China made in England—Dwight’s Books of Recipes, &c.—Present Productions—Lambeth—Exchequer Trial—High Street—Coade’s Works—London Pottery—Lambeth Pottery—Fore Street—Waters’ Patent—Imperial Pottery—Crispe’s China—Blackfriars Road—Bas-reliefs for Wedgwood Institute—Vauxhall—Aldgate—Millwall—Mortlake—Southwark; Gravel Lane—Isleworth—Stepney—Greenwich—Deptford—Merton—Hounslow—Wandsworth—Ewell—Cheam—Chiselhurst	118
CHAPTER VII.
Chelsea—M. Spremont—Sale of the Works to Duesbury—Removal to Derby—Wages Bills—Simpson’s Works—Wedgwood’s Works—Ruhl’s Works—Bow—Heylin and Frye—Weatherby and Crowther—Craft—Sale of Works to Duesbury—Kentish Town—Giles and Duesbury—Euston Road—Mortlocks and others—Hoxton—Hammersmith	168
CHAPTER VIII.
Worcester—Royal Porcelain Works—Dr. Wall—Warmstry House and its Owners—The Porcelain Company—Early Marks—Transfer Printing—King of Prussia Mug—Josiah Holdship—Poem—Robert Hancock—Richard Holdship—Derby China Works—Caughley—Flight and Barr—Chamberlain—Kerr and Binns—R. W. Binns—Productions of the Works—Royal Services—Tokens—Royal China Works—Granger and Lee—Productions—St. John’s Encaustic Tiles—Rainbow Hill Tileries—St. George’s Pottery Works—Rustic Terra-Cotta—Stourbridge—The Lye Works—Stourbridge Clay	221
CHAPTER IX.
Salopian Wares—Uriconium—Caughley Works—Thomas Turner—Introduction of “Willow Pattern”—Worcester Works—Close of Caughley Works—Marks—Transfer Printing—Hancock and Holdship—Coalport Works—Jackfield—John Rose—Swansea and Nantgarw—Productions of the Coalport Works—Marks—“Willow Pattern” and “Broseley Blue Dragon,” &c.—Broseley Pipes—Coalbrookdale Iron Works—Terra Cotta—Madeley—Martin Randall’s China—Jackfield Pottery—Maurice Thursfield—“Black Decanters”—China—Craven Dunnill & Co.’s Tile Works—Broseley—Benthall—Maw’s Tile Works—Broseley Tileries—Benthall Potteries—Coalmoor	263
CHAPTER X.
Plymouth—William Cookworthy—The Divining Rod—Discovery of Petuntse and Kaolin—Productions of the Plymouth Works—Patent—Specification—Marks—Sale to Champion—Transference to Bristol—Death of Cookworthy—Plymouth Earthenware Works—Watcombe—Terra-Cotta Works—Honiton—Exeter—Bovey Tracey Pottery—Indiho Pottery—Bovey Pottery—Folley Pottery—Bideford Pottery—Framington Pottery—Aller Pottery	318
CHAPTER XI.
Bristol—Delft Ware—Redcliffe Backs—Richard Frank—Ring—Flower—Bristol China—William Cookworthy—Richard Champion—Transference of Plymouth Works—Extension of Patent—Wedgwood’s Opposition—“Case” of the Manufacturers—Champion’s Specification—Champion’s Productions—Edmund Burke—Bristol Vases—Figures—Marks—Bristol Earthenware—Temple Backs—Potters’ Songs—Temple and St. Thomas’s Street Works—Temple Gate—Wilder Street—Bristol Glass—William Edkins—Salt Glaze—Brislington—Crews Hole—Westbury—Easton—Weston-super-Mare—Matthews’s Royal Pottery—Poole—Architectural Pottery Company—Bourne Valley—Branksea—Kinson	350
CHAPTER XII.
Nottingham Ware—List of Potters—Nottingham Mugs—Bears—Lowesby—Coalville—Ibstock—Tamworth—Wilnecote—Coventry—Nuneaton—Broxburne—Stamford—Roman Kiln—Blasfield’s Terra-Cotta—Bolingbroke—Wisbech—Lowestoft and Gunton—Delft Ware—Lowestoft China—Stowmarket—Ipswich—Ebbisham—Wrotham—Yarmouth—Cossey—Cadborough—Rye—Gestingthorpe—Holkham—Nuneham Courtney—Marsh Balden—Horspath—Shotover	415
CHAPTER XIII.
York—Place’s Ware—Hirstwood’s China—Layerthorpe—Osmotherley—Hull—Belle Vue Pottery—Stepney Lane Pottery—Leeds—Hartley, Greens, & Co.—Britton and Sons—Leathley Lane Pottery—Castleford Pottery—Eagle Pottery—Pontefract—Ferrybridge—Knottingley—Ralph Wedgwood—Swinton Pottery—Rockingham Ware—Cadogan Pots—Rockingham China—Brameld & Co.—Dale’s Patent—Baguley’s Productions—Mexborough—Rock Pottery—Mexborough Pottery—Mexborough Old Pottery—Rawmarsh—Rotherham—North Field Pottery—Holmes’s Pottery—Don Pottery—Denaby—Kilnhurst—Wath-upon-Dearne—Newhill Pottery—Wakefield—Potovens—Yearsley—Wortley—Healey—Colsterdale	460

It is a subject which may be treated in more ways than one. It may be considered technically, i.e. with regard to manipulation, to the mixing of bodies and glazes, and the practical parts of the potter’s art; or historically, so as to treat of the introduction and progress of the art in this country, its gradual extension and improvement, the chief seats of its operations, and the characteristics of the productions of each age and place. To neither of these do I purpose confining myself; but to the latter I shall, here and there, mix up just sufficient of the former to render it more intelligible and useful. The main ingredients of the “body”—to use a potter’s term—of my work will be history, description, and biography, with just sufficient technicology to temper it and give it its proper tenacity and consistency. For the facts relating to the earliest examples of that art, from which I shall deduce my narrative, I rely upon actual researches into grave-mounds and otherwise, undertaken by myself or by others; and for the rest—those relating to the art in mediæval and later times—upon constant inquirings and searchings and readings carried on, with this special end in view, during the course of many years.

It is impossible to show when the potter’s art was first invented or when it was first brought into use in this island; but that it was practised here in the very earliest days of its being inhabited by its[2] savage population can be abundantly proved. To this pre-historic period, then, I shall first direct attention; and then endeavour to trace the history of the art down from the Celtic to the Romano-British period; from the time of the Romans to the Anglo-Saxons and Normans; and so gradually come downwards through mediæval to modern times, giving, under each separate seat of the more modern manufacture, historical notices of the works and their founders, and descriptive particulars of the more characteristic of their productions.

The practice of the fictile art in England dates back, as I have already said, to a very remote period—that of its Celtic or ancient British population, by whom there is abundant evidence it was much esteemed. It is pleasant to know, and to be able indisputably to prove, that from those early days down to the present time the art has, through a long succession of ages, continued with more or less skill, to be observed among us, and that thus in pottery, as in nothing else, an unbroken chain, connecting us in our present high state of civilisation with our remote barbarian forefathers of the stone age, exists. The weapons and other implements of imperishable stone and flint have, long ages ago, died out, and any possible connection between them and the weapons or tools of our own day has died with them; but the vessels of simple clay have an abiding-place with us which has lasted without a break until now, and will yet last for ever. Hitherto the course of the potter’s art has been one of constant and gradual improvement; but its capabilities for further development are almost unbounded, and another generation will witness advances of which we can now but dimly dream.

Among the ancient Britons, vessels of clay were formed for sepulchral and other uses, and it is entirely to their grave-mounds that we are indebted for the examples which have survived to our time. It is in the course of examination of these mounds that these fictile remains have been brought to light; and it is by a careful examination of these alone, and by constant comparison of the “finds” of one locality with the discoveries of another, that a proper estimate of their character has been, or can be, drawn.

The pottery of this period may be safely arranged in four classes[1], viz.—1. Sepulchral or Cinerary Urns, which have been made for and have contained, or been inverted over, calcined human bones; 2. Drinking Cups, which, in a similar manner, are supposed to have contained some liquid to be placed with the dead body; 3. Food Vessels (so called), which are supposed to have contained an offering of food, and which are more usually found with unburnt bodies than along with interments by cremation; 4. Immolation Urns, (erroneously called Incense Cups by Sir R. Colt Hoare for want of more knowledge of their use), which are very small vessels, found only with burnt bones (and usually also containing them), placed in the mouths of, or close by, the larger cinerary urns.[4] These latter I believe to have been simply small urns intended to receive the ashes of the infant, perhaps sacrificed at the death of its mother, so as to admit of being placed within the larger urn containing the ashes of the parent: I venture, therefore, to name them “Immolation Urns.”

No notice of the pottery of this period is to be found in ancient writers, if we except the allusion of Strabo,[2] who says that one of the commodities with which the Phœnicians traded to the Cassiterides was earthenware. But in connection with this it is necessary to state that no example of pottery which can possibly be traced to Phœnician origin has as yet been found in any of the hundreds of barrows which have been opened.

The pottery exhibits considerable difference, both in clay, in size, and in ornamentation. Those presumed to be the oldest are of coarse clay mixed with small pebbles and sand; the later ones of a somewhat less clumsy form, and perhaps a finer mixture of clays. They are entirely wrought by hand without the assistance of the wheel, and are mostly very thick and clumsy. They are very imperfectly fired, having probably been baked on the funeral pyre.

In the examination of barrows of this period it not unfrequently happens that the spot where the funeral pyre has been lit can very clearly be perceived. In these instances the ground beneath is generally found to be burned to some considerable depth; sometimes, indeed, it is burned to a fine red colour, and approaches in[5] texture somewhat to that of brick. Where it was intended that the remains should be placed in an urn for interment, it appears, from careful examinations which have been made, that the urn being formed of clay—most probably, judging from the delicacy of touch, and from the impress of fingers which occasionally remains, by the females of the tribe—and ornamented according to the taste of the manipulator, was placed in the funeral fire and there baked, while the body of the deceased was being consumed. The remains of the calcined bones, the flints, &c., were then gathered up together, and placed in the urn; over which the mound was next raised.

From their imperfect firing, the vessels of this period are usually called “sun-baked” or “sun-dried;” but this is a grave error, as any one conversant with examples cannot fail, on careful examination, to see. If the vessels were “sun-baked” only, their burial in the earth—in the tumuli wherein, some two thousand years ago, they were deposited, and where they have all that time remained—would soon soften them, and they would, ages ago, have returned to their old clayey consistency. As it is, the urns have remained of their original form, and although, from imperfect baking, they are sometimes found partially softened, they still retain their form, and soon regain their original hardness. They bear abundant evidence of the action of fire, and are, indeed, sometimes sufficiently burned for the clay to have attained a red colour—a result which no “sunbaking”[6] could produce. They are mostly of an earthy brown colour outside, and almost black in fracture, and many of the cinerary urns bear internal and unmistakable evidence of having been filled with the burnt bones and ashes of the deceased, while those ashes were of a glowing and intense heat. They were, most probably, fashioned by the females of the tribe, on the death of their relative, from the clay to be found nearest to the spot, and baked on or by the funeral pyre. The glowing ashes and bones were then, as I have already stated, collected together, and placed in the urn, and the flint implements, and occasionally other relics belonging to the deceased, deposited along with them. In some instances, however, it is probable that even the cinerary urns were burned in a separate fire, as were the “drinking cups,” which are usually fired to a much harder degree than they are. No kiln, or anything approaching to one, however, could of course have been used.

The Cinerary or Sepulchral Urns vary very considerably in size, in form, in ornamentation, and in material—the latter, naturally, depending on the locality where the urns were made; and, as a[7] general rule, they differ also in the different tribes. Those which are supposed to be the most ancient, from the fact of their frequently containing flint instruments along with the calcined bones, are of large size, ranging from nine or ten, to sixteen or eighteen inches in height. Those which are considered to belong to a somewhat later period, when cremation had again become general, are of a smaller size, and of a somewhat finer texture. With them objects of flint are rarely found, but articles of bronze are occasionally discovered. Sometimes they are wide at the mouth, without any overlapping rim; at others they are characterised by a deeply overlapping lip or rim; others are more of “flower-pot” form, with encircling raised bands, while others again are contracted inwardly at the mouth by curved rims. Some also have loops at the sides. The ornamentation is produced chiefly by incised lines, or punctures, or by lines, &c., produced by indenting into the soft clay a twisted thong (Fig. 37). Encircling and zig-zag lines of[8] various forms, reticulated and lozenge-formed patterns, and rows of indentations, are the usual decorations; but occasionally, as at West Kennet and Launceston Heath, clearly defined patterns are produced by the finger or thumb nail.

The more usual of the forms will be best understood by the engraved examples, selected from the proceeds of many barrow openings in different parts of the kingdom.

The four urns (Fig. 2, 3, 4, and 6) are characteristic examples of the variety with the broad or deep overlapping border or rim. The first of these has the pattern incised in the soft clay, that on the rim being in diagonal lines, and the central portion reticulated. The second has the herring-bone or chevron ornament around its rim, and the third example is ornamented with horizontal and vertical lines alternately on its rim, and zig-zagged, filled in with horizontal and crossed, lines on the central part. The lines in this are all produced by indenting a twisted thong into the clay while in a soft state. Fig. 16 has its ornamentation indented with twisted thongs in “herring-bone” pattern both on the outside and inside the rim and around the central part. Fig. 8 has a central band as well as overhanging lip. Figs. 11 and 13, from Dorsetshire barrows,[3] are of different form, the ornamentation consisting of incised lines and impressed thumbmarks, &c. The remaining engravings also give excellent examples of other forms and varieties of these sepulchral vessels. Figs. 9 and 10 have the upper part curved, and almost approaching to cup shape, and Fig. 7 has raised bands; in Fig. 14 the upper parts are hollowed out; and in Fig. 15 the upper part is marked with lozenges. Figs. 19 and 23 are ornamented with indented dots produced by pressing the end of a stick or other substance into the soft clay. Fig. 23 has these dots in zig-zag lines.

Fig. 21 has the reticulated lines produced by indentations from twisted thongs. Fig. 22 is a remarkably fine example. Around its upper portion are encircling lines, between which is the usual zig-zag ornament. Around the central band, too, are encircling lines, between which are a series of vertical zig-zag lines. The whole of the ornamentation has been produced by twisted thongs; some, however, being of tighter twist than others. Inside, the rim is ornamented by encircling and diagonal lines. It has on[15] its central band four projecting handles or loops, which are pierced. Nine other looped examples, from Cornwall, are shown on Figs. 5, 17, 24, 25, 26, 27, 29, 30, and 35;[4] along with other examples from[16] the same county. Figs. 18 and 20 are two “Immolation Urns,” found along with, or in, Figs. 19 and 21. Fig. 38 shows a kind of ear or handle on the side of another vessel.

The Drinking Cups are usually of tall form, globular in the lower[17] half, contracted in the middle, and expanding at the mouth. In ornamentation they are more elaborate than the cinerary urns, many of them, in fact, being covered over their entire surface with impressed or incised patterns, frequently of considerable delicacy in manipulation, and always of a finer and higher quality than those of the other descriptions of pottery. Figs. 39 to 48 will show some of the varieties both of form and style of decoration. Instances have been known in which a kind of incrustation has been very perceptible on the inner surface, thus showing that their use as vessels for holding liquor is certain; the incrustation being produced by the gradual drying up of the liquid with which they had been filled when placed with the dead body.

Fig. 47, which, however, may perhaps be a food vessel, has the unusual feature of being ornamented on the bottom quite as elaborately as around its sides. The bottom is shown on Fig. 48. The whole of the ornamentation has been produced by the indentation of twisted thongs into the pliant clay.

Fig. 39, from Fimber, is richly and elaborately ornamented over its entire surface with the most delicate indentations, and is (with Fig. 42) one of the best and most perfect of known examples. When found it stood close to the shoulders of the skeleton of a strong-boned, middle-aged, man, which lay on the right side. Fig. 42 is equally as elaborate in ornamentation, and as good in form. Like the former, it is ornamented by thong indentations. Fig. 41 is of the same general shape, but not so elaborate in design; the greater portion of the ornamentation consisting of reticulated and lozenge patterns. Fig. 45 is also a remarkably good example, and is about equal in point of ornament with Fig. 46. Fig. 40 is of very different form, as are also Figs. 43 and 44. The ornamentation on the first of these is produced in the usual way, and on the second, by simple indentations. Other forms of drinking cups are met with, but these are the most usual.

The Food Vessels—small urns, so called because they were probably intended to contain an offering of food—are of various forms and sizes, and are, in point of decoration, more or less elaborate. They are usually small at the bottom, and gradually swell out until[19] they become, frequently, wider at the mouth than they are in height. They are formed of clay of much the same kind as the other vessels, and are fired to about the same degree of hardness. Figs. 49 to 57 will show their general form and style of decoration. Figs. 49 and 50 were found in the same barrow, and yet, as will be seen, exhibit very different styles of ornamentation. The first of these is four and three quarter inches in height, and five and a half inches in diameter at the top. It is richly ornamented with the usual diagonal and herring-bone lines, formed by twisted thongs impressed into the soft clay, in its upper part. Around the body of the urn itself, however, is a pattern of lozenge form, very unusual on vessels of this period. The second is five and a quarter inches in[21] height, and six and a quarter inches in diameter at the top. It is very richly ornamented.

Fig. 53 has the pattern rudely indented over its whole surface. Fig. 51 is coarse and rude, and the pattern very simple. Figs. 54, 55, and 57 are of different character, and have a kind of handle or projecting stud on four sides. They are among the most elaborate, in point of ornamentation, of any of these interesting vessels, of which other forms besides those engraved have occasionally been found. On Wykeham Moor, in Yorkshire the Rev. Canon Greenwell has brought to light some urns of a different character, and of greater width at the mouth.

The diminutive vessels, usually called (though, as I have said, erroneously) “Incense Cups,” but which I propose to call “Immolation Urns,” are ornamented in the same manner as the other pottery. The form, as will be seen from Figs. 58 to 75, varies much, from a plain salt-cellar like cup to the more elaborately[22] rimmed vase. Three examples (Figs. 68, 70, and 75) have the very unusual appendage of a handle at one side; others have holes in their sides, as if for suspension, and I suspect this has been the case in the urn containing the ashes of the mother. Fig. 67 has four handles.

Holes for, as supposed, suspension, are shown in Figs. 58, 72, and 74; these have each two of these small perforations in the side. Others, as in Figs. 64 and 67, have perforated loops at their sides. Fig. 65 is of unusual form, having a broad rim round its mouth; it is elaborately ornamented. Figs. 5, 18 and 20 are shown with the urns with which they were found.

Other forms of these interesting little vessels, which generally range from an inch and a half to three inches in height, occur. They will be best understood from the engravings. One of these (Fig. 72), for the purpose of showing its pattern more carefully, is engraved of its FULL SIZE. It is a remarkable example, and has its bottom ornamented as well as its sides and rim, which are shown on Figs. 73 and 74. When found it was filled with burnt bones, probably of an infant. On one side were two perforations.

Among the unusual forms of Celtic pottery may be named the curious examples (Figs. 76 and 77) one of which is a kind of drinking mug with a handle, and the other is supported on feet. Fig. 76, and another of somewhat similar kind in the Ely Museum, are the only two known examples of this form of vessel, and they will be seen to be very richly ornamented.[23] Fig. 76 is in the Bateman collection, as is also Fig. 77. It is one of the class of vessels hitherto called incense cups, and is, I believe, unique—no other example on feet having come under my notice.

During the Romano-British period the fictile art was much practised in England, and not only was a large variety of wares produced, but an almost endless number of vessels were made. Potworks were established in many parts of the kingdom, some of which grew to very large dimensions, while others of a less important character and size still made wares of extremely good quality. The three principal potteries—at least so far as present researches have enabled us to judge—in England at this period were those on the Medway, in the Upchurch marshes, extending towards Sheerness, in Kent; the Durobrivian potteries on the river Nen, in Northamptonshire; and the Salopian potteries on the Severn, in Shropshire. Smaller pot works, however, being scattered over various parts of the kingdom.

With the well-known “Samian Ware,” the finest and most beautiful of the pottery of the Romans which is found in this country, I have, of course, nothing to do in my present work; for, although found so frequently and so abundantly in England, it was not manufactured here, and therefore does not come within its scope. I proceed, therefore, to speak of the various English seats of the manufacture.

Upchurch Ware.—The district wherein this pottery was made and is found so abundantly, is of five or six miles in length, and from one to two in breadth; and over the whole of this tract of country, at a distance of some few feet below the surface, a regular layer of remains of Roman fictile art occurs. To Mr. C. Roach Smith is due the greatest credit of bringing these under notice:—“There can be no doubt,” says Mr. Wright, “not only from the extent of ground covered by the potteries, but from the frequent[25] occurrence of the sort of pottery made here, among Roman remains in Britain belonging to different periods, that these potteries were in full activity during the whole extent of the Roman period. The site of the kilns was moved as the clay was used up, and at the same time the refuse pottery was thrown on the ground behind them, so that, when at last abandoned, this extensive site presented a surface of ground covered almost entirely by a bed of refuse pottery.” Here, then, the Roman figuli exercised, more extensively than anywhere else in England their art, and continued its practice for a long series of years. In those days the ground would of course be firm and dry. Since then, as is usually the case in so long a number of years, the soil has accumulated to the thickness of about three feet—the inroads which the Medway is constantly making upon it forming the creeks, and continually disclosing the remains left by the potters.

The ware made at Upchurch must have been in considerable repute, for it is found in Roman localities in most parts of the kingdom. On Roman sites in France and Germany and in Flanders, &c., wares of a precisely similar kind are found, and show that it is probable they were simultaneously made at different places. The prevailing colour of the ware is a bluish or greyish black, with a smooth and rather shining surface. A good deal, however, is of a dark drab colour. The black colour has been produced by the process of “firing” in “smother kilns”—a process well known to potters. The forms of the vessels, as well as the sizes, vary to a surprising extent, but they are all remarkable for the gracefulness and elegance[26] of their outline, and, in many instances, for the simplicity and effective character of the patterns with which they are decorated. The decorations consist chiefly of circles or semi-circles; lines, vertical or otherwise; bands, and numbers of raised dots arranged in a variety of ways. The clay used is fine, and the vessels are light and thin, and remarkably well “potted.”

The instruments used in the ornamentation of this pottery appear to have been of a very rude description, and were, as it seems, chiefly mere sticks, some sharpened to a point, and others with a transverse section cut into notches. The former were used in tracing the lines already described; the latter had the section formed into a square or rhomboid, the surface of which was cut into parallel lines crossing each other so as to form a dotted figure, and this was stamped on the surface of the pottery in various combinations and arrangements. Sometimes these dots are arranged so as to form bands;[5] and in[27] others simply “patch” ornaments. Other vessels were covered with reticulation, the lines being simply scratched into the surface of the clay; and others have bands of serrated lines.

The forms of some of the vessels from the Upchurch works will be seen on Fig. 78, and a series of other characteristic examples are given on Figs. 79 to 95.

One example (Fig. 80) is ornamented with half-circles traced on the clay as with compasses, from which run downwards rows of incised lines. On Fig. 78 is an example of much the same character of ornamentation although different in form.

Figs. 81, 85, 86, 87, and 88 are of different form, and are ornamented with raised dots in bands and patches; while 83 and 84 are “engine turned.” They are of remarkably elegant form.

Figs. 91, 92, 93, and 95 are more bottle shaped—in fact, approaching somewhat to the form of the mediæval bellarmine. Many varieties of this general form have been found in the marshes and elsewhere. Fig. 89 is particularly simple and elegant in shape, as are also several shown in the groups on this and the preceding pages. Among these is an example of another variety of ornamentation common to the Upchurch ware. It is formed by diagonal intersecting lines, and in form is much the same as the ordinary kind of Roman cinerary urns. In[28] the group, Fig. 94, are some examples of Upchurch and other wares.

No kilns have as yet been discovered in the Upchurch marshes, but doubtless further researches will yet bring them to light. Mr. Roach Smith, to whose incessant labours we owe the principal notices of these potteries, has discovered the remains of the extensive village of the potters, with traces of their habitations and of their graves, in the higher ground bordering on the marshes.

Castor Ware, or Durobrivian Ware, as it is variously called, is the production of the extensive Romano-British potteries on the river Nen, in Northamptonshire and Huntingdonshire; near Castor and Chesterton, in those counties respectively. In this locality, as the names of Chesterton and Castor undeniably prove to have been the case, an important settlement of the Romans was made, and excavations have brought to light the remains of a considerable town, and in connection with it, of a settlement of potters with the remains of their works extending over a district many miles in extent.

The great interest attaching to this locality is in the fact that this was not the first, but the first well ascertained discovery of a Roman pot-manufactory in this kingdom, and that at this spot the first kilns of that period have been uncovered, and the processes adopted by the Roman figuli brought to light.

The situation of the potteries was well chosen for carrying on an extensive trade with distant parts of the kingdom, and from researches searches which were made, the late Mr. Artis, to whom the discovery is due, computed that probably two thousand people had been employed in the fabrication of fictile vessels. It is on the line of one of the most important of the Roman roads—the Ermyn street—and close to the navigable river Nen; and that the products of the manufactory were supplied to places throughout the kingdom is abundantly testified by the remains which are almost invariably found in course of excavations wherever Roman occupation is known. Mr. Artis unfortunately, although he published a fine[29] folio volume of plates[6] of the more remarkable of the objects he discovered, never issued the descriptive and historical text which was intended to accompany it. The great bulk of the information he had gleaned he never committed to paper, and consequently it died with him. Mr. Artis, however, communicated some valuable particulars to Mr. C. Roach Smith, and these have been made public by him in the “Journal of the British Archæological Association”[7] and in the “Collectanea Antiqua.”[8] Mr. Artis in one of these says that during an examination of the pigments used by the Roman potters of Castor and its neighbourhood, he was “led to the conclusion that the blue and slate-coloured vessels met with here in such abundance were coloured by suffocating the fire of the kiln at the time when its contents had acquired a degree of heat sufficient to insure uniformity of colour. I had so firmly made up my mind on the process of manufacturing and firing this peculiar kind of earthenware, that I had denominated the kilns in which it had been fired “smother kilns.” The mode of manufacturing the bricks of which these kilns are made is worthy of notice. The clay was previously mixed with about one-third of rye in the chaff, which being consumed by the fire, left cavities in the room of the grains. This might have been intended to modify expansion and contraction, as well as to assist in the gradual distribution of the colouring vapour. The mouth of the furnace and the top of the kiln were no doubt stopped: thus we find every part of the kiln, from the inside wall to the mouth on the outside, and every part of the clay wrappers of the domes penetrated with the colouring exhalation.”

The researches further proved that the colour could not be attributed to any metallic oxide (although it must be confessed that in many instances the surface has a strongly developed metallic appearance) either in the clay itself or applied externally, and this conclusion is confirmed by the appearance of the clay wrappers of the dome of the kilns; and it may be added, the colour is so fugitive that it is expelled entirely, by submitting the pottery to an open fire. During the examination of the Upchurch pottery, Mr. Artis remarked that he thought a coarse kind of sedge had been used in the manufactory. His practical eye alone guided him to this conclusion, for he had never visited the site, and was quite unaware that below the strata of broken vessels, a layer of sedge peat is in several places visible. The same kind of arrangement probably obtained pretty generally with the Roman potters.

The kilns for firing the Castor ware, discovered by Mr. Artis, are among the most interesting of all the remains of Roman arts which have been brought to light. The kilns which were removed in the course of the investigations were “all constituted on the same principle: a circular hole was dug from three to four feet deep, and four in diameter, and walled round to the height of two feet. A furnace, one-third of the kiln in length, communicated with the side. In the centre of the circle so formed was an oval pedestal, the height of the sides, with the end pointing to the mouth of the furnace. Upon this pedestal and side walls the floor of the kiln rests. It was[31] formed of perforated angular bricks, meeting at one point in the centre; the furnace was arched with bricks, moulded for the purpose; the side of the kiln was constructed with curved bricks set edgeways (see Fig. 100) in a thick slip (the same material made into a thin mortar) to the height of two feet. The process of packing the vessels and securing uniform heat in firing the ware was the same in the two different kinds of kilns—namely, that before described, called ‘smother kiln,’ and that for various other kinds of pottery. They were first carefully loose-packed with the articles to be fired, up to the height of the side walls. The circumference of the bulk was then gradually diminished, and finished in the shape of a dome. As this arrangement progressed, an attendant seems to have followed the packer, and thinly covered a layer of pots with coarse hay or grass. He then took some thin clay, the size of his hand, and laid it flat over the grass upon the vessels: he then placed more grass on the edge of the clay just laid on—then more clay—and so on until he had completed the circle. By this time the packer would have raised another tier of pots, the plasterer following as before, hanging the grass over the top edge of the last layer of plasters, until he had reached the top, in which a small aperture was left, and the clay nipped round the edge; another coating would then be laid on as before described. Directly after, gravel or loam was thrown up against the side wall where the clay wrappers were commenced—probably to secure the bricks and the clay coating. The kiln was[32] then fired with wood.[9] In consequence of the care taken to place grass between the edges of the wrappers, they could be unpacked in the same size pieces as when laid on in a plastic state; and thus the danger in breaking the coat to obtain the contents of the kiln could be obviated. In the course of my excavations I discovered a curiously constructed furnace, of which I have never before or since met an example. Over it had been placed two circular vessels; the next above the furnace was a third less than the other, which would hold about eight gallons; the fire passed partly under both of them, the smoke escaping by a smoothly-plastered flue, from seven to eight inches wide. The vessels were suspended by the rims fitting into a circular groove or rabbet, formed for the purpose. They contained pottery, both perfect and fragmentary. It is probable they had covers, and I am inclined to think were used for glazing peculiar kinds of the immense quantities of ornamented ware made in this district. Its contiguity to one of the workshops in which the glaze (oxide of iron) and other pigments were found confirms this opinion.”

Fig. 102 is a kiln of a different construction. “In it, instead of modelling or moulding bricks for the kiln, the potters, after forming a tolerably round shaft, commenced plastering it three inches thick with clay, prepared for that purpose, leaving a flange twenty inches above the furnace floor to receive the floor of the kiln; a mode of construction unnoticed by me before in these kilns. In the centre was placed an oval pedestal, for the double purpose of dividing the fire and of giving support to the centre of the floor. To attach the pedestal to the back of the kiln, and to shut out the cold air which would lodge in the angle formed by the pedestal being so placed, the angle was filled with coarse materials, which were stopped up with clay, so as to draw the flame more towards the centre, and induce a union with the flame and heat entering the front part of the kiln.”[33] The more usual plan with the potters of this district in packing their kilns was, when the contents had reached the surface of the earth, to form a dome by covering the urns and vases lightly with dry grass, sedge, or the like, and plastering it over with patches of prepared clay, divided by strewing a small quantity of hay between each portion to facilitate removal. In place of this usual process, in this kiln bricks were used of an oblong shape, four inches by two and a half inches, wedge-shaped at one end, with a sufficient curve to traverse the circumference when set edgeways, with the wedge ends lapped over each other. The sides would be thus raised for three or four courses or more, as circumstances might require, and probably be afterwards backed up with loose earth. These bricks were modelled and kneaded with chaff and grain.”[10] The numbers indicate as follows:—1, front of the pedestal supporting the floor of the kiln; 2 2, slopes, probably intended to produce a more uniform heat; 3 3, part of the kiln floor; 4, bricks, before used; 5, area of the furnace; 6, mouth of furnace; 7, wall of kiln; 8, top of the pedestal. The mouth of the furnace, No. 6, was arched over.

The ware of the Durobrivian potteries was superior both in style of art and in form and material to that of Upchurch, and has an especial interest over it in the fact that it bears figures and various ornaments in relief, in the same manner as on the Samian ware. The ornament, especially the scrolls, &c., were laid on “in slip.” The vessel, after having been thrown on the wheel, would be allowed to become somewhat firm, but only sufficiently so for the purpose of the lathe. In the indented ware, the indenting would have to be performed with the vessel in as pliable a state as it could be taken from the lathe. A thick slip of the same body would then be procured, and the ornamentation would proceed.

“The vessels—on which are displayed a variety of hunting subjects, representations of fishes, scrolls, and human figures—were all glazed after the figures were laid on; where, however, the decorations are white, the vessels were glazed before the ornaments were added. Ornamenting with figures of animals was effected by means of sharp and blunt skewer instruments and a slip of suitable consistency. These instruments seem to have been of two kinds—one thick enough to carry sufficient slip for the nose, neck, body, and front thigh; the other of a more delicate kind, for a thinner slip, for the tongue, lower jaws, eye, fore and hind legs, and tail. There seems to have[35] been no retouching, after the slip trailed from the instrument. Field sports seem to have been favourite subjects with our Romano-British artists. The representations of deer and hare hunts are good and spirited; the courage and energy of the hounds, and the distress of the hunted animals are given with great skill and fidelity, especially when the simple and off-handed process by which they must have been executed is taken into consideration.”[11]

Two vessels with these hunting subjects are given in Figs. 108[37] and 110; and other designs of this character, exhibiting stag and hare hunts, are shown on Figs. 103 to 109.

Gladiatorial combats are also frequent subjects for representation on the Castor vases. One of these is given on Fig. 111, which represents one side of the celebrated “Colchester vase;” Fig. 103 being the design of another of its sides. The next engraving (Fig. 112) shows the chariot race in the Roman racecourse or stadium—the quadriga being well, although rudely, fashioned, and the position both of the horses and charioteer boldly conceived. Mythological subjects were also common. One of these, of the indented form, restored from fragments, is given in the accompanying engraving (Fig. 113).

Another and equally pleasing variety of ornamentation, and one peculiar, it may be said, to the Durobrivian potteries, is that whereon the pattern consists of scrolls and flowers in white slip on the dark bluish black ground. The effect of these simple patterns, which are generally graceful and always elegantly formed, is remarkably pleasing. Examples of these are given on Figs. 114 to 124, which will serve to show the general style of this kind of decoration. Figs. 125 to 128 are admirable examples of the indented form of vessel. Many other shapes and varieties of Castor ware might be adduced, but the illustrations I have given will be sufficient to give a clear insight into their general characteristics.

One of the most curious and interesting urns of this ware (Fig. 129) was dug up in Leicester in 1869, and is preserved in the museum of that town. It is of a fine rich deep colour, with the pattern in white slip, and has borne an inscription, also in slip, the only letters of which now remaining are M E i I VI. In the same museum, among other varieties of Romano-British ware, are the beautiful vessels shown on Figs. 132, 133, 134. There are also fragments of ware which seem to point at pottery which I believe, at one period of Roman occupation, existed in the neighbourhood of Leicester.

Potters’ kilns of the Romano-British period have been found in other places, but those at Castor are the most perfect, and in every way the best. Indeed, the others may be said, more appropriately perhaps, to be indications of kilns rather than the kilns themselves. A curious record of the discovery of a kiln in London, at the north-west of St. Paul’s Cathedral, in 1677, by John Conyers, a collector of antiquities, is preserved in the British Museum,[12] and has been published by Mr. Roach Smith,[13] the eminent archæologist, to whom the antiquarian world is indebted for so much valuable information concerning Roman antiquities. This very curious and valuable record is as follows, in the handwriting of Conyers, and the accompanying engraving is carefully reduced (see Fig. 138) from Conyers’ own drawing:—

“This kill was full of the coarser[14] sorts of potts or cullings,[15] so that few were saved whole, viz., lamps, bottles, urnes, dishes.

“The forme of a kill in which the olde Romans’ lamps, urnes, and other earthen pottes and vessels was burnt, and some left in the[40] kill; and that within a unstired, loamy ground about 26 foot deep near about the place where the Market House stood in Oliver’s tyme, the discovery made anno 1677 at the digging the foundacion of the north east part of St. Paull’s, London, among gravel pitts and loam pitts, where the ground had been at tymes raised over it 3 or 4 tymes, and so many 8 foote storyes or depths of coffins lay over the loamy kill, the lowest coffins made of chalk; and this supposed to be before or about Domitian the emperor’s tyme.

“Of these (kilns) 4 severall had been made in the sandy loam on the ground in the fashion of a cross foundacion and only this height standing, viz. 5 foot from topp to bottom and better; and as many feet in breadth; and had no other matter for its form and building but the outward loame as it naturally lays, crusted hardish by the heat burning the loame redd like brick. The floor in the middle supported by and cut out of loame, and helped with old-fashioned Roman tyles shards, but very few, and such as I have seen used for repositorys for urns in the fashion of like ovens, and they plastered within with a reddish mortar or tarris; but here was no mortar, but only the sandy loam for cement:

In accordance with the above description, the sketch by Conyers shows also the four kilns placed crosswise, leaving ample space in the centre for the workmen. The vessels found in the kiln are thus described by Conyers, who also made sketches of them, which are preserved along with his MS., and have been engraved in the “Collectanea Antiqua:”—

“1. 1 quart earthen dish.—2. 2 gallons, whitish.—3. 4 quart bason, whitish.—4. 8 ounce censer or lamp, whitish earth.—5. 2 quart colinder, whitish.—6. 2 pint lipp waterpott.—7. Lamp, or censer, reddish.—8. 3 pint urne.—9. 3 quarts urne, whitish.—10. 2 ounce lamp, gilded with electrum.—11. 2 quart, white.—12. 1 pint bottle.—13. 2 pint black urne.—14. 1 pint urne, black.—15. 6 ounce urne.—16. 3 quart urne, blewish.—17. Half pint urne, electrum Britan.—18. 1 pint dish, blewish.—19. 1 ounce urne, whitish.—20. 3 ounce urne, cinamon collour.—All these a sort of earth almost like crucibles, except the black, will endure the fire like brass, as in this day in use about Poland.”

From the drawings which accompany these descriptions, the Romano-British origin of the examples found actually in the kiln[41] is placed beyond doubt. Most of them are precisely the same types as hundreds of fragments which have been found all over London, and are the common table and culinary ware of the period. Some bear a very striking resemblance to the vessels from the Upchurch pottery. Amongst them is a mortarium. Most of the vessels are plain, but some are ornamented with rows of dots, &c., and others with a reticulated pattern. The forms are elegant and simple.

In another part of his MS. Conyers describes other kinds of pottery found during the excavations. “Now these pottsherds,” he writes, “are some glass and some potts like broken urns, which were curiously laid on the outside with like thorne pricks of rose trees and in the manner of raised work: this upon potts of murry collour, and here and there grey houndes and stags and hares all in raised work: other of these cinamon collour urne fashion and were as gilded with gold but vaded: some of strange fashioned juggs the sides bent in so as to be six squares, and these raised work upon them and curiously pinched as curious raisers of paist may imitate: some like black earth for pudding panns; one the outside indented and crossed quincunx fashion. Now many of these potts of the finer kind are lite and thinn and these workes raised or indented were instead of collours; yet I find they had some odd collours, not blew, in those tymes, and a way of glazing different to what now; and here takes notice that the redd earth before mencioned bore away the belle.”

“The labourers toulde me of some remains of other such kinds of small kills that was found up and down nere the place of the other pott kills, and these had a funnel to convey smoke which might serve for glass furnaces, for though not anny potts with glass in it whole in the furnaces was there found, yet broken crucibles or tests for melting of glass, together with boltered glass such as is to be seen remaining at glass houses amongst the broken glass, which was glass spoyled in the making, was there found; but not plenty, and especially coloured and prepared for jewel-like ornament, but mostly such as for cruetts or glasses with a lipp to drop withall, and that a greenish light blew collour; and of any sort of glass there was but little.”

Remains of potteries of this period have also been discovered in Norfolk (between Brixton and Brampton); at Botham in Lincolnshire; in Somersetshire; at Worcester; at Marlborough; at Sibson; at various places in Yorkshire; in Shropshire; in Oxfordshire;[42] in the New Forest, Hampshire; at Colchester, in Essex; at Wilderspool, near Warrington; and in many other parts of the kingdom. Of some of these I shall now proceed briefly to speak.

To the Shropshire potteries—those of the clays of the Severn Valley, probably at Brosely,—a vast number of varieties of vessels are to be traced; and it is, as I shall show in a later chapter, interesting to know that the same bed of clay which at the present day produces articles of daily use, produced fifteen hundred years ago the vessels for the table, &c., of the inhabitants of the then great neighbouring city of Uriconium. In the excavations which have been undertaken on the site of this ruined city immense quantities of fragments of pottery have been found, and, with the exception of the Samian ware and the[43] Durobrivian ware, it is not too much, perhaps, to say that the whole, or nearly so, has been made in the Severn Valley. Of these wares, two sorts especially are found in considerable abundance; the one white, the other of a rather light red colour. The white, which is made of what is commonly called Brosely clay, and is rather coarse in texture, consists chiefly of rather handsomely shaped jugs or bellarmine-shaped vessels, of different sizes, the general shape of which somewhat resembles Fig. 96; of Mortaria; and of bowls of different shapes and sizes, which are often painted with stripes of red and yellow. The other variety, the red Romano-Salopian ware, is also made from one of the clays of the Severn Valley, but is of finer texture, and consists principally of jugs not dissimilar to those in the[44] white ware, except in a very different form of mouth; and of bowl-shaped colanders.[16]

Two examples of Romano-Salopian ware—the first of the white, and the second of the red variety—are given on Fig. 139, and on Fig. 140 is represented a group of vessels of this make, from the cemetery at Uriconium.

The potteries of the New Forest in Hampshire, for a lucid account of which we are indebted to Mr. Wise,[17] were of great extent, and, as is proved by the researches which have been made on their sites, of considerable importance. The potteries were noticed in 1853 by the Rev. J. P. Bartlett,[18] who prepared an account of his researches for the Society of Antiquaries, and since that period both that gentleman and Mr. Wise have with great success continued their explorations. The names of the localities where these ancient potteries exist—Crockle (crock kiln or crock hill) and Panshard—are highly suggestive. During the excavations kilns were found in a perfect state. The kiln at Crockle was circular, and measured six yards in circumference, its shape being well defined by small hand-formed masses of red brick-earth. The floor, about two feet below the natural surface of the ground, was paved with a layer of sand-stones, some of them cut into a circular shape so as to fit the kiln, the upper surfaces being tooled, whilst the under remained in their original state. At the potteries at Audenwood no kilns were discovered; but at Sloden, where the works cover several acres, “two large mounds marking the sites of kilns” are remaining, along with the sites of potters’ huts, &c. At[46] Island Thorn more kilns and innumerable fragments of vessels of various kinds were discovered. In Pitts Enclosure, besides mounds opened by Mr. Bartlett, Mr. Wise discovered in one mound five kilns, ranged in a semicircle, and paved with irregular masses of sand-stone. They were close together, separated only by mounds of the natural soil. Besides fragments of various vessels, “two distinct heaps of white and fawn-coloured clay and red earth, placed ready for mixing, and a third of the two worked together, fit for the immediate use of the potter,” were found with these kilns.

Some of the more usual and more striking forms of the vessels from New Forest potteries are grouped together on Figs. 141 to 151. A selection of patterns from the wares are grouped on Figs. 152 to 157, some of which will be seen to bear a close resemblance to those of the Castor ware.

Of the potters’ kiln, &c., found near Colchester, where probably some ware in imitation of the fine red Samian was produced, a notice will be found in “Collectanea Antiqua.”[19] In the Yorkshire potteries—for there can be little doubt that at Potters Newton, at York, and at other places pot-works existed in these early times—the curious vessels ornamented with what are usually called “frill patterns” were made, as also other slip and scaled patterns, as on Figs. 158, 159, and 160.

At Headington, Oxfordshire, I had the good fortune myself to discover in 1849, along with the remains of a villa and other buildings, traces of a kiln and of many other interesting features,[47] of which I published an account in the Journal of the British Archæological Association.[20] The fragments of pottery found on this site were extremely varied, and attended with some very unusual facts. One of the most curious and interesting matters was the discovery of a clay mould bearing a beautifully formed female head (a bacchante), with a wreath of vine leaves encircling her brow, for the forming of heads on Romano-British pottery. Fig. 166 shows this mould, and Fig. 167 gives the impression taken from it.[21] The face[49] has a remarkably pleasing expression, and is beautifully formed. The mould is a rough lump of red clay, and has been broken on its sides.

The pottery, with but one or two exceptions, was in fragments; from these the engravings here given have been carefully restored. One very remarkable feature was the immense assemblage—a cartload at least—of fragments of mortaria. In form and material they differed considerably from those found in other localities. Some were of a fine buff-coloured clay, others of a lead colour, as produced by the smother kiln, and all well studded with broken quartz. In size they varied from seven and a half inches to nearly two feet in diameter. The larger one on Fig. 168 was one foot nine inches in diameter, while the smaller one is only seven and a half inches. The sections of the rims of the Headington mortaria are dissimilar to others, as I have carefully pointed out in the communication referred to. Fig. 171 exhibits a vessel of fine red ware, the rim of which is painted black, on which the white scroll-pattern is laid. The sections of rims which accompany it for comparison sake are, besides its own rim,—1, red with white pattern; 2, a fine red ware; 3, a fine ware, with a metallic surface; and 4 and 5, imported Samian. Fig. 175 is of chocolate colour, and is ornamented with an indented pattern of lines of squares, alternating with flat circles. Fig. 172 is of blue-gray colour, of fine and close and very hard texture; the sides are indented. Fig. 173 is of light buff colour. The curious assemblage of vessels grouped on Fig. 176 are formed of a fine black clay mixed with sand. They are beautifully formed, and many of them are ornamented with surface lines traced on the clay without incision or indentation. The two examples (Figs. 181 and 182) are of tolerably fine red ware; the taller one (which has had a handle) has been surface-coated with a red pigment. Fig. 178 is of coarse red ware, and, as will be seen, is much the same in form as our modern soup-plates. Fragments of vessels of the form of Fig. 180 were very numerous. They were of coarse buff-coloured ware. Other examples found during the excavations which I carried on are shown grouped on Fig. 183. Fig. 179, like the rest, restored from fragments, is a small and delicately formed cup, three and a quarter inches in diameter, of rough-cast ware[22]; of these, examples were found, some of red, and others of a chocolate colour.

Some good fragments of Castor ware were discovered, from[50] which the group (Figs. 97 to 99) has been restored. Fig. 174 is a small cup of buff-coloured ware. Some small fragments of a green glazed ware were also found.

Among the most curious of the discoveries were fragments of vessels of fine clay, of a buff colour, with the patterns painted in red on their surface. One of these bears the rude representation of a cock; others have waved and scrolled patterns; and others again, lines, dots, circles, &c. Many other varieties of wares were also found, as were some few fragments of Samian.

An interesting discovery of the remains of what appears to have been a potter’s workshop was made in Dorsetshire, in 1841, by Mr. Warne, of which he gives some very interesting particulars.[23] The foundations were rectangular and clearly defined—in length forty-four feet, in breadth twenty-five feet—constructed of flints, which are plentiful in the neighbourhood. “In clearing out there was found a great quantity of fragments of the ordinary smooth black and firm-grained ware: the bottoms of some vessels were perforated like colanders. In the course of the excavations, remains of instruments used by the potter were also found; the most interesting being a considerable portion of a wheel, formed of that peculiar bituminous shale well known as ‘Kimmeridge coal.’ It is part of a circle, originally a wheel or plate, fifteen inches in diameter and one inch and a quarter thick. It has undergone the process of a careful and well-finished turning in the lathe. It may at once be seen that it formed part of a potter’s wheel, the rotatory table on which the workmen moulded, or rather when brought to the desired form, the ductile clay received the finishing touches. There are to be seen two or three counter-sinkings, in which were fixed the arms of the metal axis on which it revolved. Portions of other wheels in limestone were found, and one of great thickness, in conglomerate, the use of which would seem to have been for pulverising the crude material. Numerous pieces were scattered about of small and very thin stone, of a rude but markedly angular form, similar to such as are still, or lately were, used in the manufacture of coarse earthenware. Amidst the débris was a knife fixed in a rude bone haft; with the remains[51] were a large brass coin of Marcus Aurelius, and three denarii of Severus Alexander, Gordianus III., and Philippus.”

At Wilderspool, the presumed site of Condate, an outskirt of Warrington, evidence exists which warrants the supposition that pottery of various kinds was there made by the Romans. A large quantity of fragments, including many interesting examples, have been collected by Dr. Kendrick and placed in the museum at Warrington; these include many well-known varieties of Roman wares, and some which are peculiar to the place; among these are excellent examples of “engine-turned” bowls, in which the engine-turning is surmounted by scoriated ornament; these are in red clay. Of Durobrivian ware were found portions of a bowl with overhanging rim, ornamented with the ivy-leaf pattern in slip; on one portion is a potter’s mark, PAT, which has been impressed on the side. Of imitation, or English, Samian, are several fragments, with relief ornaments, some of which are pretty close copies of the true Samian, while others are rather clumsy adaptations of the Samian borders, &c. Examples of Upchurch ware were also found. The wares which seem to be peculiar to Wilderspool, and which were, there is every reason to believe, made there, are the two varieties engraved on Figs. 184 and 185, and the “rough-cast” ware, of which a small vessel found by myself at Headington, and engraved on Fig. 179, will serve as an example. Fig. 184 is of a light red clay, which has been surface-coloured. It is ornamented with a mammal ornament—a series of raised circles, about three-quarters of an inch in diameter, dying off in their lower half, and having a knob or nipple in the centre. This has evidently been the ornament of the upper part of a vessel, the lower being engine-turned in diagonal lines. Fig. 185 is of a dark-coloured clay, with a similar kind of ornament, but of much smaller size, the discs being only rather more than a quarter of an inch in diameter. The “rough-cast” ware, as this variety (Fig. 179) has been appropriately named by Dr. Kendrick, is a fine kind of red-ware, the vessels in which, after having been “thrown,” have, while in their soft, moist state, been powdered all over with small bits of dry clay, and then dipped in thin slip before[52] firing—the roughness having previously been carefully removed from the rims and other parts which were intended to be left plain. Dr. Kendrick claims this to be hitherto “unnoticed, and therefore undescribed;” but here he is in error, for in 1850[24] I described a similar ware—the only fragment then known—which I discovered at Headington (Fig. 179), that example being, perhaps, a little finer and of better quality than the present Wilderspool specimens.

Another variety of ornament, supposed by Dr. Kendrick to be unique, is on a hard bluish-grey ware; it is a series of patches of fine lines scratched into the surface, as though done by a fine comb or a hard brush.

Among the most special objects found at Wilderspool are two tetinæ, a tragic mask, and a triplet vase. Of the mask, engraved on Fig. 186, Dr. Kendrick says:—“Although it is sadly mutilated, an earthenware mask or visor for the human face is certainly the most rare and curious of the Roman antiquities discovered at Wilderspool. As such it has been described and figured in the seventeenth volume[53] of the Journal of the Archæological Association. In the British Museum is a single specimen of the comic mask, such as we often see represented on Greek and Roman sculptures or intaglio seals; there is also another mask, with the mouth closed, for the silent actor. The Wilderspool mask appears to be an equally solitary example of the tragic mask, although Pollux, an ancient writer, enumerates twenty-five typical or standing masks of tragedy—six for old men, seven for young men, nine for females, and three for slaves.”

The tetinæ, or feeding-bottles, are engraved on Figs. 187 and 188; they have tubular spouts at the side, and, when used, they were no doubt furnished with soft nipples or teats for the tender mouth of the infant. When found the mouth of each was covered by a fragment of pottery, and, from their upright position and contents, there can be no doubt that they contained the ashes of one or more children. It is also curious to remark that one handle was suited for the right hand of the nurse, and the other for the left, as if to compel a change of posture for the infant.

The triple, or triune vase, restored on Fig. 189, is an excellent specimen, the connecting bands being hollow tubes, so that when the liquor was placed in one, it rose to the same height in each. Many other objects of great interest were found at Wilderspool, and have been carefully described by Dr. Kendrick and illustrated by his daughter.

At Ashdon, in Essex, a potter’s kiln was discovered by the Hon. R. C. Neville in 1852. It was of square form, being, as nearly as could be measured, eighteen feet square, inclusive of the outer walls. The furnace appeared to have been at the south-west end, immediately communicating with the central and largest flue; in it was a considerable quantity of charcoal and black ashes. This flue was two feet six inches across at the entrance and two feet in width along the entire length, which divided the structure into two equal portions. From it eight lateral flues (each seven inches wide) diverged opposite each other on either side. It was closed by the north-eastern wall, which was carefully constructed of Roman tiles, which, as well as the flanged tiles in other parts, had evidently been used in some former building. Many fragments of tiles and pottery were strewed about, but no perfect vessel was found.

A kiln was discovered in 1868 at Winterton, near Brigg, on a site about half a mile from the Roman road, and not far from where a[55] tesselated pavement had been previously discovered. By the falling of a portion of the side of a pit where sand was being dug, there was exposed a rudely constructed kiln or oven, made by sinking a circular cavity about six feet deep and six feet in diameter at the top, becoming narrower towards the bottom, so as to be in fact an inverted cone. The lower half of it is in the sand, and the upper half in the surface soil, and in a thin bed of clay between this and the sand. A little more than a foot in depth of the bottom of the pit had been filled with soil from the surface, quite compact, as if it had been mixed with water and well rammed down. On the top of this rested the oven itself, formed by lining the pit with a mixture of coarse mud or clay with small stones and pebbles, to a thickness of about four inches at the bottom, increasing upward to ten inches at the brim,[56] which is about one foot and a half below the present surface of the field. From the centre of the floor thus made rises a pillar of one foot nine inches in height, and widening from one foot diameter at the bottom to one foot ten inches at the top, which pillar widens suddenly so as to form a sort of mushroom head, continuous in structure with the clay or mud floor and walls just described. Two shallow grooves run all round the inside of the oven, a little above the top of the pillar, and broken pieces of blue Roman pottery are laid across from the pillar to the side of the basin so as to cover in a sort of circular flue. Over these has been spread a thin coat of clay similar to the rest of the lining, so that the upper storey, so to speak, is a shallow pit, about three and a half feet diameter and one foot and a half deep. A large quantity of black ashes, and of fragments of Roman pottery, was found in and around the kiln. An account of this discovery, with an engraving of the kiln appeared in vol. ix. of “The Reliquary.” Another, in the same county, was discovered near Ancaster; and in Somersetshire a kiln has been uncovered.

Many potteries besides those whose productions have been here spoken of might be described; but as their productions were the usual classes of domestic or sepulchral vessels, or flue and other[57] tiles, it is not perhaps necessary to enumerate them. I will therefore proceed to speak of some of the vessels not already particularised in this chapter.

Amphoræ were undoubtedly made in the Roman pot-works of Britain; evidences of their manufacture having been observed in various localities. The most extensive of these indications was at Colchester, from which place the example (Fig. 194) is taken. These vessels are of large dimensions, strongly formed, and usually of a buff, or reddish-yellow colour. The forms of these vessels are of two[58] distinct kinds—the one being tall and slender, as in Fig. 194, and the other more globular, as in Figs. 196 and 197. They were mostly pointed at the bottom, for the purpose of fixing them, it is believed, in the earth, or in stands made for their reception.

Mortaria, of which three examples have been given (Figs. 168 to 170), formed another extensive class of domestic vessels. Their use appears to have been the pounding and beating up, for culinary purposes, of vegetables and other articles. Some of the examples which have been found bear unmistakable signs of long and hard use. Their inner surface was studded, while the clay was soft, either with small fragments of quartz or with scoriæ of iron, so as[59] to promote trituration. The example (Fig. 198) is of somewhat different character, having more upright, and somewhat higher, sides than usual. It has been much used.

Another of the more usual of the domestic vessels, of Romano-British manufacture, is the very convenient kind of basin (Fig. 199), which will be seen to be of the same general shape as Fig. 171. The form of this basin is infinitely better, more elegant, and more convenient than those in use among us at the present day. The central flanged rim is a very secure and handy arrangement for holding. This example, and the mortarium (Fig. 198) were found together—in fact, inverted one into the other—in the churchyard at Chesterfield, in Derbyshire. Many other varieties of domestic vessels were also extensively made, but to these it is not necessary farther to refer.

The sepulchral urns of Romano-British manufacture are of extremely varied form and ornamentation. Figs. 78, 135, 137, 140, 161 to 165, and 183, will serve as examples of some of the varieties. The most usual forms, however, are perhaps Figs. 200 to 205. They are of various kinds of clays, and were generally plain, or but slightly ornamented.

Other good examples of sepulchral urns of various kinds, and of different shapes, will be seen on the three groups of pottery, &c., found at Cirencester, shown on Figs. 203, 204, and 205.[25] On the same engravings will be seen many other characteristic examples of Roman Ceramic Art, as well as some metallic remains.

Building-tiles, flue-tiles, roof-tiles, and drain-tiles were a branch of manufacture which was carried on to a considerable extent in various parts of the country, and, no doubt, generally in the immediate neighbourhood of the buildings where they were used. The building-tiles which are to be seen in the remains of the period, as in the Jewry Wall at Leicester, engraved on Fig. 206, where occasionally they form “herring-bone” masonry, are usually from about seven to ten inches square, and about an inch and a half in thickness. They are frequently marked with letters, and with feet of animals which have passed over them (Figs. 207 and 209). The flue-tiles are of various dimensions. They are usually of an oblong square form, hollow throughout, with a lateral opening in one side for the heated air to pass through (see Fig. 214). Others have two channels through their entire length, and are without side openings. They are much ornamented with incised patterns, and occasionally are stamped with letters. Some, too, have figures of dogs, stags, &c. They were used for various purposes. Another example is shown lying down in the centre of the group of tiles on Fig. 210. In this group, the tall example, represented standing upright, will be sufficient to[61] show the form and excellence of construction of the drain-tiles—the small end of each being made to fit with an elbow joint into the thick end of the next. In the same group are some open-flanged drain-tiles. An inscribed flange-tile is shown on Fig. 217.

The roofing-tiles were much more calculated to resist the wind and rain than those of later invention. They had flanged sides, which fitted close to each other and were covered at the joint by a small semicircular tile, like a draining or ridge-tile, imbedded in mortar and resting on the two roofing-tiles, as a draining-tile rests on its sole. This arrangement is shown on Fig. 211, which represents some roofing-tiles found at Walesby. Of the ridge-tiles, of semicircular form, to cover the joints, two good examples (Figs. 212 and 215), from Headington, are here given.

It may be added that, on tiles of one kind or other, the name of the legions and cohorts quartered in particular localities where they were made, are frequently found impressed. The soldiers were brick-makers and masons, and made the tiles and built the houses, &c., at the places where they were stationed. Tile-stamps thus become important aids to history.

It is curious to add that some of the tiles which have been found tell a silent tale, which they were never intended to carry, of the dress or hand or foot of the maker, which have become accidentally impressed upon their surface while in a soft state, and are afterwards rendered imperishable by firing in the kiln. One example of this kind of accidental ornamentation (Fig. 207), which exhibits the impress of a man’s feet, or, rather, shoes thickly studded with nails,—like the “hob-nailed” boots of our own day,—will suffice as an illustration.

One extraordinary and highly interesting use of tiles among the Roman inhabitants of Britain was that of forming them into tombs.[26][62] A large tile was laid flat on the ground; two others of the same length were placed upright, one at each side, to form the sides; two shorter ones were placed upright as ends; and another tile formed the cover (Fig. 216). Thus a fictile cist, or chest, was formed, and in this was deposited the sepulchral urn containing the ashes of the departed, with its accompanying group of smaller vessels. Cists of this kind are found frequently in the Roman cemeteries at Colchester. “The practice of enclosing or covering the sepulchral deposits with tiles appears to have been so general, that the word tegula, a tile, was often used to signify a tomb. The reader will at once call to mind the lines of Ovid:—

It appears from these lines that it was the custom for the relatives to place garlands, fruit, and salt on the tile which covered the sepulchral deposit.[27]

At York, graves, or rather tombs, formed of a number of roof-tiles, have been found. Fig. 218 represents one of these curious tombs. It was formed of ten roof-tiles, four of which were placed on either side, and one at each end, and four ridge tiles arranged along the top. Each tile bore the impressed stamp of the VI. Legion (Leg. VI., Legio sexta victrix—the sixth legion victorious). In these tile-tombs urns had in one instance been placed; in another (the one engraved) were the remains of the funeral fire, with the ashes of the dead. Clay coffins have also occasionally been found. One of these, from Aldborough, is shown on Fig. 219.

Lamps were undoubtedly made in various parts of this kingdom, and were more or less ornamented; some bear excellently executed figures and other devices. Many appear to have been made at Colchester, and are spoken of by Mr. Roach Smith in his “Collectanea Antiqua.” The pot works at this place appear to have been on the Lexden Road, where a kiln and many other remains have been brought to light.

Penates and other figures, or statuettes, were also made in this[63] country; and these, again, it is pretty certain, were made in considerable numbers at Colchester, as were also lachrymatories, unguentaria, &c.

Coin moulds, for the manufacture of spurious Roman coins, were also made of clay, and the arrangement was very simple, but effective. The clay being properly tempered and prepared, was formed into small round tablets of uniform size and thickness. A coin was then pressed between two tablets while the clay was soft, so as to leave a perfect impression, and these impressions, which had thus become obverse and reverse moulds, were arranged together in little piles; the upper and lower being impressed on one side only. Down the sides of each of these little piles or heaps a nick or notch was then cut, so as to admit the molten metal. Two or three of these heaps were then, as shown in the engraving (Fig. 221), placed side by side with the notches joined together, and these were then surrounded by a clay cone with a hole at the top, into which the metal was poured, and ran down through the notches, and so into the moulds. Impressions were thus taken the exact counterpart of the original coin from which the moulds had been taken.

For examples of the ceramic art of the Anglo-Saxon period we are mainly indebted to the cemeteries and burial mounds of that people. The art during this period, so far as this country is concerned, was but little practised, except, as in the Celtic period, for the manufacture of sepulchral urns of one kind or other. Still, it is pretty certain that many of the vessels found in the barrows were made for the purposes of life, and used for those of death when urns were wanted. In the preceding era the population of this country—the Romano-Britons—were essentially a pot-producing people, and they established, as will have been seen, extensive manufactories in various parts of the kingdom, and made and supplied vessels for every conceivable use and purpose. When the Saxons took possession of the country, and gradually extended themselves over its length and breadth, they found the Roman towns, as well as the stations and detached dwellings—nay, they found every part of the island—well and, indeed, profusely stocked with crockery of every kind, from the finest Samian cup and bowl down to the coarsest mortarium and amphora, in such profusion, and in such variety, as well as of such elegance, use, and beauty, as they had not previously known. Fighting their way here, and settling there, they utilised the crockery which so abundantly lay ready to their hands, and, as there can be no doubt the Roman potters continued their works long after the advent of the Saxons, they used these Roman vessels for all purposes, and thus did not, except in the case of their burial urns and ordinary domestic vessels, resembling in a somewhat striking manner some modern utensils, leave the impress of what little taste or skill they had upon the productions of the fictile art. The cinerary urns are, therefore, almost, the only productions of the[66] Saxon potter which are known. These, like those of the Celtic period, were, there can be no doubt, usually made in pretty close proximity to their place of burial, and, consequently, were formed of the clays of the district. They assumed a peculiar character, and are entirely dissimilar to those of either of the preceding periods.

Of the forms of other vessels of the Anglo-Saxons—for there is no doubt that coarse domestic utensils were to some extent made—a tolerable idea may be gained from the illuminated MSS. of the time. Some few, but very few, examples have also been brought to light, which may with tolerable certainty be assigned to this period.

The engravings (Figs. 222 to 227) showing a few of the forms taken from the illuminated MSS. of this and the succeeding period, are interesting examples. Some of these will be seen to owe their origin—as, for instance, Fig. 226—to Roman design, while others are equally as clearly Franco-Gaulish in character. The Anglo-Saxons were not, like their Roman forerunners, an artistic race. They could not draw the form of the human figure correctly, nor, indeed, that of animals; but their delineations of jugs and pitchers are proved by existing examples to be pretty accurate. Their mind,[68] as a rule, was coarse and unpoetic as their own beer, while that of the Roman was bright and sparkling as his own champagne.

The scene depicted on Fig. 224 exhibits some well-formed vessels in the foreground, while the dinner scene on Fig. 222 shows other varieties.

For culinary purposes the Anglo-Saxons appear to have had a kind of aversion to clay, hence their bowls were principally of metal or wood—generally of ash, and their drinking-vessels were of horn or glass.[28] One form of vessel, made of coarse buff-coloured clay, is here shown (Fig. 229); and another of simple form is shown on Fig. 230.

The pottery of the Anglo-Saxon grave-mounds and cemeteries consists, unlike that of the preceding periods, almost exclusively of cinerary urns, and these have, as has been already stated on a previous page, been made near the place of sepulture; and, as a natural consequence, of the clays found in the neighbourhood. This is proved, incontestably, in the case of the urns found at King’s Newton, where the bed of clay still exists, and has very recently been used for common pottery purposes.[29]

The shape of the cinerary urns is somewhat peculiar, and partakes of the Frankish form, which may be called degraded Roman. Instead of being wide at the mouth, like the Celtic urns, they are more or less contracted, and have a kind of neck instead of the overhanging lip or rim which is so eminently characteristic of the[70] pottery of that period. Some, however, are tolerably wide at the mouth; but these are usually low and shallow. The cinerary urns were formed by hand, not on the wheel, although on some other vessels evidence of wheel-turning is apparent. This is another proof that these sepulchral urns were made on the spot where wanted. They are as a rule, perhaps, more firmly fired than those of the Celtic period. They are usually of a dark-coloured clay, sometimes nearly black, at other times of a dark brown, and occasionally of a slate, or greenish tint, produced by surface-colouring.

Their general form will be best understood by reference to the engravings, Figs. 232 to 244. One of these will be seen to have projecting knobs or bosses, which have been formed by simply pressing out the pliant clay from the inside with the hand. In other examples these raised bosses take the form of ribs gradually swelling out from the bottom, till, at the top, they expand into semi-eggshaped protuberances. The ornamentation on the urns from these cemeteries usually consists of encircling incised lines in bands or otherwise, and vertical or zig-zag lines arranged in a variety of ways, and, not unfrequently, the knobs or protuberances of which I have just spoken. Sometimes, also they present evident attempts at imitation of the Roman egg-and-tongue ornament. The marked features of the pottery of this period is the frequency of small punctured or[71] impressed ornaments, which are introduced along with the lines or bands with very good effect. These ornaments were evidently produced by the end of a stick cut and notched across in different directions, so as to produce crosses and other patterns. In some districts, especially in the East Angles, these vessels are ornamented with simple patterns painted upon their surface in white; but, so far as my knowledge goes, no example of this kind of decoration has been found in the Mercian cemeteries.

Of the East-Anglian urns, Mr. Wright—to whom and to Mr. Roach Smith is mainly due the credit of having correctly appropriated them to the Anglo-Saxon period—thus speaks:—

The sepulchral vases found in the district of the Middle Angles vary but slightly in form from the East-Anglian burial urns. An example is given in Fig. 246, from Chestersovers, in Warwickshire, where it was found with an iron sword, a spear-head, and other articles of Anglo-Saxon character.

A few figures here given will illustrate this resemblance. Figs. 248 and 251 are two Allemannic urns from the cemetery of Selzen. It will be seen that they resemble in form the East Anglian urns, and the same ornamentation is also found among our general Anglo-Saxon pottery. These urns are described as being usually made of the clay of the neighbourhood, in most cases turned on a lathe, but many of them imperfectly baked. They are found in graves where the body had not undergone cremation, and were used for containing articles of a miscellaneous description. Fig. 252 is a slate-coloured urn, procured at Cologne, and is ornamented with circular stamps. Figs. 249 and 251 are Frankish urns, obtained by the Abbé Cochet from Londinières in Normandy, and show at a glance the[74] identity of the Frankish pottery with the Germanic as well as with the Anglo-Saxon. The second of these is surrounded with a row of the well-known bosses, which are equally characteristic of the three divisions of this Teutonic pottery—Anglo-Saxon, Frankish, and Allemannic. Above these bosses is an ornament identical with that of the East Anglian urn with the sepulchral inscription. Figs. 253 to 256 are urns from the Swiss Lacustrine habitations, for comparison of form.

The series of engravings (Figs. 232 to 244) will show the general and more characteristic forms of purely Anglo-Saxon cinerary urns. Figs. 232 and 235 are of the low or flat variety, which is of not unfrequent occurrence. Figs. 234 and 236 are also of a not uncommon form, while 240 is more uncommon. Fig. 241 is of excellent form, and is very simple in ornamentation, having only encircling and diagonal lines, to decorate its surface. Figs. 243, 244, and 239 are of different shape, and so again are Figs. 237 and 240, which are almost unique in form and in ornamentation.

Most of these examples are from one locality, King’s Newton, in Derbyshire, within a few miles of the capital of the kingdom of Mercia. The others (Fig. 232) are from Kingston, in the same neighbourhood. Other characteristic examples of form and decoration are given on Figs. 233 and 234. These are from the Ashmolean Museum at Oxford, and from the Norwich Museum, and exhibit excellent specimens of forms and decoration from those districts.

The ornamentation on Anglo-Saxon cinerary urns consists usually[75] of encircling lines in bands, or otherwise; in vertical or zig-zag lines, arranged in a variety of ways; of impressed or punctured ornaments; and of knobs or protuberances. Sometimes also, as in a Bedfordshire urn, they present evident attempts at imitation of the Roman egg-and-tongue ornament. In some districts small ornaments are painted on the surface with a white pigment. The marked feature of the pottery of this period is the frequency of the small punctured or impressed ornaments to which I have alluded, which are introduced along with the lines or bands, with very good effect. These ornaments were evidently usually produced by the end of a stick, cut and notched across in different directions, so as to produce crosses and other patterns. In other instances these impressed ornaments have been produced by twisted slips of metal, &c.

In the woodcut (Figs. 260 and 261) I have endeavoured to show two of the notched-stick “punches,” such as I have reason to believe were used for pressing into the soft clay, and also the impressed patterns produced by them.

The quatrefoils (or as they may almost be called, crosses patée) on some of the urns I have engraved, particularly on Figs. 237, 238, and 239, are very unusual, as are also those in the lower bands of Figs. 237 and 240, and in the upper band of the latter example.

Of the pottery of the Norman period but little has been said by any writers, and that simply because but little was known. I had the good fortune, however, a few years’ back, to discover the remains of a kiln[30] of that period, in and around the remains of which were many vessels—“wasters” as they would be technically called—of various kinds. This discovery was all the more interesting and valuable, as being the only instance of the finding of a kiln either of the Anglo-Saxon or Norman periods, and it has enabled me to identify and appropriate to this age vessels from other localities. To these I shall presently refer.

The pottery of this period consisted chiefly of pitchers, dishes, bowls, or basins, and what we should now term porringers or pipkins; the bowls or basins and dishes being used for drinking[77] purposes as well as for placing cooked meats in; the pitchers for holding and carrying ale, mead, water, and other liquors to the table, and the porringers both for eating and for cooking with. The uses of these vessels, as well as their general forms, are gathered from the illuminated MSS. of the time which have come down to us. The annexed engraving (Fig. 264) from a twelfth-century MS., shows the pitchers, the water or wine vessels—both in their locker and being carried up to the feast by attendants, one of whom is drawing water from a draw-well in the yard. Fig. 263 shows, on a[78] table set out for dinner, the bowls or basins for the food and for drinking from, one of which holds a fish. The plate-like articles, it should be mentioned, are bread which was made in cakes, and variously ornamented with the knife. The other engravings (Figs. 262 and 266) are excellent representations of pitchers and wine vessels, drinking-cups and bowls, and other characteristic vessels. The next Fig. (265) gives the form of the drinking-cups excellently well, and enables one to determine that the small vessel engraved (Fig. 246) was one used for that purpose. It should be stated, however, that, as in the former case, the objects between the drinking-cups on the table are not plates, but cakes of bread.

The clay of which Norman pottery is formed is usually of a coarse kind, and the vessels bear evidence in many instances of the wheel having been used. In colour they are sometimes of a reddish brown, at others of a tolerably good red, while at others again they are nearly black; and many of the pitchers, &c., are either wholly or partially covered with a green or other glaze. Many are quite devoid of ornament, but others have the ends of the handles formed into foliage, &c., by the pressure of the finger. Some, however, are rather highly decorated. Figs. 267 to 270 show[79] four small-sized jugs, ranging from four and a half to seven inches in height, two of which are devoid of ornament, and the other two have their handles foliated. Figs. 273 and 275 show pitchers of a larger growth, of the same clumsy coarse kind of clay, and ornamented in the same primitive manner. They are about nine inches in height, and are green glazed.

Figs. 271 and 272 represent the two sides of a remarkably fine pitcher, which (as well as those engraved on Figs. 267 to 279) was discovered by myself in a kiln to which reference has been made. It is sixteen inches in height, and is, perhaps, the finest and most interesting fictile remain of the Norman period in existence. It bears, as will be seen, five horseshoes, and two buckles, all of which were badges of the Ferrars family (Norman Earls of Derby), who were[80] lords of the soil where, and at the time when, these vessels were made. The decorations are all laid on in “slip” of a finer kind of clay than that of which the body is composed, and the pitcher is glazed. Herring-bone pattern is incised in the body of the pitcher itself.

While speaking of this pitcher it may not be out of place to allude to a ludicrous mistake made in Miss Meteyard’s “Life of Wedgwood.” On page 38, vol. i. of that work, Miss Meteyard has copied my own woodcut which appeared some little time before, both in the “Reliquary” and in my own “Life of Wedgwood;” but her artist having made his tracing from my woodcut has reversed it in his copy, and thus made it worse than useless.

Fig. 274 represents a “porringer” or pipkin from the same place. It is of red clay; but others were found of a dark clay, and partly glazed. A kind of clumsy dish and a bottle-shaped vessel with a side handle are shown on the next engravings (Figs. 276 and 277).

Fragments of a number of large pitchers, highly decorated with flowers, bosses, &c., in slip, and incised patterns, were also found. Among the more interesting of these were some bearing round the neck rude attempts at faces and arms. Two of these are shown on Figs. 278 and 279.

The domestic vessels of a somewhat later date appear, in many instances, to retain the same general form, but in others present new shapes. Fortunately, we can again fall back upon the illuminated MSS. for forms of these vessels, and can compare them with actual examples.

Thus on Fig. 284 we have a dish of the fourteenth, and in Fig. 283 those of the fifteenth century; while in the others we have drinking cups, bowls, three-legged vessels with spouts, &c. Fig. 282 gives us a wash-hand basin and jug—an attendant holding the basin in one hand and jug in the other while the guest washes his hands, a female standing by with the towel. In Fig. 281 we have a remarkably fine assemblage of pitchers of the fourteenth century, some of which appear to be ornamented with cross bands; while in Fig. 280 (the dancing of Herodias before Herod) we have dishes, jugs, and bowls. Some of the vessels in these illuminations, it must be borne in mind,[83] may be of metal, but the form is still of the same value and importance. Some excellent figures of mediæval jugs are also given in the next engravings, one of which (Fig. 287) likewise shows a drinking-mug.

One of the earliest written notices of crockery we have is the oft-quoted entry in the account of payments by the executors of Queen Eleanor, wife of Edward I. “Item Juliana la potere pro ccc picheriis die anniversarii Reginæ viijs. vjd.”—these three hundred pitchers being probably earthenware vessels “provided for the feast given to the poor on the anniversary of the queen’s death.”[31] Another item in the same accounts is also curious: “Item, Johanni le squeler pro M^le et D discis, tot platelles, tot salseriis, et cccc chiphis, xlijs.”—the “squeler,” or “sargeant-squylloure,” being “pourveyour of the squylery,” or scullery, who had charge of the pots, and kept them clean and in order. In the household books of Edward IV. and Sir John Howard, in the fifteenth century, and the Earl of Northumberland, shortly afterwards, mention is made of “earth and asshen cuppes” and “erthyn potts”—the latter directing that leather pots[84] be bought in place of earthen ones, of course in consequence of the loss by breakage. The entry in the expenses of Sir John Howard, in 1466, referred to, shows somewhat curiously the cost of “potes” in those days:—“Watekin bocher of Stoke delyvered of my mony to on of the poteres of Horkesley iv^s. vi^d. to pay hemselfe and his felawes for xi dosen potes,” which would be about 4¾d. per dozen for them.

The vessels made in England in mediæval times principally consisted of pitchers and jugs, cups or bowls, bottles, and dishes; the term “pottes” being applied to the drinking cups then in general use. From them and their successors the “ale pots,” of which I shall yet speak, the still common term of a pot of ale has gradually come down to us. One shape of these drinking vessels is shown in the two smaller vessels, Figs. 293 and 294, the larger ones being excellent examples of the jugs in use along with them. These were dug up in Oxford, in 1838, and are preserved in the Ashmolean Museum. Other good examples of jugs, in the Jermyn Street Museum, are shown on Figs. 290 and 295. These are all plain, but are glazed.

The larger jugs, or pitchers, are frequently ornamented with heads, foliage, or other devices, in somewhat high relief. Many of these are very curious. They were made in different parts of the country, of the common clays of the locality, and decorated according to the taste and skill of the maker.

Jugs, or vessels for liquor, were occasionally, from a very early period, made in form of mounted knights. Indeed, from the occurrence of grotesque heads and portions of figures on the Norman vessels which I had the good fortune to exhume a few years[85] back,[32] it is probable these grotesque vessels may, in some instances, trace from that date. A very interesting example (Fig. 297) was found at Lewes in 1846. It is in the form of a mounted knight. The workmanship is very rude, but there are certain details, such as the long pointed toes and pryck spurs, from which its probable date is assigned to the time of Henry II. Its length is ten and half inches, and its full height, when perfect, would be thirteen or fourteen inches.[86] The material is coarse clay, the upper parts green glazed. There can be no doubt it was intended to contain liquor, and the handle, which passes from the back of the knight to the tail of the horse, was evidently intended for pouring out the contents; whilst a circular aperture at the lower end of the handle afforded the means of filling the vessel.[33] There is no evidence to show where this was made.

Another curious example (Fig. 298) preserved in the Salisbury Museum, was found at Mere, in Wiltshire, and is believed to belong to the latter half of the twelfth century. The costume and accoutrements of this figure (which is a knight on horseback, armed with shield, &c.) correspond almost precisely to that of the effigy of King Richard I. on his great seal.[34] The impressed circles are probably intended to represent chain mail.

Another vessel, of analogous character, preserved in the Scarborough Museum, is engraved on Fig. 299. It is in the form of an animal with a twisted horn, but its handle and other parts are imperfect. It is covered with a green glaze, and was, there cannot be the shadow of a doubt, made at Scarborough, where, as I shall show, the remains of a potter’s kiln was found in 1854, but has not, as yet, been named in any work on pottery.

A jug, which would almost appear to have been the origin of the bellarmine, to be hereafter described, was communicated by[87] Mr. Kirwan to the Journal of the British Archæological Association,[35] where it is engraved. It is covered with green glaze, and bears a well and powerfully moulded head, with the flowing hair and beard so characteristic of the time of Edward I., II., and III. To this period some clay moulds for the forming of faces upon mediæval pottery, found at Lincoln by Mr. Arthur Trollope, may be assigned; they are engraved by Marryatt,[36] and will be referred to later on in this volume. It will be seen, too, on comparison of this jug with the fragments of Norman pottery on another page, that it is the same kind of general idea, somewhat amplified, but carried out in the taste of the day.

The costrils, or pilgrims’ bottles as they are commonly called, i.e., bottles for liquor to be carried and hung on the person, were much made in the Middle Ages, and although usually plain, were, nevertheless, sometimes rather highly decorated. Fig. 300 is the shape mostly known as a pilgrim’s bottle, and will be seen to vary but little from the flattened globular amphora of Roman times (Fig. 303). Sometimes they had four loops instead of handles, so that the strap could pass through the four loops and make the carrying safer. To this class a remarkably fine example in the Roach Smith collection in the British Museum belongs. On one side are the royal arms of Henry VIII. within a rose and garter, and with supporters and crown, with the legend DNE SALVVM FAC REGEM REGINAM ET REGNVM (God keep safe the King, Queen, and kingdom): on the other side are four medallions: one contains the sacred monogram, I.H.S.; two others have radiating patterns, and the fourth a heart, with loveknot[88] of flowers and the word LEAL. Fig. 303 shows another example, somewhat of the form of Figs. 300 and 302; but in this case it is globular, or gourd-shaped, and not flattened on the sides, and the handles for the loops are simply flat pieces of clay pierced for suspension. This interesting example, which is of Tickenhall make, belongs to Sir J. H. Crewe, Bart., and is mottled with green all over its surface. Another excellent form of mediæval “pilgrim’s bottle” was found at Collingbourne Ducis by the Rev. W. C. Lukis, F.S.A. It is of barrel shape, and has handles and mouth at the top, and, at the bottom, a stand. In front is a face surrounded by oak-leaves, within a circle of foliage, all in relief, and above this is an aperture. Other vessels partaking of the barrel-shape and mammiform character are also met with: some of their forms will be seen on Figs. 304 to 307. When carried, they would be slung by the handles in the same manner as others; but when not in use, instead of having a base, as in Fig. 303, one end is seen to be flattened for it to stand upon; the other end is in form of a woman’s breast—this, of course, in allusion to the use of the vessel, from the mouth of which the person who used it would drink or “suck” the liquor it contained. A much more perfectly formed mammiform bottle I give, from a beautiful drawing furnished me, with others, by my friend the late Mr. F. C. Lukis, F.S.A., on Figs. 304 and 305. It is gourd-shaped, with one side flattened to prevent its rolling when set down, and the other side is a beautifully formed female breast. It is four and a half inches in height, and holds about half a pint.

The cruskin, or cruse, or cruske, was much in use, and made of somewhat varied form. It was the precursor of the tyg, and was nothing more than a drinking-cup. References are frequently found to this vessel, as a “crusekyn de terre,” and as having, in some instances, been mounted with silver. Usually, however, they were[89] plain cups of earthenware or of wood, generally ash, the latter partaking somewhat of the form of our present basin. I am inclined to think, too, that the pipkin, or porringer, was also called a cruske or cruskin. The term is still in use in Ireland, where a “cruisken of whiskey” is a common form of expression. Some of the forms of the “cruisken” as at present in use in Ireland—made of wood—are shown on Figs. 308 to 311.

The godet, or goddard, was another drinking-cup much in vogue, and was, evidently, a kind of large cup or bowl, in which spiced liquor was mixed and drunk by “gossips” and friends. Some of these bowls will be spoken of later on. Besides these, various other names for drinking-vessels were more or less in use.

In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries the potter’s art was principally confined to the manufacture of common domestic vessels—large coarse dishes, cruiskens, tygs, pitchers, bowls, cups, candlesticks, pans, butter-pots, and other articles being among the number. Many articles, not made in England, were imported from Holland and other countries, and came into general use. They were, however, soon copied by our own workmen and made to a large extent. Among the principal of the imported vessels were bellarmines, or grey beards; and ale-pots. In the reign of Queen Elizabeth, one William Simpson proposed to manufacture, “in some decayed town within this realm,” these ale-pots, which had till that time been solely imported from Cologne by Garnet Tynes, by which he promised that “manie a hundred poore men may be sett at worke.” As a preliminary to this, he petitioned the queen to grant him sole licence to bring them into the realm. The following is his petition:—[37]

In 1570, according to Stow, Jasper Andries and Jacob Janson, potters, who had settled in Norwich in 1567 (which see), “removed to London. They set forth in a petition to Queen Elizabeth that they were the first that brought in and exercised the said science in this realm, and were at great charges before they could find materials in this realm. They besseeched her, in recompense of their great cost and charges, that she would grant them house room in or without the liberties of London, by the water side.” In 1626 a patent was granted to Thomas Rous, alias Rius, and Abraham Cullen, for the manufacture of “Stone Potts, Stone Juggs, and Stone Bottells.” This patent I here give entire:—

In 1635 a patent was granted to “David Ramsey, Esquier, one of the groomes of our pryvie chamber, Michael Arnold, and John Ayliffe, of the citty of Westminster, Brewers,” for a new method of heating boilers by means of sea coal, for brewers, soap-boilers, and others; which “invencion is alsoe very usefull for the Dryeinge of Bricke, all manner of Tyles, and all such sortes of Tyles as cannot be made in this kingdome but in the Heat of Sumer; and alsoe that they have found out the Arte and Skill of Makeinge and Dyeinge of all sortes of Panne Tyles, Stone Juggs, Bottles of all sizes, Earthen Wicker Bottles; Meltinge Pottes for Gouldsmythes, and other Earthen Comodityes within this our Realme, which nowe are made by Straungers in Forraigne Partes; and that in the makinge of the[92] same Earthen Comodityes as aforesaid, the saide David Ramsey, Michaell Arnold, and John Ayliffe shall have employment for many of our poore Subjects, whoe thereby shalbee sett on worke, and bee competently mainteyned, and will alsoe sell them cheaper than they are now sould.” This patent was for fourteen years, the parties being bound to pay one-fourth part of their profit yearly into the exchequer.

The stoneware was usually called “Cologne ware,” from Cologne, from whence it was first imported; and by this name that made in our own country continued to be in great measure known. It will be well here, therefore, to speak of the ale-pots and bellarmines of that kind of ware.

The Bellarmine, or Grey Beard, or Long Beard, as it was commonly called, was a stoneware pot of bottle form, mostly with a handle at the back and ornament on the front. The neck is narrow, and the lower part, or “belly,” as it is technically called, very wide and protuberant. They were in very general use at the “ale-houses” to serve ale in to customers, and were of different sizes—the gallonier containing a gallon; the pottle pot, two quarts; the pot, a quart; and the little pot, a pint. These jugs were derisively named after Cardinal Bellarmine, who died in 1621. The cardinal having, by his determined and bigoted opposition to the reformed religion, made himself obnoxious in the Low Countries, became naturally an[93] object of derision and contempt with the Protestants, who, among other modes of showing their detestation of the man, seized on the potter’s art to exhibit his short stature, his hard features, and his rotund figure, to become the jest of the ale-house and the byword of the people. Allusions to the bellarmines are very common in the productions of the English writers of the period.

Ben Jonson, in his Gipsies Metamorphosed, gives the following amusing version of the origin of these vessels:—

In the curious play of Epsom Wells, one of the characters, while busy with ale, says, “Uds bud, my head begins to turn round; but let’s into the house. ’Tis dark. We’ll have one Bellarmine there, and then Bonus nocius.”

These are but a few of the allusions that might be brought forward from the old writers, but they are sufficient to show its common use. The ale pots thus being formed with the corpulent proportions and the “hard-mouthed visage” of the cardinal, became a popular and biting burlesque upon him. From them, too, from the face upon the ale mug or ale pot, the vulgar name of “mug” for the human face is probably derived. The engravings, Figs. 312 to 314, show three bellarmines; the first two are “foreign” make, but the latter is English; and a strong general resemblance will be seen to the pitchers before engraved. Another English bellarmine is engraved under the head of “Fulham.”

The ordinary “ale-pots,” or “little pots,”—the pint jugs,—were, like the bellarmines, at first imported into this country, but they were afterwards made to a considerable extent in various parts of the kingdom. They were made of a light-coloured clay, and took the name of “stoneware,” from their hardness and colour. They were turned on the wheel, the necks being usually covered, with deeply encircling lines; and the ornaments consisted of lines scratched, or incised, into the soft clay with a sharp point, in form of foliage, flowers, scrolls, circles, &c., and then washed in with blue colour. In some instances a pattern—usually a flower or initials—was impressed, from a mould, on the front, as in the manner of the bellarmines. They are generally very thick, and must have been extremely durable. One example is engraved (Fig. 315).

Salt-glazing appears to have been introduced about 1680, and it gradually superseded the lead-glazing which till that time was in regular use. The account given of this discovery is, that “at Mr. Joseph Yates’, Stanley, near Bagnall, five miles east of Burslem, in Staffordshire, the servant was preparing, in an earthen vessel, a salt-ley for curing pork, and during her temporary absence the liquid boiled over, and the sides of the pot were quickly red hot from intense heat; yet, when cold, were covered with an excellent glaze. The fact was detailed to Mr. Palmer, potter, of Bagnall, who availed himself of the occurrence, and told other potters. At the small manufactories in Holden Lane (Adams’s), Green Head, and Brownhills (Wedgwood’s), salt-glazed ware was soon afterwards made.” “The ovens employed for the purpose being used only once weekly, and the ware being cheap, were large in diameter, and very high, to contain a sufficient quantity to be baked each time, to cover all contingent expenses. They were constructed with a scaffold round them, on which the firemen could stand, while casting in the salt through holes made in the upper part of the cylinder, above the bags or inner vertical flues; and the saggers were made of completely refractory materials, with holes in their sides, for the vapourised salt to circulate freely among all the vessels in the oven[95] to affect their surfaces.” The ware thus glazed, and made from the common clay, with a mixture of fine sand from Mole Cop, was called “Crouch ware,” and in this all the ordinary articles of domestic use, including jugs, cups, dishes, &c., were made. At this time, it is stated, there were only twenty-two ovens in Burslem and its neighbourhood. “The employment of salt in glazing Crouch ware was a long time practised before the introduction of white clay and flint. The vast volumes of smoke and vapours from the ovens entering the atmosphere, produced that dense white cloud which, from about eight o’clock till twelve on the Saturday morning (the time of ‘firing up,’ as it is called), so completely enveloped the whole interior of the town, as to cause persons often to run against each other, travellers to mistake the road; and strangers have mentioned it as extremely disagreeable, and not unlike the smoke of Etna or Vesuvius.”

In 1685 a white stoneware was made at Shelton by Thomas Miles, and at the same time and place a brown stoneware was also made. These would be the same as the ale-pots and bellarmines were made of.

In 1686, Dr. Plot published his “Staffordshire,” and thus spoke of the butter trade, and butter-pots then made:—[38]

The following extracts from the churchwardens’ accounts of Uttoxeter illustrate this subject:—

The butter pots were tall cylindrical vessels, of coarse clay, and very imperfectly baked. They are now of great rarity, but specimens may be seen in the Hanley Museum and in the Museum of Practical Geology. Their form will be seen in Fig. 316. It is worthy of remark that even yet, as it was in Shaw’s days, Irish or Dutch butter, which is generally imported in casks, and is in most places known as “tub butter,” is, in the potteries, usually called “pot butter.”

Of the state of the Staffordshire potteries at this period, the latter half of the seventeenth century, Dr. Plot gives a most interesting and valuable account, in which he shows not only what clays were then used, but also speaks of the glazes, and describes the modes of manufacture of some of the vessels. The clays, it appears, were mostly procured from the coal measures, and fine sand to temper and mix with them was procured from Baddeley Edge, Mole Cop, and other places. The following is Dr. Plot’s account:—

“25. Other potter’s clays for the more common wares there are at many other places, particularly at Horsley Heath, in the parish of Tipton; in Monway field above mentioned, where there are two sorts gotten, one of a yellowish colour, mixt with white, the other blewish; the former stiff and heavy, the other more friable and light, which, mixt together, work better than apart. Of these they make divers sorts of vessels at Wednesbury, which they paint with slip, made of a reddish sort of earth gotten at Tipton. But the greatest pottery they have in this county is carried on at Burslem, near Newcastle-under-Lyme, where for making their different sorts of pots they have as many different sorts of clay, which they dig round about the towne, all within half a mile’s distance, the best being found nearest the coale, and are distinguish’t by their colours and uses as followeth:—

“1. Bottle clay, of a bright whitish streaked yellow colour.

“2. Hard fire-clay, of a duller whitish colour, and fully intersperst with a dark yellow, which they use for their black wares, being mixt with the

“3. Red blending clay, which is of a dirty red colour.

“4. White clay, so called it seems, though of a blewish colour, and used for making yellow-colour’d ware, because yellow is the lightest colour they make any ware of.

All which they call throwing clays, because they are of a closer texture, and will work on the wheel.

“26. Which none of the three other clays they call Slips will any of them doe, being of looser and more friable natures; these, mixt with water, they make into a consistence thinner than a Syrup, so that being put into a bucket it will run out through a Quill. This they call Slip, and is the substance wherewith they paint their wares, whereof the

“1. Sort is called the Orange Slip, which, before it is work’t, is of a greyish colour, mixt with orange balls, and gives the ware (when annealed) an orange colour.

“2. The White Slip: this, before it is work’t, is of a dark blewish colour, yet makes the ware yellow, which, being the lightest colour they make any of, they call it, as they did the clay above, the white slip.

“3. The Red Slip, made of a dirty reddish clay, which gives ware a black colour.

Neither of which clays or slips must have any sand or gravel in them. Upon this account, before it be brought to the wheel, they prepare the clay by steeping it in water in a square pit till it be of a due consistence; then they bring it to their beating board, where, with a long Spatula, they beat it till it be well mixt; then, being first made into great squarish rolls, it is brought to the wageing board, where it is slit into thin flat pieces with a wire, and the least stones or gravel pick’t out of it. This being done, they wage it, i.e. knead or mould it like bread, and make it into round balls proportionable to their work; and then ’tis brought to the wheel, and formed as the workman sees good.

“27. When the potter has wrought the clay either into hollow or flat ware, they set it abroad to dry in faire weather, but by the fire in foule; turning them as they see occasion, which they call whaving. When they are dry they stouk them, i.e. put ears and handles to such vessels as require them. These also being dry, they slip or paint them, with their severall sorts of slip, according as they designe their work; when the first slip is dry, laying on the others at their leisure, the orange slip makeing the ground, and the white and red the paint; which two colours they break with a wire brush, much after the manner they doe when they marble paper, and then cloud them with a pencil when they are pretty dry. After the vessels are painted they lead them with that sort of Lead Ore they call Smithum, which is the smallest ore of all, beaten into dust, finely sifted, and strewed upon them; which gives them the gloss, but not the colour; all the colours being chiefly given by the variety of slips, except the motley colour, which is procured by blending the Lead with Manganese, by the workmen call’d Magnus. But when they have a mind to shew the utmost of their skill in giving their wares a fairer gloss than ordinary, they lead them then with lead calcined into powder, which they also sift fine and strew upon them as before, which not only gives them a higher gloss, but goes much further too in their work than the lead ore would have done.

“28. After this is done they are carried to the oven, which is ordinarily above 8 foot high, and about 6 foot wide, of a round copped forme, where they are placed one upon another from the bottom to the top; if they be ordinary wares, such as cylindricall butter-pots, &c., that are not leaded, they are exposed to the naked fire, and so is all their flat ware, though it be leaded, having only parting shards, i.e. thin bits of old pots, put between them to keep them from[98] sticking together; but if they be leaded hollow wares, they doe not expose them to the naked fire, but put them in shragers, that is, in coarse metall’d pots made of marle (not clay) of divers formes, according as their wares require, in which they put commonly three pieces of clay, called Bobbs, for the ware to stand on, to keep it from sticking to the shragers; as they put them in the shragers, to keep them from sticking to one another (which they would certainly otherwise doe by reason of the leading), and to preserve them from the vehemence of the fire, which else would melt them downe, or at least warp them. In twenty-four hours an oven of pots will be burnt; then they let the fire goe out by degrees, which in ten hours more will be perfectly done, and then they draw them for sale, which is chiefly to the poor Crate-men, who carry them at their backs all over the countrey, to whome they reckon them by the piece, i.e. Quart, in hollow ware, so that six pottle, or three gallon bottles, make a dozen, and so more or less to a dozen as they are of greater or lesser content. The flat wares are also reckoned by pieces and dozens, but not (as the hollow) according to their content, but their different bredths.”

A round dish of the “combed ware,” or marbled or mottled ware, described by Plot, is shown on Fig. 317. Some of the examples I have seen are exceedingly delicate and minute in their patterns; others, as the engraving, have been “combed” with a coarse comb or wire brush. The lead for glazing, named by Plot, was procured from the Derbyshire lead mines—the ore being powdered, or “punned,” and dusted on to the soft clay vessel before firing.

Previous to this, in 1671, John Dwight took out a patent in the petition for which he stated that “he had discovered the Mistery of Transparent Earthen Ware, comonly knowne by the Names of Porcelaine or China and Persian Ware, as alsoe the Misterie of the Stone Ware vulgarly called Cologne Ware; and that he designed to introduce a Manufacture of the said Wares into our Kingdome of Englande, where they have not hitherto been wrought or made.” This was the origin of the famous Fulham works, a full account of which will be given in another part of this volume.

In 1676 John Ariens Van Hamme, “in pursuance of the incouragement he hath received from our Ambassadour at the Hague, is come over to settle in this our kingdome with his family, to exercise his ‘Art of makeing Tiles and Porcelaine and other Earthen Wares, after the way practised in Holland,’ which hath not beene practised in this our kingdome,” took out a patent for fourteen years for the sole[99] practice of his art. The “tiles” named in his patent would, of course, be the “Dutch Tiles” as they were always called, and which were used for the lining of rooms, the decoration of fire-places, and for various other purposes. They were about four inches square, made of a common kind of clay, and faced, as all delf ware was, with a fine white slip. On this was painted a pattern—a group of figures, the illustration of some sacred or profane story, foliage, birds, or other devices, in blue colour, and then glazed and fired. On one of these tiles is represented a lady letting her lover down from her chamber into the street below, by a rope which she holds in her hand, and others have various devices. The manufacture of these tiles was carried on largely in England, and further notices will be given under the head of Liverpool, &c.

In 1684 John Dwight, having represented “that by his owne industry and at his owne proper costes and charges hee hath invented and sett vp at Fulham, in our County of Middlx, “Severall New Manufactures of Earthenwares, called by the names of White Gorges, Marbled Porcellane Vessels, Statues, and Figures, and Fine Stone Gorges and Vessells never before made in England or elsewhere; and alsoe discovered the Mistery of Transparent Porcellane, and Opacous, Redd, and Dark coloured Porcellane or China and Persian Wares, and the Mistery of the Cologne or Stone Wares, and is endeavouring to settle manufactures of all the said wares within this our kingdome of England,” had another patent for fourteen years granted to him. To Dwight, therefore, it will be seen by these patents, the credit of being the first inventor and maker of porcelain in England belongs. His name is thus one entitled to lasting honour as the pioneer of one of the best, most beautiful, most successful, and most flourishing arts ever practised in our kingdom.

In 1688 the brothers Eler or Elers, traditionally believed to have been potters from Holland, are said to have come over with William, Prince of Orange (William III.), to England at the time of the “Glorious Revolution,” and, two years later, to have settled at Bradwell and Dimsdale, not far from Burslem, in Staffordshire, where they erected kilns and commenced the making of a fine red ware (probably the kind spoken of by Dwight), in imitation of foreign red porcelain, from a vein of clay which, by some means, they had discovered existed at this spot. Here they produced remarkably fine and good red ware, of compact and hard texture, good colour,[100] and of very characteristic and excellent designs. They were men of much skill and taste, and their productions so closely resemble those of Japan as to be occasionally mistaken for them. An example, from the Museum of Practical Geology, is here shown. The Elers, besides the red ware, also produced an exceedingly good Egyptian black, by a mixture of manganese with the clay; and this was the precursor and origin of the fine black bodies of Josiah Wedgwood and others. “Their extreme precaution,” says Shaw, “to keep secret their processes, and jealousy lest they might be accidentally witnessed by any purchaser of their wares—making them at Bradwell, and conveying them over the fields to Dimsdale, there to be sold, being only two fields distant from the turnpike road, and having some means of communication (believed to be earthenware pipes, like those for water) laid in the ground between the two contiguous farmhouses, to intimate the approach of persons supposed to be intruders—caused them to experience considerable and constant annoyance. In vain did they adopt measures for self-protection in regard to their manipulations, by employing an idiot to turn the thrower’s wheel, and the most ignorant and stupid workmen to perform the laborious operations, and by locking up these persons while at work, and strictly examining each prior to quitting the manufactory at night—all their most important processes were however developed, and publicly stated for general benefit. Mortified at the failure of all their precaution, disgusted at the prying inquisitiveness of their Burslem neighbours, and fully aware that they were too far distant from the principal market for their productions—even had not other kinds of porcelain been announced, which probably would diminish their sales—about 1710 they discontinued[101] their Staffordshire manufactory, and removed to Lambeth or Chelsea (where is at this day a branch of the family), and connected the interests of their new manufactory with those of a glass manufacture, established in 1676 by Venetians, under the auspices of the Duke of Buckingham. Others, however, have stated that their removal was consequent on misunderstanding and persecution because their oven cast forth such tremendous volumes of smoke and flame, during the time of glazing, as were terrific to the inhabitants of Burslem, and caused all its (astonishing number of eight) master potters to hurry in dismay to Bradwell.”

The two potters who had wormed out the secret of the Elers were named Astbury and Twyford, and they are said each to have commenced business on his own account at Shelton, and to have made “Red,” “Crouch,” and “White stone” wares from native clays, using salt glaze for some of the vessels, and lead ore for others. It is interesting to add that the oven erected and used by the Elers was in existence as late as the beginning of the present century, and that the place, in an old account-book in my possession, is called “the Eller field.”

About the period when Dwight was taking out his patent, Thomas[102] Toft and Ralph Toft were making, in Staffordshire, some large domestic dishes, which, from some of them bearing their names, put on in large letters, are universally known to collectors as “Toft Dishes.” Under this name, however, it is well to state many dishes and other vessels pass which never were, or could have been, made by them, and I warn collectors against too easily pinning their faith to a belief that their examples are genuine “Tofts” unless they bear the name. The style was common to all makers of that date. Besides dishes, tygs of various forms, with one, two, three, or four handles; pitchers of various sizes, candlesticks, posset-pots, gossips’ bowls, pans or pancheons, utensils for the chamber, and many other articles, were made of precisely the same coarse materials, and of exactly the same kind of decoration as the dishes.

The material of these pots is a coarse reddish or buff-coloured clay, and the ornaments are laid on in different coloured clays, and the whole is then glazed thickly over. One of these large dishes, now in the Museum of Practical Geology, is shown on Fig. 321. The body is of buff-coloured clay, with the ornaments laid on in relief in light and dark brown. The border is trellised, and in the centre is a lion rampant, crowned. On the rim beneath the lion is the name of the maker, THOMAS TOFT. In the same museum is a fragment of another similar dish, with a lion and unicorn. A very fine dish of a similar kind, and by the same maker, in the Bateman[103] Museum is engraved on Fig. 320. It is twenty-two inches in diameter, and bears a half-length crowned portrait of King Charles, with sceptre in each hand, and the initials C.R. Below the figure, on the rim, which, as usual, is trellised in red and black, is the name THOMAS TOFT. In the same museum is another remarkably fine dish, bearing two full-length figures in the costume of the Stuarts, the gentleman holding in his hand his hat and feather, and having “petticoat breeches,” tied stockings, and high-heeled boots with ties, and the lady holding a bunch of flowers. Between the figures are the initials W. T., and on the rim at the bottom, in precisely the same manner as the Toft dishes, is the name WILLIAM: TALOR. Another Toft dish (Fig. 322) now in the possession of Mr. Bagshawe, is nineteen inches in diameter, and bears a female figure, and two heads in ovals, with foliage, &c., and the name RALPHOFT, or Ralph Toft, the H and T being apparently conjoined. The ground is buff, and the ornaments are laid on in dark and light brown clay. Another with the name RALPH TOFT, 1677, was in the Reynolds’ collection.[104] Another maker of this period, whose name occurs in the same manner as those just described, was WILLIAM SANS. Of the makers of these dishes, it is interesting to observe that Toft is an old name connected with the pottery district, and that members of the family are still potters in the neighbourhood. It is also an old Derbyshire name, being connected with Youlgreave and other places in that neighbouring county.

The “Tygs” appear to have been made in considerable numbers, and, indeed, to have constituted one of the staple manufactures of the potters of that day. They were the ordinary drinking-cups of the period, and were made with one, two, three, four, or more handles. The two-handled ones are said to have been “parting cups,” and those with three or four handles “loving cups,” being so arranged[105] that three or four persons drinking out of one, and each using a different handle, brought their lips to different parts of the rim. Examples of some of the forms of these tygs are shown on Figs. 323 to 328. Two of these, with three handles each (Figs. 326 and 328), were found in a long-disused lead mine at Great Hucklow; another (Fig. 327) has three handles and a spout, and is ornamented with bosses of a lighter colour, bearing a swan, a flower, and a spread eagle. The fourth (Figs. 323 and 324) are two-handled cups, of the same general form as those with one handle. These two latter specimens are in the Museum of Practical Geology. Other examples of various forms are shown on the remaining engravings.

A curious candlestick, shown on Fig. 329, in the Museum of Practical Geology, is of much the same kind of ware as the tygs, and has its ornaments in white clay slip; it bears the date 1649, and[106] the initials E. M. Another, in my own collection (Fig. 330), is made of precisely the same coarse kind of ware as the tygs; dark reddish brown, with ornaments in white slip—the slip at the base having been laid on in a broad band, and then scratched through to the dark clay. The mug, Fig. 331, is exactly the same kind of ware.

Another curious article of this same kind of ware, in the Bateman collection, is engraved on Fig. 332. It is a small earthenware cradle of excellent form, and elaborately ornamented; the ground is a rich reddish brown, the ornaments of buff and black. It bears the date on its top of 1693, and is 7¾ inches long, and 4¾ inches in height. To this period belongs the interesting puzzle-jug in the Museum of Practical Geology, shown on Fig. 333. It is of brown ware, and bears the name, incised in writing letters, of “John Wedgwood, 1691,” and is the first and earliest example of the name of Wedgwood occurring on pottery. It will again be referred to later on.

It is very clear that brown ware of the same general character as the tygs and the Toft dishes, was made in very many parts of the country besides Staffordshire, and that much now by collectors appropriated to that county has no connection with it.

A peculiar use for ceramics should here be noticed; it has not before been spoken of in any work upon pottery. I allude to hand-grenades, two of which, preserved in the Leicester Museum, are here engraved (Figs. 334 and 335). These were found in the Old Magazine, or Newarke, Gateway at Leicester. They are formed of red clay, and fired in the kiln in the usual manner, and they have fuse-plugs of wood fitted into the opening at the top.

At the commencement of the eighteenth century, the ceramic art in this country was beginning to expand in a remarkable degree, and many important strides for its improvement were taken. The brown-ware dishes, tygs, and other vessels for domestic use, were still made as before, and stoneware bottles, ale pots, and other articles continued to be produced; but, beyond these, some much finer kinds of earthenware were introduced, which gradually took their place. Among these were Delft ware and Crouch ware, to which I have referred, and the white ware, which has frequently, but erroneously, been called “Elizabethan ware,” which was probably introduced about this time. A good specimen of the brown ware of this period, which will be seen to be identical in character with the dishes and tygs and cradle before spoken of, is the posset pot shown on Fig. 336.[108] It bears the loyal motto, “GOD : SAVE : THE : QVEEN : 1711,” and is ornamented in the usual way with slip. It is of much the same character as a wassail or gossips’ bowl, bearing the name “RICHARD MEIR,” in the Liverpool Museum. It is shown on Fig. 337. The form of Fig. 336 is somewhat different from the usual later shape of posset pots, as will be shown on engravings which will follow. As posset and posset pots are local matters, a few words concerning them will here be interesting. Posset pots have been made and regularly used in Derbyshire and the neighbouring counties from an early period until the present time. “Posset” is an excellent mixture of hot ale, milk, sugar, spices, and sippets, or, perhaps, more correctly speaking, dice, of bread or oat-cake. In these counties this beverage was formerly almost, if not quite, universal for supper on Christmas-eve; and the “posset pot” was thus used but once a year, and often became an heirloom in the family. A small silver coin and the wedding-ring of the mistress of the family were generally dropped into the posset when the guests were assembled, and those who partook of it took each a spoonful in turn as the “pot” was handed round. Whichever of the party fished up the coin was considered certain of good luck in the coming year, while an early and happy marriage was believed to be the enviable fate of the lucky individual who fished up the ring. Other posset pots will be found engraved in other parts of this volume, under the heads of Nottingham and Brampton.

It is clear that about this time the art of pot-making began to make rapid strides; for in the space of twenty-seven years—from 1722 to 1749—no less than nine separate patents were taken out, and were followed in rapid succession by others. In 1722, Richard Holt and Samuel London, gentlemen, took out a patent for “a certain new composicon or mixture (without any sort of clay) for making of white ware, which is formed and moulded in a method hitherto not known or practised, and far surpasses the finest of delf ware, or any other sort made in any part of Europe, and also by their new method of impression make the fabrick of earthenware of a more exquisite shape than the present method of turning could ever perform or arrive to, by which meanes our subjects will be able to excell all Europe, and not only employ a great many of our own poor, to the great benefit of trade and the manufactures of our kingdom, but also prevent the clandestine running of delf ware, &c., from foreign parts into Great Brittain;” granted “for the term of[109] fourteen years.” It does not say of what materials the composition is made, except that it is without any sort of clay, nor does it describe any method of impression.

In the same year, Thomas Billin, having “by many long, laborious, and chargeable experiments found out and invented a method for making the most refined earthenware, with help of clay and other materials found within this kingdom, which ever yet appeared in this part of Europe, of a nature and composicon, not only transparent, but so perfect in its kind, and of principles so firmly vnited, as (contrary to the nature of all other earthenwares) to resist almost any degree of heat, by which qualities it is more valuable, and of greater vse and ornament than all other kinds ever yet invented or practised in this kingdom, and capable of being wrought into vessels and ornaments for any vse; and for the working of the same invention he hath invented particular and proper engines and tools.” No description is given of the mode of manufacture, or of the engines or tools mentioned in the title of the invention.

In 1724 Robert Redrich and Thomas Jones had a patent granted them for “a new art or method, as well for staining, veining, spotting, clouding, damasking, or otherwise imitating the various kinds of marble, porphyry, and other rich stones, and tortoiseshell, on wood, stone, and earthenware, and all and every such goods, wares, utensils, and things as are made, cut, or fashioned thereout, as for the making, marbling, veining, spotting, staining, clouding, and damasking any linen, silks, canvas, paper, and leather.”

In 1726, and again in 1732, patents were taken out for methods of grinding flints, &c., which were of much importance. The first of these, by Thomas Benson, is described as “an engine or new method for the more expeditious working the said flint stone, whereby all the said hazards and inconveniences attending the same will effectually be prevented.” It is stated that in the making of “white pots,” flint stone is “the chief ingredient,” and that the method hitherto used in preparing it “has been by pounding or breaking it dry, and afterwards sifting it through fine lawns, which has proved very destructive to mankind;” and this invention is to obviate it, and is as follows:—The flint stones are first wetted, then crushed as fine as sand by two large wheels, of the bigness and shape of mill-stones, of iron, and made to turn upon the edges by the power of a water-wheel. This material is afterwards conveyed into large circular iron pans, “in which there are large iron balls, which, by the[110] power of the water-wheel above named, are swiftly driven round: in a short time the operation is concluded, and by turning a tap the material empties itself into casks.”

In 1729 Samuel Bell took out a patent for fourteen years “for a new method not hitherto practiced within Great Brittain for making of a red marble stone ware with minerall earth, found within this kingdom, which being firmly vnited by fire will make it capable of receiving a gloss so beautiful as to imitate, if not to compare with rubie; that the stone ware may be formed into vessells for any necessary vse, or into ornaments for houses or gardens, such as jarrs, flower potts, &c., it being the most perfect of its kind, both in colour, nature, and form, that hath ever appeared in this part of Europe;” but no specification, to show what the mineral earth was, is given.

In 1733 (April 24th) Ralph Shawe, potter, of Burslem, who, like many other potters of the district, had long adopted the improvements of Mr. Astbury and others, took out a patent for employing “various sorts of mineral, earth, clay, and other earthy substances, which, being mixt and incorporated together, make up a fine body, of which a curious ware may be made, whose outside will be of a true chocolate colour, striped with white, and the inside white, much resembling the brown China ware, and glazed with salt.” The secret was merely washing the inside, and forming broad lines on the outside of the articles with a very thick slip of flint and pipeclay.[111] “To keep his process more secluded and secret, he was accustomed to evaporate his mixed clays on a long trough, in a place locked up under cover, beneath which were flues, for the heat from fire applied on the outside. This also kept the clay free from any kind of dirt; and the idea is supposed to have been gained from the tile-makers’ method of drying their tiles in stoves. A pair of flower-pots, excellent specimens of this person’s manufacture, which had been received as a present from the maker by his wife’s grandfather, were in the author’s possession till very recently. Mr. Shawe became so litigious and overbearing, that many of the manufacturers were extremely uncomfortable, and prevented improving their productions. Not content with the success he experienced, and the prospect of speedily acquiring affluence, his excessive vanity and insatiable avarice incited to proceedings that terminated in his ruin. Unwilling to admit the customary practices of the business, and to brook any appearance of competition, he was constantly objecting to every trifling improvement as an infringement of his patent, and threatening his neighbours with suits in equity to protect his sole rights; till at length self-defence urged them to bear the expenses of a suit he had commenced against J. Mitchell, to try the validity of the patent, at Stafford, in 1736; and very aged persons, whose parents were present, give the general facts of the trial:—All the manufacturers being interested in the decision, those most respectable were in the court. Witnesses proved Astbury’s invention and prior usage of the practice, and a special jury of great intelligence and wealth gave a verdict against Mr. Shawe. The learned judge, after nullifying the patent, thus addressed the audience—“Go home, potters, and make whatever kinds of pots you please.” The hall re-echoed with acclamations, and the strongest ebullitions of satisfaction from the potters, to the indescribable mortification of Mr. Shawe and his family, who afterwards went to France, where he carried forward his manufactory, whence some of his family returned to Burslem about 1750.” This event is thus characteristically spoken of in native tongue, in the “Burslem Dialogue,” by Mr. Ward:—

The kind of ware just described was sometimes known as “bitstone[112] ware,” from “bits” of stone being used to separate the pieces in the oven. This was, of course, prior to the use of “stilts,” “triangles,” or “cockspurs.”

In 1744, Edward Heylyn, in the parish of Bow, in the county of Middlesex, merchant, and Thomas Frye, of the parish of West Ham, in the county of Essex, painter, took out a patent, and early in the following year enrolled their specification, for the making of china and porcelain ware. This specification, which is deeply interesting, is as follows:—

In 1748 Thomas Frye took out another patent, the specification for which, enrolled March 17, 1749, is as follows:—

In these specifications we have important materials touching the Bow china works, under which head they will again be referred to.[114] About this time, the Chelsea, Worcester, and Derby, and, a little later, the Plymouth, porcelain works were established. The year in which this specification was enrolled, 1749, is memorable as the year when Josiah Wedgwood completed his term of apprenticeship, and when, consequently, he entered upon that course of work and life which have ever since had so brilliant and so marked an effect upon the potter’s art in this country. At this time, too, there were in Staffordshire a number of very skilful potters, who were, even before Wedgwood’s time, making rapid strides in the art. To some of these I shall refer later on in this work.

The next patent taken out was in 1762, by “William White, of Fulham, in the county of Middlesex, potter,” for making white crucibles or melting-pots of Stourbridge clay and Dorsetshire clay, calcined, mixed with Woolwich sand, and water, and trodden together, and burned. Two years later, James Williamson and Joseph Spackman patented “a new method of turning ovals in pewter, English china, and all other earthenwares,” on a lathe with movable chucks and sliding ring, of their inventing. In 1766, “the Count de Lauraguais, of London,” having, “by his petition, humbly represented unto us, that by labour, study, travelling, and expence in trying experiments, he hath found out and invented ‘a new method of making porcelain ware in all its different branches, viz.—to make the coarser species of china, the more beautiful of the Indies, and the finest of Japan, in a manner different from any that is made in our dominions, and he, having the materials tryed in Great Britain, has brought the same to so great perfection that the porcelain made therewith after his new method far excells any that has hitherto been made in Great Britain, the same not being fusible by fire, as all other china made there is,’” took out a patent for fourteen years, but no specification seems to have been enrolled.

During all this time the pottery district of Staffordshire was rapidly increasing, and important strides were being made by its manufacturers in the improvement of their art. In various parts of the country, too, old pot works continued their business in an improved state, and new ones sprang up in every direction. The history of the art, therefore, becomes that of the various works which I shall have to pass under review. The patents taken out from this period to the close of the century are some guide to this state of progress, but not much; for it is an undoubted fact, that many of the most important improvements and most reliable inventions were[115] never patented at all, while others, which were the gradual result of daily practice, were not sufficiently “inventions” to entitle them to patent right.

In 1768 William Cookworthy, of Plymouth, took out a patent for his newly invented porcelain, which was renewed in 1775 to Richard Champion; to these reference will be made under the heads of “Plymouth” and “Bristol.”

In 1769 Josiah Wedgwood took out his only patent; it was for decorative, not manufacturing, processes, and will be spoken of more fully in the notice of Etruria.

In 1782 James Crease patented some inventions in the making of sanitary vessels; and in the two following years “Joseph Cartledge, of Blackley, in the county of York, Doctor of Physic,” enrolled his specification for “a method of glazing earthenware.” This interesting document is as follows:—

The next patent, in 1785, was by Thomas De-la-Mayne, for “making buttons of burnt earth or porcelain;” and the next, in 1786, by John Skidmore, for ornamenting various articles and “all sorts of china and earthenware with foil stones, Bristol stones, paste, and all sorts of pinched glass, lapped glass, and every other stone, glass, and composition used in or applicable to the jewellery trade,” in ways therein described. In 1789 an improvement in the form and construction of “soup ladles, tureens, gravy spoons, ladles, and skimmers,” was patented by John Baynes; and in 1790, Johanna Hempel patented newly invented filters. In 1796, James Keeling patented improvements in decorative and glazing processes; and in the same year, in conjunction with Valentine Close, an improved mode of constructing “ovens, kilns, and firing-places, so as to make and cause a very great saving of coals and fuel in and about the firing, hardening, and baking all manner of porcelain, china ware, and all manner of earthenwares, in every state wherein firing is needful and necessary.”

In the same year, 1796, Ralph Wedgwood took out three separate patents. The first of these was for a “new discovered and invented method of making earthenware, whereby the article of earthenware may be made at a less cost than hitherto, to the great advantage of the manufacturers thereof, and of the public.” This consists “in casing over inferior compositions with compositions commonly used for making cream-coloured ware, white ware, or china.” “Thick bats or laminæ” of the inferior are covered on each side with thin bats of the superior clay, and if the edges of the ware are required to be cased, they are surrounded “with a square piece commonly called a wad.” Afterwards the “bats” are beat, pressed, or rolled out to the required dimensions, “as are proper for the wares to be[117] made from the same.” For moulding the wares single moulds may be used, but double are preferred, of wood, or “wood cased with plaster, of metal,” or any material capable of standing much pressure. The press is such as is used for stamping buttons. The glazing is applied dry to the bats; if the edges of the ware, after moulding, are not properly covered with dry glaze, supply these parts “with wet glaze, by means of a pencil;” afterwards stove and burn the ware. The others were respectively for a new method of making glass from old earthenware, china, &c.; and for “a new-invented stove,” “calculated principally for the use of manufacturers of earthenware and china.” On the same day on which this patent was dated, one was also granted to John Pepper, for a new construction of kilns or ovens for the same purpose. In 1799 Messrs. William and John Turner patented “a new method or methods of manufacturing porcelain or earthenware, by the introduction of a material not heretofore used in the manufacturing of those articles;” the material being “Tabberner’s Mine rock,” “Little Mine rock,” and “New rock,” mixed with the growan, or Cornish stone, and flint.

This is the last patent connected with ceramics before the year 1800, and therefore brings us down to the commencement of the present century. From 1800 to 1861 no less than three hundred and twenty-two patents were taken out for improvements in the potter’s art or in matters connected with that art. These will be briefly enumerated at the close of this work, and of many of them notices will be found incorporated in its body.

In the early part of this century, with the exception of the productions of a few houses, the state of the art was still at a low ebb; and, although improvements were constantly being made, when the great world-struggle took place in 1851, we, as a nation, were found to be lamentably behind some other countries, not only in the beauty of form and decoration of our ceramic productions, but even in quality of body and glaze. Between the Exhibitions of 1851 and 1862 a marked improvement was effected, and this has gone on steadily extending itself, until now Great Britain, without exception, stands foremost of all the nations of earth in this art.

I now proceed, in succeeding chapters, to speak of the various earthenware and porcelain works and seats of pottery manufacture, of the kingdom.

Fulham.

In 1671, as I have already shown,[39] John Dwight took out a patent for “the mistery of transparent earthenware, comonly knowne by the names of Porcelaine or China, and Persian Ware,” &c. The patent runs as follows:—

“CHARLES THE SECOND, &c., to all to whome theise presents shall come, greeting.

“WHEREAS wee have bene informed by the humble peticon of John Dwight, Gentl, that he had discovered “The Mistery of Transparent Earthenware, comonly knowne by the Names of Porcelaine or China, and Persian Ware, as alsoe the Misterie of the Stone Ware vulgarly called Cologne Ware; and that he designed to introduce a Manufacture of the said Wares into our Kingdome of England, where they have not hitherto bene wrought or made.” And thereupon the said John Dwight hath humbly besought vs to grant him the sole benefitt of the manufacture of the said wares for fourteene yeares, according to the statute in that behalfe made and provided.

“KNOW YEE, that wee, being willing to cherish and encourage all laudable endeavours and designes of such our subiects as shall find out vsefull and profitable arts, misteries, and invencons, by granting and appropriating vnto them for some terme of yeares the fruite and benefitt of their industry, whereby their labours and expences in the attainm^t thereof may be recompensed and rewarded vnto them, of our especiall grace, certaine knowledge, and meere mocon, have given and granted, and by theise presents, for vs, our heires and successors, doe give and grant vnto the said John Dwight, his executors, administrators, and assignes, speciall lycense and full and free libertie, priviledge, power, and authoritie, that he, the said John Dwight, his executors, administrators, and assignes, by him and themselves, or by his or their deputies, servants, workemen, or assignes, and none other, shall and may, from time to time, and att all and everie time and times hereafter, dureing the tearme of fourteene yeares next ensueing the date of these presents, att his and their owne proper costs and charges, vse, exercise, practise, and enioy the said misterie and Invencon of makeing transparent earthen ware, comonly knowne by the names of porcelaine or China, and Persian ware; and also the mistery and Invencon or makeing the stone ware vulgarly called Collogne ware, within any convenient place or places within our Realme of England, Dominion of Wales, or Towne of Berwick-vpon-Tweed, in such manner as to him or them in their discrecons shall seeme meete; and shall and may have and enioy the sole benefitt and advantage from, by, or vnder the said[119] misteries and invencons or manufactures of the said wares, or either of them by him the said John Dwight found out and discovered, as aforesaid, ariseing or groweing from time to time dureing the terme hereby granted, to have, hold, and enioy the said lycenses, priviledges, powers, and authorities, benefitt, advantages, & other the premisses in and by these presents granted or menconed to be granted, and everie of them, vnto the said John Dwight, his executors, administrators, and assignes, from and dureing the tearme of fourteene yeares from henceforth next ensueing, and fully to be compleate and ended, yeilding and paying therefore yearely and every yeare dureing the said tearme into the receipt of our Exchequer att Westminster, to the vse of vs, our heires and successors, the yearely rent or sume of twentie shillings of lawfull money of England, att the two most vsuall feasts or tearmes in the yeare, (that is to say) att the Feast of Saint Michaell the Archangell, and the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary, by even and equall porcons. And to the end the said John Dwight, his executors, administrators, and assignes, and everie of them, may the better enioy the full and whole benefitt and sole vse and exercise of the said misteries, invencons, and manufacture of the said wares, as well within liberties as without, wee doe by theise presents, for vs, our heires and successors, require and streightly charge and comand all and everie person & persons, bodies pollitique and corporate, of whatsoever qualitie, degree, name, or condicon they be, that neither they nor any of them, dureing the tearme hereby granted, either directly or indirectly, doe or shall vse or putt in practise the said misteries and invencons or manufacture of the said wares, or either of them, soe by the said John Dwight found out or discovered as aforesaid; nor doe or shall counterfeit, imitate, or resemble the same; nor doe or shall make any addicon therevnto, or substraccon from the same, whereby to pretend themselves the inventors or devisors thereof, without the lycense, consent, and agreement of the said John Dwight, his executors, administrators, or assignes, in writeing under his or their hands and seals first had and obteyned in that behalfe, vpon such paines and penalties as can or may be inflicted on such offendors for the contempt of this our comand in that behalfe, and further to be answearable to the said John Dwight, his executors, administrators, and assignes, according to law and justice, for his and their damages thereby susteined. And further, we doe by theise presents, for vs, our heires and successors, give and grant vnto the said John Dwight, his executors, administrators, and assignes, full power and authoritie that he, they, and everie of them, his, theire, & everie of theire deputies, servants, and agents, or any of them, haveing first obteyned a warrant in this behalfe from the Lord Chiefe Justice of the Court of King’s Bench for the time being, may, with the assistance of a constable or any other lawfull officer, as well within liberties as without, vpon request, att convenient times in the day, dureing the time aforesaid, and in lawfull manner, to enter and make search in any houses or other places where there shall be iust causes of suspition, for discovering and finding out of all such persons as shall within the tearme of fourteene yeares aforesaid imitate or cause to bee imitated or vse or putt in practise the said misteries and invencons, or manufacture of the said wares, or either of them, soe by the said John Dwight found out and discovered as aforesaid, that soe such offendors may be proceeded against and punished according to their demeritts. And further, wee doe by theise presents, for vs, our heires and successors, will, authorise, and require all and singuler justices of the peace, mayors, sheriffes, bayliffes, constables, head-boroughs, and all other officers and ministers whatsoever, of vs, our heires and successors, for the time being, that they and every of them respectively be from time to time dureing the said tearme hereby granted in their respective places, favouring, ayding, helping, and assisting vnto the said John Dwight, his executors, adminr^s, and assignes, and to be his and their deputie and deputies, servants, and agents, in and by all things in and aboute the accomplishment of our will and pleasure herein declared, and in the exercise and execucon of the powers and priviledges herein and hereby granted or menconed to be granted as aforesaid; and, moreover, wee will and comand by theise presents, for us, our heires and successors, that our said officers, or any of them, doe not molest, trouble, or interrupt the said John Dwight, his executors, administrators, or assignes, or his or their deputie or deputies, servants, or workemen, or any of them, in or about the vse or exercise of the said misteries and invencons or manufacture of the said wares, or either of them, or any matter or thing concerning the same, or either of them: Provided alwaies, that if att any time dureing the said tearme of fourteene yeares it shall be made appeare vnto vs, our heires or successors, or any six or more of our or their Privy Councell, that this our grant is contrary to law or preiudiciall or inconvenient or not of public vse or benefitt, then, vpon significacon & declaracon to be made by vs, our heires or successors, vnder our or their signett[120] or privie seale, or by the Lords and others of our Privy Councell, or any six of them for the time being, in writeing vnder their hands, of such preiudice or inconvenience, these our Letters Patents, and all things therein conteyned, shall forthwith cease, determine, and be vtterly void to all intents and purposes, anything hereinbefore conteyned to the contrary notwithstanding. And our will and pleasure is, that the said John Dwight, his executors, administrators, or assignes, shall enroll these presents, or cause the same to be enrolled, before the Clerke of the Pipe within six moneths next after the date hereof. And lastly, wee doe by theise presents, for vs, our heires and successors, grant vnto the said John Dwight, his executors, administrators, and assignes, that these our Letters Patents, and the inrollment thereof, shall bee in and by all things good, valid, sufficient, and effectuall in the law, according to the true intent and meaning of theise presents, and shall be taken, adiudged, and construed most favourably and beneficially for the best benefitt and advantage of the said John Dwight, his executors, administrators, and assignes, as well in all our Courts of Record as elsewhere, notwithstanding the not specifying the various sorts of the said Collogne wares, and the not full and certaine describing the manner and qualitie of the said misteries and invencons, or any of them, or of the materialls, way and manner of workeing the same, or of the true and certaine vse and benefitt thereof, and notwithstanding any other defects, incertainties, or imperfeccons in theise presents conteyned, or any act, statute, ordinance, provision, proclamacon, or restraint to the contrary thereof in anywise notwithstanding.

“In witnes, &c. Witnes our selfe att Westminster, the Three and twentieth day of Aprill P bre de privatoe sigillo.”

This was the commencement of the Fulham Pottery, whose history I am about to attempt to trace, and which has continued uninterruptedly in work for more than two centuries.

Dwight appears to have been a man of considerable learning and ability. He graduated as M.A. at Christ Church, Oxford, and successively held the appointments of secretary to more than one Bishop of Chester. He seems to have long experimented upon clays and mineral products in the search after the body of which the oriental china was made, and at length to have brought those researches to a successful issue. Six years after the date of the first of his patents, Dr. Plot, the eminent antiquary and keeper of the Ashmolean Museum at Oxford, thus wrote of his discoveries in his “History of Oxfordshire”:—

Dwight having patented his discovery of “the mistery of transparent earthenware, commonly known by the names of Porcelaine or China, or Persia ware,” in April, 1671, it is perfectly clear that the discovery must have been made before that time, and that it must have been the result of a long series of patient trials and experiments. Thus, I think, we may safely say that the actual discovery was made some time prior to 1671. In 1684 the patent expired, and a new one granted, in June, for another term of fourteen years—this time the wares and articles being more specifically named. It is as follows:—

“CHARLES THE SECOND, by the grace of God, &c., to all to whom these presents shall come, greeting.

“WHEREAS John Dwight, Gentl, hath represented vnto vs that by his owne industry and at his owne proper costs and charges, hee hath invented and sett vp at Fulham, in our County of Middx, ‘Severall New Manufactures of Earthenwares, called by the Names of White Gorges, Marbled Porcellane Vessells, Statues, and Figures, and Fine Stone Gorges and Vessells, never before made in England or elsewhere; and alsoe discovered the Mistery of Transparent Porcellane, and Opacous, Redd, and Darke-coloured Porcellane or China and Persian Wares, and the Mistery of the Cologne or Stone Wares,’ and is endeavouring to settle manufactures of all the said wares within this our kingdome of England; and hee having humbly besought vs, to grant vnto him our Letters Patents for the sole vse and exercise of the same for the terme of fowrteene years, according to the Statute in that case provided, wee are gratiously pleased to condescend to that his request.

“KNOW YEE THEREFORE, that wee being willing that the said John Dwight may reap some reasonable recompence and compensacon for his great charge and paines in and about the premisses, and to incourage the inventers of such arts as may be of publick vse and benefitt, of our especiall grace, certeine knowledge, and meere mocon, have given and granted,[122] and by these presents, for vs, our heires and successors, doe give and grant, vnto the said John Dwight, his executors, administrators, and assignes, speciall licence, full power, sole privilege and authority, that hee, the said John Dwight, his executors, administrators, and assignes, and every of them, by themselves, or their deputy or deputys, servants or agents, or such others as the said John Dwight, his executors, administrators, or assignes, shall at any time agree with, and noe others, from time to time and at all times dureing the terme of yeares hereafter in these presents expressed, shall and lawfully may vse, exercise, and enioy the said Invencons of new manufactures within any part or parts, place or places whatsoever, of, in, or belonging to our kingdome of England, dominion of Wales, and all and every or any of our kingdomes and dominions whatsoever, in such manner, and according to such reasonable and lawfull rates and limitacons, as to him, the said John Dwight, his executors, administrators, and assignes, or any of them, shall in their discrecons seeme meet, and that hee, the said John Dwight, his executors, administrators, and assignes, shall and may have and enioy the sole benefitt, profitt, comodity, and advantage from time to time coming, growing, and arising by reason of the said Invencons of new manufactures, for and dureing the full terme of yeares hereafter menconed; to have, hold, exercise, and enioy the said licence, powers, privileges, and advantages hereinbefore granted or menconed to be granted vnto the said John Dwight, his executors, administrators, and assignes, for and dureing and vnto the full end and terme of fourteene yeares from the day of the date of these presents next and imediately ensueing and fully to be compleate and ended according to the Statute in this case made and provided; and to the end that the said John Dwight, his executors, administrators, and assignes, and every of them, may enioy the full benefitt and the sole vse and exercise of the said Invencons of new manufactures according to our gratious intencons hereinbefore declared, wee doe by these presents, for vs, our heires and successors, require and strictly comand all and every person and persons, bodys politique and corporate, and all other our subiects whatsoever, of what estate, quality, or degree, name, or condicon soever they be, within all and every our kingdomes & dominions, that neither they nor any of them, at any time dureinge the continuance of the said terme of fowrteene yeares hereby granted, either directly or indirectly doe, vse, or put in practise the said Invencons of new manufactures, or any of them, or any part of the same soe atteined vnto by the said John Dwight as aforesaid, nor shall in anywise counterfeite or resemble the said Invencons of manufacture, or any of them, nor shall make or cause to be made any addicon thereto or substraccon from the same, whereby to pretend themselves the inventers or devisers thereof, without the licence, consent, or agreement of the said John Dwight, his executors, administrators, or assignes, in writing vnder his, their, or some of their hands and seales, first had and obteyned in that behalfe, vpon such paines and penaltys as can or may be iustly inflicted on such offenders for their contempt of this our Royall comand; and further to be answerable to the said John Dwight, his executors, administrators, and assignes, according to law for his and their damages thereby to be susteined. And wee doe, of our further especiall grace, certeine knowledge, and meere mocon, for vs, our heires and successors, grant vnto the said John Dwight, his executors, administrators, and assignes, by these presents, that hee, they, and every of them, and his, their, and every of their deputys, agents, and servants, haveing first obteined a lawfull warrant from the Lord Chiefe Justice of our Court of King’s Bench at Westm for the time being, and with the assistance of a constable or any other lawful officer, at convenient times in the day dureing the terme hereby granted, and in lawfull manner, may enter into and make search in any place or places whatsoever within any of our kingdomes and dominions where there shall be iust cause of suspicon for the discovery and finding out of all and every person and persons as shall imitate or cause to be imitated, or shall vse or put in practise the said Invencons of new manufactures, or any of them, or shall make or counterfeite any instruments or materialls to the same belonging, that soe such offender or offenders may be proceeded against and punished according to law. And further, wee doe by these presents, for vs, our heires and successors, will, authorise, and comand all and singular justices of the peace, mayors, sheriffs, bayliffes, constables, head-boroughs, and all other officers and ministers whatsoever of vs, our heires and successors, for the time being, as well within our kingdome of England and dominion of Wales, as within all and every other our kingdomes and dominions, that they and every of them respectively be from time to time dureing the terme hereby granted, in their respective offices, favouring, aiding, helping, and assisting vnto the said John Dwight, his executors, administrators, and assignes, and to his and theire deputy and deputys, servants and agents, in and by all things in and about the accomplishment of our Royall will and[123] pleasure hereinbefore declared, and in the exercise and execucon of the powers and privileges hereby granted as aforesaid. And moreover wee doe by these presents, for vs, our heires and successors, will and comand that our said respective officers and ministers before menconed, or any of them, doe not, nor shall att any time hereafter dureing the said terme hereby granted, in anywise, molest, trouble, or hinder the said John Dwight, his executors, administrators, or assignes, or any his or their deputys, servants, or agents, in or about the due and lawfull vse or exercise of the aforesaid Invencons, or any of them, or anything relateing therevnto: Provided always, and these our Letters Patents are and shalbe vpon this condicon, that if at any tyme dureing the said terme hereby granted it shalbe made appeare to vs, our heires or successors, or any six or more of our or their Privy Councell, that this our present grant is contrary to law or preiudiciall or inconvenient to our subiects in generall, or that the said Invencons and every of them are not new invencons as to the publick vse and exercise thereof within this our kingdome, and not invented and found out by the said John Dwight as aforesaid, then vpon significacon and declaracon thereof to be made by us, our heires or successors, vnder our or their signett or privy seale, or by the lords and others of our or their Privy Councell, or any six or more of them vnder their hands, these our Letters Patents shall forthwith cease, determine, and be vtterly void to all intents and purposes, any thing before herein conteined to the contrary in anywise notwithstanding: Provided alsoe, that these our Letters Patents or any thing therein conteined shall not extend or be construed to extend to give privilege vnto the said John Dwight, his executors, administrators, or assignes, or any of them, to vse or imitate any invencon or worke whatsoever which hath been heretofore found out or invented by any other of our subiects whatsoever, and publicly vsed or exercised within our said realme and dominions, or any of them, vnto whom we have already granted our like Letters Patents of Privilege for the sole vse, exercise, and benefitt thereof, it being our will and pleasure that the said John Dwight, his executors, administrators, and assignes, and all and singular other person and persons to whom we have already granted our like Letters Patents or privileges, as aforesaid, shall distinctly vse and practise their severall invencons by them invented and found out according to the true intent and meaning of the said Letters Patents and of these presents. And lastly wee doe by these presents, for vs, our heires and successors, grant vnto the said John Dwight, his executors, administrators, and assignes, that these our Letters Patents or the inrollment thereof shalbe in and by all things firme, valid, sufficient, and effectuall in the law according to the true intent and meaneing thereof, and shalbe taken, construed, and adiudged in the most favourable and beneficiall sense for the best advantage of the said John Dwight, his executors, administrators, and assignes, aswell in all Courts of Record as elsewhere, and by all and singular the officers and ministers whatsoever of vs, our heires and successors in all and singular our realmes and dominions whatsoever, and amongst all and every the subiects of us, our heires and successors, whatsoever and wheresoever, notwithstanding the not full and certaine describing the nature or quality of the said Invencons, or any of them, or of the materialls thereto conduceing or belonging, or any other defects or incertaintys in these presents contained, or any act, statute, ordinance, provision, proclamacon, or restriccon, or other matter, cause, or thing whatsoever to the contrary in any wise notwithstanding.

In witnesse, &c. Witnesse Ourselfe at Westm, the Twelfth day of June. By Writt of Privy Seale.

In 1694[40] Houghton thus, in his “Letters on Husbandry and Trade,” wrote[41] while speaking of the tobacco-pipe clays, “gotten at or nigh Pool, a post-town in Dorsetshire, and there dug in square pieces, of the bigness of about half a hundredweight each; from[124] thence ’tis brought to London, and sold in peaceable times at about eighteen shillings a ton, but now in this time of war is worth about three and twenty shillings,” And again he says: “This sort of clay, as I hinted formerly, is used to clay sugar; and the best sort of mugs are made with it, and the ingenious Mr. Daught of Fulham tells me that ’tis the same earth China-ware is made of, and ’tis made, not by lying long in the earth, but in the fire; and if it were worth while, we may make as good China here as any is in the world. And so for this time, farewel Clay.” Again, on “March 13, 1695,” he thus writes: “Of China-ware I see but little imported in the year 1694, I presume by reason of the war and our bad luck at sea. There came only from Spain certain, and from India certain twice. ’Tis a curious manufacture, and deserves to be encourag’d here, which without doubt money would do; and Mr. Dowoit at Fulham has done it, and can again in any thing that is flat: but the difficulty is that if a hollow dish be made, it must be burnt so much that the heat of the fire will make the sides fall. He tells me that our clay will very well do it; the main skill is in managing the fire. By my consent, the man that would bring it to perfection should have for his encouragement one thousand pound from the publick, though I help’d to pay a tax towards it.”

Although no specifications are preserved with Dwight’s patents,[42] I am enabled, through the extreme kindness and courtesy of the present owner of the works, C. I. C. Bailey, Esq., to give recipes for the manufacture of porcelain, &c., in Dwight’s own words, and copied from his own private pocket-books. These two extremely curious books were recently discovered among some old account books and their discovery throws considerable light on the history of the plastic art at this period. One of these books, which is bound in vellum, contains on its outside front cover the words:—

but the other contains many earlier entries, from 1691. Both the books are in Dwight’s own handwriting. Among the number of[125] curious recipes are the following, which possess more than ordinary interest.

These extracts will be amply sufficient to show the interest and importance of these curious old books which have so kindly been placed at my disposal for this work by their owner, Mr. Bailey, but I cannot refrain from giving some extracts of a totally different character. These relate to the way Mr. Dwight had of being his own banker by hiding his money in all sorts of out-of-the-way corners of his pot-works until wanted. Probably there may still be some of this “treasure-trove,” as well as his moulds and models, &c., to be turned on by some fortunate possessor of the place.

There are also many other matters of interest in these books; among them the names of

evidently in her own handwriting, and which I take to mean “Lydia Dwight, her book, Fulham, 15”—the 15 being her age, which is arrived at by adding the figures together as they occur in form of a cross, 1, 2, 8, and 4.

“Ly D. Lewin,” “Lydia Dwigh,” “Mrs. Deb Nel,” “Mrs. Deb N,” “Mary,” “Deb Nel,” “Miss Betty Osgood,” “Miss Lucy,” “Miss Betty Osgood,” and “Miss Molly Osgood,” are also scribbled in different parts of the book.

Dwight is stated to have buried, in like manner as he did his money, all his models, tools, moulds, &c., in some still-unknown secret hiding-place of his manufactory that his descendants might not continue that branch of the trade which he had been the first to invent; and very securely he has, evidently, done this; for, whatever may be found in future alterations and excavations, it is certain that these have never yet been brought to light. A few years ago, however, after taking down some of the old buildings, which had become much dilapidated, the workmen, while digging foundations for the new workshops, &c., discovered a vaulted chamber or cellar which had been firmly walled up, and which, on being broken into, was found to contain a number of stoneware grey-beards or bellarmines and ale-pots, &c., undoubtedly of Dwight’s manufacture. These were of the same form, precisely, as the old Cologne ones which they were intended to, and did, supersede in this country—and were those “fine stone gorges never before made in England”—and for which[128] his patent was granted. One of these, presented to me by the present proprietor of the works, Mr. Bailey, I here engrave (Fig. 338).

Nothing, at present, is known as to when the death of John Dwight took place, or who succeeded him. A Dr. Dwight died at Fulham in 1737, who, according to the Gentleman’s Magazine of that year, was “author of several curious treatises on physic. He was the first that found out the secret to colour earthenware like china;” but this was not John Dwight, as supposed by some writers, but Samuel Dwight, who, in 1722, published “De Vomitione, et Purgatione, eorumque excessu curando, necnon de emiticis Medicamentis, de Catharticis, et Variolis, et Morbillis;” in 1725, “De Hydropibus;” and in 1731, “De Febribus, Symptomaticis.” As the death of this Samuel Dwight took place in 1737, or sixty-six years after the date of John Dwight’s patent, the probability is that he was the son of John Dwight, and that his finding out the secret of colouring earthenware like china took place while engaged in his father’s business. About this time it would appear (probably after the death of Samuel Dwight) the business was carried on by a Margaret Dwight, in partnership with Thomas Warland, and these two—Margaret Dwight and Thomas Warland of Fulham, potters—became bankrupt in 1746. This lady is said afterwards to have married a Mr. White, or Wight, who continued the works. In 1762 “William White, of Fulham, in the county of Middlesex, potter,” took out a patent for the manufacture of “white crucibles or melting potts made of British materials, and never before made in England or elsewhere, and which I have lately sett up at Fulham aforesaid,” and which were composed of “Stourbridge clay and Dorsetshire clay, calcined; mix them with Woolwich sand and water, to be trodden with the feet, and then burned.” For these he had, in the previous year, obtained a premium from the Society of Arts. In 1795 the works were, according to Lysons, “carried on by Mr. White, a descendant in the female line of the first proprietor,”[129] and they were so continued until 1862, when, on the death of the then Mr. White, they passed into the hands of Messrs. Makintosh and Clements. Two years later, however, on the death of Mr. Makintosh, the works were sold to the present proprietor, Mr. C. I. C. Bailey, who shortly afterwards considerably enlarged and improved them; he having built a new factory and introduced the newest and most improved machinery.

The articles and the wares made by the Dwights will have been pretty well understood from the foregoing notice; but, in addition, it is essential to speak of some few well-authenticated examples which still exist. About the time of the sale in 1862, Mr. Baylis, of Priors Bank, obtained from the Fulham works a number—about twenty-five—of extremely curious and historically valuable specimens of the ware produced there by the Dwights, and kept in the family. Of these he sent a brief account to the Art-Journal,[48] a part of which I here transcribe:—

Other productions were flip-cans, gorges, grey beards, ale pots, bottles, mugs, single figures and groups, busts, statuettes, flasks, leaf-dishes, &c. In the Jermyn Street Museum are some examples of this ware, and others may be found in various private collections. Among the latter may be named an historically interesting flip-can, belonging to “Robinson Crusoe,” and carefully preserved by his family. It bears the incised inscription—

The goods now made at these works, by Mr. Bailey, are glazed and unglazed stoneware, porous ware, terra-cotta, and china. In stoneware, or “Bristol ware,” all the usual domestic vessels—in bottles, pitchers, jars, pans, drinking-mugs, tobacco-pots, feet, carriage, and chest warmers, funnels, bird fountains, barrels, filters, &c.—are made very extensively, as also are drain and sanitary pipes, traps, &c., of every description. The stoneware is of the hardest, finest, and most durable character, and the glaze is remarkably good. To this excellent quality is to be attributed the success of these works, Mr. Bailey supplying, I believe, the large house of Crosse & Blackwell, as well as many distillers, chemists, and shippers, with their stoneware, both for home and export trade, and constantly increasing his business and premises. Works of art of a high order, in his stoneware, terra cotta, china, and other productions, are now executed. For the stoneware department, M. Cazin, late Director of the School of Art at Tours, in France, has been engaged chiefly to design figured and other fancy jugs, mugs, cannettes, &c. Some of these, with armorial bearings and other decorations in incised lines, or impressed, are remarkably good adaptations of the antique. A cannette, in my own possession, bearing the artist’s name, “CAZIN, 1872, STUDY,” is remarkably good, and gives evidence of great things to follow. Another example, also in my own possession, and made expressly for me, is of excellent form and[131] remarkably pure and simple design. It bears an admirably modelled armorial medallion, with arms, crests, helmet, mantling, &c., and is likewise decorated with incised and relief ornaments. On the bottom is the date, incised, “1873,” and on the handle the artist’s name, C. CAZIN, also incised. In 1872 Mr. Bailey received a medal at the Dublin Exhibition for his stoneware and terra cotta.

Mr. Bailey has introduced a marked improvement in the construction of filters—the water passing downwards at the back, and then rising in zig-zag direction by its own force to the tap at the top in front—thus the water has to travel a much further distance through the filtering matter (as shown by the arrows in the section) than the old method, and having to be taken a far more circuitous course, it is brought more thoroughly in contact with the purifying medium. The usual method is for the water to pass perpendicularly down or up, but in these filters the water is kept a considerable time in contact with the charcoal and other ingredients, and any sediment is left at the bottom, instead of forming a compact mass of filth for the water to pass through each time it is filled.

Terra-cotta stoves, of simple and effective construction, are also extensively made at these works. In “Sunderland Ware”—i.e. brown ware, white inside—cream pots, starch pans, milk bowls, dishes, trays, and basins are largely manufactured.

Chemical apparatus—receivers, retorts, evaporating dishes, condensing worms, filtering and other funnels, still heads, &c.,—are a speciality in these works, and are of high repute.

These various goods were thus spoken of in the Official Report of the International Exhibition, 1871:—

In terra-cotta, the Fulham Works now produce vases, statues, architectural enrichments, chimney shafts, stoves, &c., of very good quality and of admirable design; Mr. R. W. Martin, sculptor, student of the Royal Academy and Government Schools of Art,[132] having been engaged as modeller and designer. The productions in this department are of a very high order of merit, and will take rank with those of any other manufactory. The brackets and jardinières are of great beauty, and are characterised by a pure artistic feeling and a touch such as is seldom attained; the pieces bear evidence of being not only modelled by a clever artist, but of receiving finishing-touches by the master-hand itself. In colour the Fulham terra cotta is a light pink and a rich red, and, when these are combined, a peculiar delicacy and finished effect is produced. The mark R. W. Martin fecit occurs on the productions of this artist.

The manufacture of china ware was, during the year 1873, very wisely and successfully added to this establishment, and, with the aid of the good workmen and artists who have been engaged, has already done much to establish a fresh fame for Fulham. The art direction of this branch was placed by Mr. Bailey in the hands of Mr. E. Bennet, a well-known sculptor, while the china body flowers, &c., were undertaken by Mr. Hopkinson. I am the more particular in stating these arrangements as, being the beginning of a new manufacture, I am desirous of putting on record the circumstances of its commencement. The “body,” it may be well to note, is made from Dwight’s original recipe—the very body of which the first china ware made in England was produced—and therefore the “Fulham china” of to-day has an historical interest attached to it which is possessed by no other. It was a wise thought that induced Mr. Bailey to restore to Fulham the special manufacture which has rendered its name famous in the ceramic annals of this country; and it is to be hoped that the spirit he has shown will be amply compensated by a liberal patronage of his productions.

At the 1871 Exhibition (at which no medals were given) Mr. Bailey’s productions were highly spoken of in the Official Report; and at the Dublin Exhibition of 1872 he was awarded a medal for his terra cotta and stoneware.

Lambeth.

Lambeth has been a seat of pottery manufacture from an early period. In mediæval times the characteristic brown-ware pitchers, pans, tygs, &c., were made; and, later on, at this place was quite a colony of makers of Delft ware, who in turn gave place to stoneware manufacturers. China, too, appears to have been made at Lambeth from perhaps 1760, or thereabouts. It is recorded that in the middle of the seventeenth century the Delft ware manufacture commenced; but it is not unlikely that Rous and Cullyn, some years earlier, here established themselves in the making of “stone potts, stone jugs, and stone bottels,” for which they received a patent in 1626.[50] It is conjectured, and with some probability, that one of the Delft ware makers at this place was John Ariens Van Hamme, a Dutchman, who had come over from the Hague under the encouragement of our ambassador, who, as has already been shown,[51] took out a patent in 1676 for the “art of makeinge tiles and porcelane and other earthen wares, after the way practiced in Holland,” and who, with his staff of workmen, probably formed the nucleus of what was afterwards a nest of potters, comprising, according to the “History of Lambeth,” no less than twenty manufactories. In 1693 a trial took place in the Court of Exchequer concerning some parcels of potter’s clay which had been seized by the Custom House officers, under pretence that it was fuller’s earth. In this trial five London potters, William Knight, Thomas Harper, Henry De Wilde, John Robins, and Moses Johnson, gave evidence in favour of the clay being potter’s clay. There is nothing in the record of this trial to identify any of the five potters therein named with Lambeth; but the probability is that some of them belonged to that place. One of them, William Knight, was undoubtedly the “William Knight of the parish of St. Buttolph Without, Aldgate, London, Pottmaker,” concerning whom I give, from the original deed in my possession, some particulars under the head of “Aldgate;” some of the others were, I believe, of Lambeth. The account of the trial has been printed by my friend, Mr. Reeks, in the “Catalogue of the Museum of Practical Geology,” and is so interesting that I here reproduce it entire.

William Riddal swore that he was Steward and Tenant to the said Warner for above 20 Years, in all which time the said Warner constantly sold to the Potters in London considerable quantities of the same sort of clay now in dispute, for the making of White and Painted Earthen-Ware: That he never knew or heard that the least Parcel of it was ever sold as Fullers-Earth, or put to any other Use than making Earthen-Ware, excepting some small quantities yearly in the Neighbourhood for daubing of Houses, which may be alledged as a good Argument that the said Clay is not of the nature of Fullers-Earth; for, whereas this makes the best Clay Wall in England, if it were of the nature of Fullers-Earth, upon the first wet Weather it would all fall to the Ground: He likewise further deposed, That the first time the said Warner shipt the said Clay for Holland, it was seized by the Custom-house Officers as Fullers-Earth; but upon Tryal of it, they were convinced of their Error, and cleared the same.

William Knight, Thomas Harper, Henry de Wilde, John Robins, Moses Johnson are all Potters in London, and swore that they had all seen the said Warner’s Clay, which was seized, that it was really Potter’s Clay, and of the same sort which they had constantly bought of him, some for above 25 Years, others ever since they were Traders, that it is of a quite different nature from Fullers Earth; for the said Warner’s Clay tho’ never so often dissolved in Water, may be brought into a Body again, and will work, like Wax, into any shape, whereas Fullers Earth being once dissolved is never to be got into any Body, but when it is dry crumbles like Sand, and all the art of Man can never make a Pot of it.

Hen. de Wilde, one of the said Potters, farther deposed, That about five Years since he shipt some of the said Warner’s Clay for Pensilvania, where his Son had set up a Pot-House, that the Custom-House Officers did then likewise seize it as Fullers-Earth, but upon Trial of it found they were mistaken, and cleared the same.

Benjamin Furly, Merchant in Rotterdam, to whom the said Warner consigned his Clay, John Sonman, Servant to the said Furly, were, by virtue of a Commission from the Court of Exchequer, examined upon Oath (by Commissioners appointed for that purpose), to several Interrogatories, and their Depositions being read in Court, did plainly prove that all the said Warner’s Clay which was sent for Holland was really sold to Potters for making of Earthen-Ware; That they never heard, nor do believe that any part of it was ever used for the Fulling Trade, or is any way proper for it; that they sold the said Warner’s Clay from 25 to 30 Guilders a Last, when they could buy Fullers-Earth at 7 Guilders a Last.

Adrian Van Arde, sworn Measurer of all the Earth and Clay imported to Rotterdam, was examined by vertue of the said Commission, and Deposed, That for many Years which he had been in that Office, he never knew or heard of any English Fullers-Earth imported into Holland, that they were so plentifully supplied with that sort of Earth from Flanders; that it is commonly bought and sold at Seven Guilders a Last, and had an Hundred Last by him to sell at the same Rate.

Ten or Twelve Potters in Holland were likewise examined by virtue of the said Commission, and deposed severally, That they had bought considerable quantities of the said Warner’s clay of Mr. Benj. Furly, and paid for the same from 25 to 30 Guilders a Last; that they used the same in making Earthen-Ware, but do not believe it any way useful for the Fulling Trade, nor never heard that any of it was ever sold for that use.

Colonel Holt, a Member of Parliament, swore, That he (being very lately in Holland) made the strictest inquiries into the Truth of this Business, that he could, First amongst the Potters, who all declared to the same Effect, as in their Depositions before mentioned, that he likewise took some of the said Warner’s Clay, and got a Fuller to try it, whether it were any way useful for their Trade, who answered it was not? nor could he use it if he might have it for Nothing; after which the Colonel ask’d him, From whence they were supplied with Fullers-Earth, and at what Rates? The Fullers answered, generally from Flanders at 6½, and 7 Guilders per Last; and sometimes from Rosendale, in the States Dominions, at 10 Guilders per Last; that being much dryer, and wasted less by lying; all which the Colonel (being unwilling to believe upon the Fuller’s bare word) caused to be drawn up in the Form of an Affidavit, and the Fuller before a Magistrate, swore to the Truth of it, which Affidavit the Colonel hath to produce.

[135]

Mr. Edward Paget, a Divine, swore, That he being in Holland at the same time, made the like Enquiry amongst the Fullers at Layden, the chief cloathing Town in Holland, who all gave him the same Information, that the Fuller at Rotterdam had done the Colonel above; and for his better satisfaction, Three of the Chiefest went with him before a Magistrate, and swore to the Truth of what they Affirmed; after which he went to Delft amongst the Potters, who all affirmed the same thing, that the Ten or Twelve had sworn in their aforementioned Depositions, the Truth of which they attested by a Certificate, under the Hands of above Twenty, which Affidavits, and Certificate, the said Paget hath to produce.

Rich. Cutler, Matthew Hanson, Ship-brokers, swore, They had hired many Ships for the said Warner, to load Clay for Rotterdam; and the general Price of the Fraight, and Primage paid for the same, was 15 Guilders, 8 Stivers per Last; and sometimes 17 Guilders, 12 Stivers per Last.

Will. Read, Tho. Wood, John Saliby, Mariners, swore, They had the same Prices above mentioned, for several Fraights which they carried, and saw delivered to the Potters in Holland.

Hump. Bellomy, Richard Hopkins, Timothy Fowler, —— Shepherd, Worcester, are all Buyers, and Sellers of Fullers-Earth, and swore they could well judge of the same, having dealt therein from Ten to above Twenty-five Years, that they all took Samples of the said Warner’s Clay, out of the King’s Celler, and tryed all the Experiments to judge of it, that they were capable of; and possitively affirmed that it was no Fullers-Earth; neither could they find anything of the Nature of Fullers-Earth in it, that for their Use they would not give a Shilling for 100 Last, for they should never be able to sell it.

Alderman Bearcraft, Tho. Cooksey, John Wynn, Rowl. Hancock, Gloucestershire; Rich. Osborne, Tho. Woorrel, John Chilton, Sam. Beadle, Essex; Simon Meazy, John Lawson, John Backer, John Peartree, Suffolk; John Clarke, Senior, John Clarke, Junior, Will. Baines, Tho. Baines, Dan. Baines, John Smith, John Carter, Dan. Wenden, Sam. Wrinch, London; Dan. Barrs, John St. Berry, are all Clothiers, Fullers, and Cloth-Workers; being the most eminent in their several Places; as well for Honesty, as great Traders, and good Estates; they all swore they had made the most impartial Experiments they could of the said Warner’s Clay, now in dispute, being the same taken out of the King’s Celler, that they tried it upon several sorts of Goods, as several sorts of Cloth, Bays, Cloth-Serges, and Perpetuanæs, and every one possitively affirmed that it was no Fuller’s-Earth, but on the contrary was an absolute Enemy to the Woollen Manufacture; for instead of scouring, it fix’d the Grease in the Grownd of all the Goods, that were done with it, and instead of makeing them White, it absolutely stained them Yellow, all which was apparent to the most common Eye, in all the above-said several sorts of Goods, produced in Court: They likewise declared upon Oath, that they were all Strangers to the said Warner; and that it was as prejudicial to their interest, to have Fullers-Earth Transported, as any men’s, and therefore could have no Inducement to favour the said Warner, beyond the Merits of his cause, to the Violation of their Consciences.

This is so just a Recital of the Evidence given on behalf of the said Warner, that he challenges the greatest of his Enemies to detect him of the least Falsehood therein; and if his Adversaries had been as fair in representing theirs, there would have been no need of this; for whereas in their printed Papers they make their Witnesses to affirm the said Warner’s clay was tried in all Experiments, without any mixture, there was not above One or Two, but upon cross-Examination at the Tryal, owned they used either Segg and Hogs dung, or Soap and Gauls with it, which would have scowered any Cloath better without the said Clay than with it.

It may not be amiss likewise to observe that for a whole Year in which the Custom-House Officers have been so very diligent in spreading the Fame of the said Warner’s Clay to be the best Fullers-Earth in England, he hath not been able to sell the least quantity of it as such, tho’ he has proffered it to all Men for a very little more than one-Third of what Fullers-Earth is generally sold for.

The Delft ware here made was of the ordinary kind, same as imported from Holland, and as that made in various English localities, and, being without mark, is not to be distinguished from others. Besides tiles, plates, jugs, mugs, dishes, &c., sack and other[136] wine bottles, apothecaries’ pill-slabs, wine-bin labels, &c., were made. Some of these pill-slabs are preserved in the Jermyn Street Museum, as are also some of the “sack-pots,” both of which may most probably, as well as the apothecaries’ jars, be ascribed to Lambeth. They are all of Delft ware, painted with blue, in the same manner as the tiles and other articles of this ware.

In 1820 there “were six or seven potters in Lambeth,” says Mr. Goddard, “working some sixteen small kilns, of seven or eight feet in diameter, the produce of each kiln being under £20 worth of ware, the principal articles made being blacking bottles, ginger-beer bottles (very extensively made still), porter and cider bottles (not so largely made now), spruce-beer bottles (gone, with the beer, quite out of fashion), ink bottles (more used now than ever), oil bottles, pickle jars, hunting jugs, &c. A few chemical vessels were also turned out well from one kiln belonging to an eccentric individual, whose chief boast was to drink a gallon of beer a day, and do without rest on Sundays.” In 1860: “In place of some sixteen kilns, turning out each under £20 per kiln, we have now about seventy, turning out each, perhaps, on an average £50. They consume upwards of 20,000 tons of coal, paying a corporation tax of say £2,100 per annum. The law requires this quantity to be burnt without smoke, and, after immense cost and labour, this difficulty may be called surmounted. Twenty-three thousand tons of clay are annually changed into useful articles, giving employment to more than eight hundred persons. The returns of the Lambeth potters cannot be estimated at less than £140,000.”

High Street.—From about 1750 to 1770 the Delft ware works were carried on by a Mr. Griffiths, who had, for those days, a large establishment. A curious reference to this manufactory occurs in the following extract from the Monthly Magazine for 1797. A man, at that time unknown, but who turned out to be James Doe, a potter, committed suicide by drowning, on the 14th of September in that year, at Sea Mill Docks, two and a half miles from Bristol, having remained “fasting and praying,” without food or bedding in the ruined building there from the 11th, waiting opportunity and determination to commit the rash act; and having, during the whole of that time, written a kind of diary of his feelings and intentions, his hopes and fears, on the walls of the old room he remained in. Mr. Joseph James interested himself much in the matter, and wrote an account for the Monthly Magazine; and this, and the inquest, and[137] other means he took, resulted in the discovery of the name and some particulars of the life of the suicide. Two of the letters forwarded in October, 1797, are highly interesting as showing at what works he had been employed. The first letter is from London, from “a respectable proprietor of a pottery there,” and thus runs:—

In the possession of Mr. R. C. Ring is a mug painted by Doe—said to be his last work. It is signed “J. Doe, Sept., 1797;” and as he committed suicide on the 14th of that month, it would certainly be one of his last productions. Mr. Owen’s assertion that he committed suicide through a fear that that painting would injure the enameller’s trade is, from the above letters, &c., amply shown to be without foundation.

Coades.—Coade’s Artificial Stone Works, at Pedlar’s Acre, King’s Arms Stairs, Narrow Wall, Lambeth, opposite Whitehall Stairs or Ferry, were established about 1760 by Mrs. or the Misses Coade, under the name of “Coade’s Lithodipyra, Terra Cotta, or Artificial[139] Stone Manufactory.” This material was intended to take the place of carved stone for vases, statues, and architectural enrichments. In 1769 the two Misses Coade took into partnership their cousin, a Mr. Sealy (the nephew of Mr. Coade), and by these the works were carried on. In 1811 the firm was still “Coades & Sealy.” At the death of Mr. Sealy, who survived the Misses Coade, a Mr. Croggan, who had for a long time been a clerk or manager attached to the business, became the proprietor of the works, which he continued for many years. He then disposed of the business to Messrs. Routledge, Greenwood, & Keene, who were succeeded by Messrs. Routledge & Lucas. These gentlemen, about 1840, dissolved partnership and sold off all their moulds, models, plant, &c., by auction, by Messrs. Rushworth & Jarvis, of Saville Row. Many of these moulds and models were bought by Mr. Blashfield[52] and by other manufacturers, among whom was Mr. H. M. Blanchard of Blackfriars Road[53] (which see), and who, being an apprentice with the Coades, and possessing many of their models, &c., claims to be their successor.

The Coades are said to have come from Lyme Regis, in Dorsetshire, and probably it was for the purpose of turning their native clay to good account in London that induced them to establish this manufactory. Bacon, Flaxman, Banks, Rossi, and Panzetta, the sculptors, were employed to model for these works, and many of the old mansions and public buildings in London and in the country, as well as abroad—including the bas-relief in the pediment over the western portico of Greenwich Hospital, representing the death of Nelson, designed by Benjamin West, and modelled by Bacon and Panzetta; and the rood-screen of St. George’s Chapel, Windsor; the statue of Britannia on the Nelson monument at Yarmouth, &c.—were executed at these works. The works principally produced at Coades were capitals of columns, statues, vases, bassi-relievi, monuments, coats of arms, keystones, angle rusticated blocks, balustrades, &c. They were of durable quality and excellent manufacture.

Another person employed at Coades was William John Coffee, who afterwards attained some celebrity as a modeller at the Derby China Works, and as a terra cotta maker, for a short time, at Derby. I believe he was employed as a fire-man at Coades, and here, no doubt, being a clever fellow, picked up his knowledge of modelling[140] and of mixing bodies. The following curious letter and “information,” from the originals in my own possession, give some highly interesting particulars regarding Coades’ and Sealy’s manufactory in 1790:—

In 1792 the following letter, also in my own possession, was addressed to Coffee by Miss E. Coade, and shows what a clear-headed, right-minded, and well-disposed employer she was:—

The London Pottery is in High Street, Lambeth. It was established on a small scale in 1751, on a portion of old “Hereford House,” the palace of one of the former bishops of Hereford, and has been carried on without intermission, from that time to the present. In 1840 the manufactory came into the hands of Mr. James Stiff, the head of the present firm of “Messrs. James Stiff & Sons.” At that time the works consisted only of two kilns (the larger one being only about ten feet in diameter), and covered an area of probably less than a quarter of an acre of ground. Since 1840 it has been gradually developed, until at the present time it comprises fourteen kilns (some of them more than twenty feet in diameter) and covers an area of about two acres of ground. It has a very extensive frontage on the Albert Embankment, overlooking the river Thames, and by means of a private dock, with entrance under the Embankment, is enabled directly to carry on a very extensive export trade, and also to import most economically the coals, clay, and other raw material used in the production of brown and white stoneware, terra-cotta, &c. Until 1860, when fresh buildings were erected, a Delft-ware sign-board existed in the front of this pottery.

The four principal kinds of pottery manufactured by Messrs. Stiff and Sons are: 1. Brown salt-glazed stoneware, in which the[142] tubular socket drain-pipes so extensively made here are produced; water-filters, jugs, bottles, jars, and all kinds of chemical apparatus are also made in this class of ware. 2. White stoneware or “double-glazed” ware, or “Bristol ware,” in which salt is not used, but the glazing is obtained by the application of a liquid glaze to the interior and exterior of each article before it is placed in the kiln. This ware, which is generally made with a rich yellow ochre on the upper parts of goods, while the lower part is of a creamy-white colour, has only been introduced into Lambeth about twenty years. It has, however, to a considerable extent superseded the old brown stoneware, on account of its superior appearance and cleanliness. 3. Buff terra-cotta, in which is made garden vases, pedestals, chimney-tops, window arches, string-courses, &c. This terra-cotta, being thoroughly vitrified, is valuable for the manufacture of keystones, springers, string-courses, &c., for buildings where durability is of the very highest importance; one great advantage (for architectural purposes) lying in the fact that, in it, the choicest and most elaborate patterns, either raised or countersunk, can be obtained at little more than the cost of perfectly plain stone. 4. Porous ware, in which round and square porous cells, plates, &c., are extensively made, and have been used by some of the first telegraphic engineers, philosophical instrument makers, &c., of the day, and have given much satisfaction, securing, as they do, the greatest amount of porosity, together with a degree of hardness and fineness of texture which render them insusceptible of disintegration.

The quality of the stoneware or “Bristol ware” produced at the “London Pottery” is remarkably good, being extremely hard, and covered with an excellent, clear, and firm glaze, not surpassed by any other house. The same remark will apply to the porous ware, which is fine in composition, and possesses to an eminent degree the porous quality so essential in vessels of this description. The terra-cotta goods are of very fine, hard, and durable quality, and of a peculiarly pleasing tone of colour. Their artistic execution is of a high order, and some of the designs—as notably the draped bowl and flower-pots which are engraved on Figs. 340 to 342, and 345, 346.

Messrs. Stiff & Sons produce a large number of filters of excellent construction and of artistic design. Some of these have Gothic arches, with figures or armorial decorations, and others are decorated with elegant foliage; two of these effective designs are shown on Figs. 343 and 344. These filters have been more than thirty years[144] before the public. The filtering medium consists of alternate layers of charcoal, silica, and another purifying substance, all carefully cleansed, and so arranged as to retain full efficiency for eight or ten years without further cost or trouble. The “Popular” filter—intended for common use among all classes—purifies eight gallons of water per day, and is sold complete and fitted for a mere trifle.

The potteries of Messrs. Stiff & Son are among the largest in London. They employ about two hundred hands, and their annual import of raw material, clay, coals, &c., is about 15,000 tons. They have business relations in almost all parts of the world, and their manufactures have been admitted to the principal International Exhibitions; their terra-cotta vases combine excellence of finish with correctness of design, and are sold at very moderate prices. Their stoneware chemical apparatus has a very wide reputation, and their drain-pipes and other sanitary appliances, comprising nearly two-thirds of their business, have an immense sale.

It is well to add that at this pottery antique jugs and water-jugs, of excellent design and clever manipulation, are made. The forms are chaste and good, and they have, partly owing to the care in making, and partly to the fineness of the glaze, a pleasanter feel to the hand than others. The carriage and foot warmers, &c., made here are also extremely good in quality and design.

The Lambeth Pottery.—In 1818 Mr. John Doulton established stoneware works at Vauxhall, and soon afterwards was joined in partnership by Mr. John Watts, the business being carried on under the style of Doulton & Watts. Some years after, the works were removed to High Street, Lambeth, to premises near those which had formerly been occupied by Mr. Griffiths, already spoken of. In 1858 Mr. Watts died, and from that time to the present the manufactory has been carried on by Mr. John Doulton in co-partnership with his sons, under the style of Doulton & Watts, and Henry Doulton & Co. In 1854 Mr. Henry Doulton took out a patent for “improvements in kilns used in the manufacture of stoneware, earthenware, and china.” In 1859 he took out another patent for “improvements in earthenware jars and bottles,” and in 1861 the same gentleman also patented his “improvements in the construction of vats and similar vessels for containing liquids.” At the Exhibitions of 1851 and 1862, medals were awarded to this firm, as they were also at the Exhibitions at Paris, Hamburg, Oporto, New Zealand, Auxerre, Caen, and Amsterdam. At the International[145] Exhibitions of 1871 and 1872 they also received the highest commendation.

The goods manufactured by Messrs. Doulton & Co. include chemical vessels of large size (up to 500 gallons) and all kinds of stoneware suitable for the laboratory and works of the manufacturing chemist—jars, bottles, jugs, water-filters, and other articles of domestic use; terra-cotta for architectural and gardening purposes; drainage pipes, irrigation conduits, sinks, and all kinds of sanitary ware; plumbago and other crucibles, muffles, furnaces, &c.: and, in addition to their manufactory at Lambeth, they have works for the manufacture of sewer pipes, fire goods, blue bricks, &c., at Rowley-Regis, Staffordshire; Smethwick, Staffordshire; and St. Helen’s, Lancashire. The various kinds of stoneware and terra-cotta produced by Messrs. Doulton at their Lambeth works give employment to about six hundred men; and their consumption of coals at Lambeth alone (exclusive of the quantity used in their Staffordshire and Lancashire factories) is over 10,000 tons per annum.

In stoneware—which, like every other branch of the ceramic art,[146] has made great progress during the last twenty or thirty years, and has been made applicable to scores of purposes never dreamed of by the potters of old—Messrs. Doulton produce, to a very large extent, bottles, jars, pitchers, and jugs; troughs and pans; feet, carriage, bed, and other warmers; barrels and taps; filters, filter-stands, and drip-pans, and every possible variety of household vessels. Besides these, force-pumps, retorts, receivers, condensing-worms, still-heads, evaporating dishes and pans, filtering-funnels, percolators, and every[148] other conceivable kind of chemical and manufacturing vessels and apparatus, as well as drain-pipes, gullies, sinks, and sanitary goods, are largely made.

Many of the productions in this stoneware are of extremely artistic character, and evince a purity of taste which is highly meritorious. Some of the jugs and tankards, from antique examples, and which are produced both in brown, blue, claret, and fine white stoneware, are remarkably chaste and elegant, and remind one of the best periods of German and Flemish art. The forms are admirable, and the decorations, whether foliage or animal, incised or in relief, are always thoroughly well considered, and especially adapted to the material, the mode of production, and the use of the object. “There are no affected imitations of antique types. The spirit of true design is caught with admirable perception and insight, and when colour is introduced, it is done sparingly, and with a view to enhance the form of the object and the natural beauty of the material, rather than to conceal either the one or the other.”

In terra-cotta, Messrs. Doulton’s works rank high, both for the beauty of their productions, the variety of designs they have introduced, and the durability and excellence of their material. In vases for gardens, &c.—the finest of which is their Amazon vase (Fig. 354) sent to the Exhibition of 1871—Messrs. Doulton produce a large number of exquisite patterns, as they do also of pedestals, fountains, garden-seats, flower-boxes, and vases, fern-cases, flower-pendants, mignionette-boxes, brackets, terminals, &c., which are all characterized by extreme excellence of design and workmanship. In statuary and architectural decorations the productions consist of figures, busts, and medallions; keystones, arches, trusses, and string-courses; capitals, bases, and finials; window and door heads and jambs; rain-water heads, of marvellously bold and effective design; parapets and balustrades; panels of coloured stoneware and terra-cotta, modelled in very high relief, and mostly of scriptural subjects, for out-door decoration; tiles and bosses of endless design—some ornamented in the sgraffito style, and others richly coloured; and everything requisite for the architect or the builder. Of terra-cotta flower-pots and fern-cases a large variety are made, all elegant in shape—some ornamented with masks and medallions, and others with vegetable composition; and of brackets and pendants the specimens are very graceful. Painting on pottery has also of late been introduced into this manufactory with very good results.

One class of objects to which attention should be called, presents, in ordinary clays, adaptations in which is conspicuous all the play of the chastest Greek contours, with all the forms dear to successive generations of housewives before the revival set in. Prominent are claret cups, loving cups, hot and cold water jugs, flower vases, candlesticks, hunting jugs, pitchers, and inkstands, with a great variety of other vessels. “What particularly arrests the eye in this branch of the manufacture is, that each object has a style which now takes us back to the flowery periods of Doric and Etruscan forms, now to the days of mediæval hospitalities, or to modern instances, by vessels of form and capacity which would delight even the hearts of the notoriously beer-loving Burschenschaft of Jena. And it is necessary to explain that, as these works are not the results of the common course of earthenware production, it has cost much thought and the exercise of much knowledge and ingenuity to appoint a confederacy of labour so particularly qualified as shall work successfully to this special end.” The ornament is principally the sgraffimento, or incised outline, which is effected sometimes as soon as the vessel leaves the wheel, or more generally after it has been allowed partially to dry to a consistency which will allow of its being handled, though yet sufficiently soft to admit of being easily worked upon. To the designs thus engraved in outline, especially to the leafage, colour is applied with an ordinary water-colour brush, and burnt in. This ware is called “Doulton ware,” or “Sgraffito ware,” and no two pieces are formed alike. With regard to the body it will be sufficient to say that the great strength of stoneware in comparison with that of earthenware, and also its perfect cleanliness, have secured its adoption, whether produced by this or any of the other eminent firms who manufacture it, in all kinds of appliances in connection with drainage and sanitary engineering; and the perfect resistance it offers to the strongest acids, proves the material to be admirably fitted for the manufacture of every kind of vessel and apparatus employed in trades depending in any degree on chemical operations.

Fore Street.—A manufactory of various kinds of pottery existed here in the beginning of the present century, and was carried on by Mr. Richard Waters, who in June, 1811, took out a patent for “a new method of manufacturing pottery ware.” First, “in the fabrication of various articles of considerable magnitude,” “instead of throwing or[151] moulding them on a revolving table, the clay is made into sheets and then applied upon moulds and finished, by beating or pressure, or by turning while in a revolving state;” second, forming “delf-ware pots and other articles by compression of the clay between suitable moulds;” third, “making or clouding the ‘Welsh ware,’ by using a number of pipes instead of one in distributing the colour;” fourth, “making earthenware jambs, tiles for facing houses, and for paving hearths, balustrades, balconies, and bricks vein-coloured, variegated either by the last process or by putting together masses differing from each other,” and in the admixture of stony or metallic or other mineral substances, so as to differ in their colours and appearance when baked; fifth, by this process making “figures, statues, ornaments, armorial bearings, and the like;” sixth, by this process making “stone mortars and pestles, cisterns, coffins, worms for distillers’ use, tiles, with a hook on the back instead of a knob, also with a higher edge and deeper return than usual.”

Imperial Pottery.—Another pottery at Lambeth was that of Messrs. Green & Co., which in 1858 passed, by purchase, into the hands of Mr. John Cliff, by whom it was considerably enlarged. Mr. Cliff here brought into use his own “patent kiln for what is known as double glaze or Bristol glaze kiln, and a circular bag for the salt glaze and pipe kiln, since adopted generally.” Here also Carr’s “Disintegrant” was first proved and got to work; and here, under his own eye, Siemens’s gas furnace was tried on pottery. Here also Mr. Cliff brought out, and into work, his patent wheel and patent lathe—two most important improvements in the potter’s art, and said to be the most perfect and convenient machines extant. The works were closed in 1869, through the site being required by the Metropolitan Board of Works for improvements, and Mr. Cliff removed to Runcorn, in Cheshire, where he still continues his manufactory.[55] The works were originally established for the manufacture of common red ware; but after a time Mr. Green added a little salt-glazed ware; and then, as the double glazed gained favour, added it, and made it his principal business, giving up the red ware entirely. Later still, he manufactured drain pipes and a good deal of chemical stoneware; and, besides all the usual articles, filters were here extensively made for the celebrated George Robins, the[153] auctioneer. The old works were many times much injured by fire—being nearly destroyed just before passing into Mr. Cliff’s hands in 1858.

Crispe’s China.—Crispe of Bow Churchyard is said to have had a manufactory of china ware at Lambeth in the middle of last century; and to him John Bacon, the sculptor, is stated to have been apprenticed in 1755. But little is known of this manufactory of Crispe’s, but reference to him and to his connection with the china trade will be made in another part of this book.

Several other potteries—one carried on by Mr. Northen, who was an apprentice to Mr. White of Fulham—existed at Lambeth, but have been removed, like the “Imperial,” by the improvements on the banks of the Thames.

Blackfriars Road.

The terra-cotta works of Messrs. M. H. Blanchard, Son, & Co., were established in 1839 by Mr. Blanchard, who served his apprenticeship with Messrs. Coade & Sealey at Lambeth, and they are still carried on by him and his sons and other partners under the above style.

The terra-cotta goods manufactured by this firm are of remarkably fine and good quality, and consist of vases, tazzas, statues, busts, groups of figures, brackets, pedestals, terminals, crosses, fountains, balustrades, trusses, and every species of architectural enrichment. In 1851, and again in 1862, as well as at the Paris Exhibition, Mr. Blanchard was awarded medals for his terra-cotta goods, and they are considered to be among the best produced, either in this country or on the Continent. Among the more successful of the works executed by them may be named the terra-cotta for the Brighton Aquarium; the permanent buildings, South Kensington Museum; the columns, &c., of the arcades in the Royal Horticultural Gardens; the Charing Cross and Cannon Street hotels and termini; the Grosvenor mansions; the Grand Hotel, Cairo; and the chastely beautiful and effective enrichments of the Wedgwood Institute, Burslem. Of this last, as one of the greatest achievements of ceramic art, as applied to external decoration of buildings, I give a series of engravings. The principal features of these designs are a series of twelve nearly square panels, in alto-relievo, representing the months of the year—each month being represented by a seated, recumbent, or stooping life-size figure, with the attribute[154] of the season; and a series of oblong panels or plaques, representing, in similar relief, all the more striking details of the work of the potter, thus, very appropriately, illustrating the staple trade of the district in which the Wedgwood Institute is situated. Of the months, the four illustrations here given (Figs. 364 to 367) will convey a correct idea.

Of the general high character for design and workmanship of the productions of Mr. Blanchard—who ranks among the best in the kingdom—the objects here engraved will give abundant testimony; and it only remains to add that the quality of the material and its durability are fully equalled by the excellence of design of the various articles produced by this firm.

Vauxhall.

Thomas Houghton, to whom I have in other parts of this work referred, in his “Husbandry and Trade Improved,” writing on March 13, 1695–6, says, speaking of the imports during the year 1694, “of teapots there came but ten, and those from Holland. To our credit be it spoken, we have about Faux-Hall (as I have been informed) made a great many, and I cannot gainsay but they are as good as any come from abroad.” In 1714 Thoresby writes that he “went by water to Fox-Hall and the Spring-gardens. After dinner we viewed the pottery and various apartments there. Was most pleased with that where they were painting divers colours, which yet appear more beautiful and of divers colours when baked.” The Vauxhall Pottery is said to have been situated close by Vauxhall Bridge, in High Street. The Delft-ware Pottery in Princess Street, Lambeth, is said to have belonged to the same works. The Vauxhall Pottery, which was for the production of stoneware similar to that at Lambeth, was carried on towards the close of last century by a Mr. Wagstaffe; and on his death, in or about 1803, it passed into the hands of his nephew, Mr. John Wisker, who carried it on until his decease in 1838, he having, in 1833, taken out a patent “for certain improvements in machinery or apparatus for grinding covers or stoppers for jars, bottles, and other vessels made of china, stone, or other earthenware,” such as are described in the patent of Robert Burton Cooper taken out in 1831. On the death of Mr. Wisker, the works were purchased of his executors by Mr. Alfred Singer, but have been discontinued and pulled down; and the site built over, for some years. At these works Mr. Singer, in conjunction with Mr. Henry Pether, manufactured small tiles, or tesseræ, for tesselated pavements. In 1839 they took out a patent “for certain improvements in the preparation and combination of earthenware or porcelain, for the purpose of mosaic or tesselated work” “by cutting clay or other plastic material into rectilinear figures, by means of intersecting wires stretched in a frame,” and “the forming of ornamental slabs of mosaic work by cementing together small pieces of porcelain or earthenware, of various figures and colours, on slabs of slate, stone, or other suitable material.”

There was another pottery at Vauxhall, where coarse red or[157] brown ware was made, and where also, later on, a fine stoneware was produced. There was also a manufactory of white stoneware carried on, in 1811, by a Mr. Joseph Kishire.

Aldgate.

In 1690 William Knight was a “Pottmaker” in “the parish of St. Buttolph without Aldgate, London,” and made “white ware.” In that year he had conveyed to him, by deed, some premises which were situated “by the river running from Merton Mill to Wandsworth, in the county of Surrey,” and consisted in part of a mill, “used for a colour-mill for grinding colours for the glazeing of white ware” made by him. The original deed, which is in my own possession, was first made public by me in my “Reliquary,” and is altogether one of the most interesting contributions to the history of the ceramic art in England which has of late been made. The deed is as follows:—

THIS INDENTURE, made the Tenth Day of March, Anno Dom. 1690, and in the Third Yeare of the Reigne of our Soveraigns Lord and Lady William and Mary King and Queene of England Scotland France and Ireland &c Betweene Mary Crispe of the parish of St. Andrewe Holborne in the County of Middx Widow late wife of Ellis Crispe late of Wimbledon in the County of Surry Esquire Deceased and Samuel Crispe of the Inner Temple London Gent. Son and Heire of the said Ellis Crispe of the One part And William Knight of the Parish of St. Buttolph without Aldgate London Pottmaker of the Other part Witnesseth That For and in Consideration of the Sume of Seaven Hundred Pounds of lawfull mony of England heretofore to the said Ellis Crispe and the said Mary Crispe (by the name of Mary his wife) or one of them paid by the said William Knight And in Consideration of the Sume of Five Shillings to the said Mary Crispe and Samuel Crispe or one of them in hand at or before th’ ensealing and delivery of these presents by the said William Knight well and truly paid The Receipt of which severall Sumes they the said Mary Crispe and Samuel Crispe doe hereby respectively Acknowledge Testifie and Declare And thereof and of and from every part and parcell thereof Doe hereby severally and respectively Release Acquitt and Discharge the said William Knight his Heirs Executors and Administrators and every of them by these presents And in pursuance of a Covenant for further Assurances of the Lands Mill and Hereditaments hereinafter mentioned or intended to be Released or Conveyed made by and from the said Ellis Crispe for himself and for the said Mary Crispe (by the name of Mary his wife) and for the Heires and Assigns of the said Ellis Crispe to the said William Knight his Heires and Assignes Conteined in an Indenture bearing date on or about the Four and Twentieth day of July Anno Domini One Thousand Six Hundred Eighty and Three and in the Five and Thirtieth Yeare of the Raigne of the late King Charles the Second Made or mentoned to be made Between the said Ellis Crispe and the said Mary Crispe (by the name of Mary his wife) of the One part and the said William Knight of the Other part And for diverse other good Causes and Consideratons them the said Mary Crispe and Samuel Crispe thereunto moueing They the said Mary Crispe and Samuel Crispe Have Bargained Sold Released and Confirmed And by these presents Doe Bargaine Sell Release and Confirme unto the said William Knight (in his actuall possession now being) and to his Heires and Assignes All Those Five Closes or Parcells of Meadow Ground Conteineing by Estimation Fifteene Acres be the same more or lesse lyeing neare and adjoyneing to the River running from Merton Mill to Wandsworth in the County of Surry Together with the Mill Erected on part of the said Fifteen Acres formerly used for a Fulling Mill and Brasill Mill and now and of late used for a Colour Mill for Grinding[158] Colours for the Glazeing of White Ware And also the Watercourses Ponds Mill Ponds Floodgates Wayes Waters Comodityes and Appurtenances to the said Mill and Premises or any of them belonging or of right apperteineing All which Premises now are and late were in the tenure or occupaton of the said William Knight his Tennants or Assignes And are Scituate lyeing and being in the said Parish of Wimbledon in the said County of Surrey And also all the Land Mill and Hereditaments with the appurtennces which in or by One Indenture bearing date the Fourth day of November Anno Domini One Thousand Six Hundred Seaventy and Three And in the Five and Twentieth Yeare of the Raigne of the late King Charles the Second made Betweene the said Ellis Crispe of the One part and John Campion of London Pewterer and the said William Knight of the Other part were or were mentoned to be demised granted and to Farm letten by the said Ellis Crispe unto the said John Campion and William Knight All which premises doe abutt on the Southside towards the Highway on the Westside towards the Land late of the said Ellis Crispe late in the occupaton of Joseph Walton William Mason and Edward Hubbart on the Northside towards Biggery Road and on the Eastside towards the Old River All which Land Mill and Premises are Platted Sett out and drawne and butted and bounded in a Plott or scheame to these presents annexed[56] (Except and allwayes reserved out of this Present Release or Conveyance unto the said Mary Crispe and Samuel Crispe and the Heires of the said Samuel The Royalty of Fishing and free leave liberty and lycense to and for the said Mary Crispe and Samuel Crispe and the Heires of the said Samuel and her his and their Servants to come into and upon the premises hereby Released or Conveyed to Fish at all seasonable and convenient times) And the Revercon and Revercons Remainder and Remainders Rents Issues and Profitts of all and singular the Premises and of every part and parcell thereof And all the Estate Right Tythe Interest Revercon Inheritance Trust Property Profit Clayme and Demand whatsoever of them the said Mary Crispe and Samuel Crispe or either of them of into and out of the Premises hereby menconed or intended to be Released or Conveyed and every or any part or parcell thereof Together with true Coppyes (to be made at the costs and charges of the said William Knight his Heirs or Assignes) of all such Deeds Evidences and Writeings (now in the hands custody or possession of the said Mary Crispe and Samuel Crispe or which they or either of them may or can come at without Suite in Law) as doe relate to or concerne the Premises hereby menconed or intended to be bargained and sold joyntly with other the Lands Tenements or Hereditaments of them the said Mary Crispe and Samuel Crispe or either of them All which Premises hereby menconed or intended to be bargained Sold Released and Confirmed were heretofore bargained sold released and confirmed or otherwise Conveyed unto the said William Knight his Heires and Assignes to his and their own use and behoofe for ever by and from the said Ellis Crispe and the said Mary his wife by Indentures of Lease and Release bearing date the Three and Twentieth and Four and Twentieth dayes of July Anno Domini One Thousand Six Hundred Eighty and Three and in the said Five and Thirtieth Yeare of the Raigne of the said late King Charles the Second made or mencondd to be made Betweene the said Ellis Crispe and the said Mary Crispe by the name of Mary his wife of the One part and the said William Knight of the Other part and by other good and sufficient Conveyances or Assurances in the Law And also together with all Messuages Tenements Houses Erectons and Buildings Sythence erected and built upon the said Fifteen Acres of Land or any part thereof with their Appurtenances To have and to hold all and singular the premises (Except before Excepted) Unto the said William Knight his Heires and Assignes To the onely use and behoofe of the said William Knight his Heires and Assignes for Ever and to and for noe other use or uses intents or purposes whatsoever And the said Mary Crispe for herselfe her Heires Executors and Admstrators And the said Samuel Crispe for himselfe his Heires Executors and Administrators Doe respectively Covenant and Agree to and with the said William Knight his Heires and Assignes by these presents That it shall and may be lawfull to and for the said William Knight his Heires and Assignes peaceably and quitely to Have Hold Occupy Possese and Enjoy the premises with the appurtennces hereby bargained and sold or menconed to be hereby bargained and sold and to receive have and take the Rents Issues and Profitts thereof to his and their owne Use and Uses without the lawful Lett Suite Trouble Molestation Eviction Disturbance or Interrupton of or by the said Mary Crispe and Samuel Crispe or either of them their or either of their Heires or Assignes or the Heires and Assignes of the said Ellis Crispe or the Heires or [159]Assignes of Rowland Wilson Esquire Dec^d late Grandfather of the said Ellis Crispe Or of or by any other person or persons claymeing or to clayme by from or under the said Mary Crispe and Samuel Crispe or by from or under the said Ellis Crispe or Rowland Wilson or any or either of them in any manner of wise And that Free and Cleare and freely and clearly Acquitted Exonerated and Discharged Or otherwise by the said Mary Crispe and Samuel Crispe their Heires and Assignes from time to time and at all times hereafter well and sufficiently Saved Defended and kept harmelesse and Indempnifyed of and from All and all manner of former and other Guifts Grants Bargaines Sales or Conveyances (Other than such as are hereinbefore menconed) Mortgages Joyntures Dowers Right and Tytle of Dower Uses Wills Intayles Recognizances Statutes Merchant and of the Staple Judgements Executons Extents Seizures Forfeitures Debts to the Crowne and of and from all other Charges Estates Tytles Troubles and Incumbrances whatsoever had made comitted done or suffered or to be had made committed done or suffered by the said Mary Crispe and Samuel Crispe or either of them respectively their Heires or Assignes or by the said Ellis Crispe and Rowland Wilson or either of them or any clayming by from or under them either or any of them in any manner of wise And Farther That the said Mary Crispe and Samuel Crispe either of them their and either of their Heires and Assignes and all and every other person and persons claymeing or to clayme by from or under the said Mary Crispe and Samuel Crispe or either of them or the said Rowland Wilson or Ellis Crispe shall and will from time to time and at all times hereafter within the Space of Seaven Yeares at the Request Costs and Charges in the Law of the said William Knight his Heires or Assignes make doe acknowledge leavy execute and suffer or cause and procure to be made done acknowledged leavyed executed and suffered unto him and them such further or other lawfull and reasonable Act and Acts Deed and Deeds Conveyance and Conveyances Assurance and Assurances in the Law whatsoever for the further and better Conveying Assureing Surety and Sure makeing of the Premises with the appurtennces hereby bargained sold or released and every part and parcell thereof unto the said William Knight his Heires and Assignes to his and their owne use and uses Bee it by Fine or Fines Recovery or Recoveryes with single double or treble Voucher or Vouchers over Deed or Deeds Inrolled or not Inrolled Release Confirmacon or by all or any of those wayes or meanes or by any other wayes or meanes whatsoever As by the said William Knight his Heires or Assignes or his or their Councell Learned in the Laws shalbee reasonably devised or advised and required Soe as such farther Assurance shall conteyne noe further or other Warranty or Covenants then only against the partyes thereunto and for and concerning their own acts only and soe as the Person or Persons making such farther Assurance shall not be Compelled or Compellable to Travell farther than the Citys of London or Westminster in Case they Inhabit within Seaven Miles thereof or else farther than Seaven Miles from the Place of his or their abode for the doeing thereof And it is hereby Covenanted Declared and fully agreed by and betweene all and every the Partyes to these presents for them and their Heires That all and every Fine and Fines Conveyance and Conveyances Assurance and Assurances in the Law whatsoever already had made levyed acknowledged executed or suffered or hereafter to be had made levyed acknowledged executed or suffered by or betweene the said Partyes to these presents or whereunto they or any of them are or shalbee Party or Partyes Of or concerning the premises hereby menconed or intended to be Released or Confirmed unto the said William Knight his Heires or Assignes intirely by themselves or joyntly with any other Lands Tenements or Hereditaments whatsoever shalbee and Enure and shall be adjudged deemed construed expounded and taken to be and enure and is and are hereby declared to be and enure as to the said severall Closes Mill and other the premises with the appurtenaces hereby menconed or intended to be Released or Conveyed To the use and behoofe of the said William Knight his Heires and Assignes and to and for noe other use or uses intents or purposes whatsoever In witness whereof The said parties to these present Indentures Interchangeably have Sett their Hands and Seales Dated the Day and Yeare First above written.

MARY CRISPE. SAMUEL CRISPE.

The deed, which is sealed with the arms of Crispe, is thus attested on the back, “Sealed and Delivered in the presence of

The William Knight, “pott maker,” of this deed was the same William Knight whose name appears three years later on, in 1693, along with those of Thomas Harper, Henry De Wilde, John Robins, and Moses Johnson—“all potters in London”—in the curious “Brief Account of the Evidence given on behalf of Edmund Warner” in a trial in the Court of Exchequer, concerning a parcel of Potter’s clay which had been wrongfully seized as Fuller’s-earth, given on page 134.

“Mary Crispe of the parish of St. Andrewe, Holborne, in the county of Middx., widow, late wife of Ellis Crispe, late of Wimbledon, in the county of Surry, Esquire, deceased, and Samuel Crispe of the Inner Temple, London, Gent., Son and Heire of the said Ellis Crispe,” were, there can be but little doubt, of the same family to which, later on, Crispe, the china manufacturer, belonged.

Mill-Wall.

Mr. Blashfield, now of the Stamford Terra-cotta Works, who had previously been engaged in the plastic, scagliola, and cement business, commenced the manufacture of terra-cotta vases, statues, chimney-shafts, &c., turning to good account the models he had used in his former business and those he had acquired from Coades. These works he carried on until 1858, when he removed to Stamford, in Lincolnshire, and opened his present large manufactory.

Mortlake.

Delft-ware works appear to have been in existence here in the seventeenth century. At the close of the eighteenth they were taken by Mr. Wagstaffe, of the Vauxhall Pottery, and passed with them to his nephew, Mr. Wisker, about the year 1804, and were by him continued for the manufacture of Delft and stone-wares until 1820 or 1821, when he removed the whole concern to Vauxhall. Two examples of Mortlake Delft-ware—a large punch-bowl, twenty-one inches in diameter, painted in blue, with birds, flowers, &c.; and a set of twelve tiles, also painted in blue, with landscape, ruins, figures, &c., are in the South Kensington Museum. They were removed from the old factory.

Southwark.

Gravel Lane.—In the beginning of last century a pottery was carried on by Nathaniel Oade, connected with whom and whose business a shocking circumstance is detailed in the Post Boy of March 1st, 1718. It appears that Oade had a family of four sons, who were determined to have the business and house made over to them, leaving him to exist on what property he had acquired. This he declined to do; when they swore they would have it in spite of him, and soon afterwards had him arrested on judgment in a sham action in the Marshalsea Court for £500, and thrown into prison. The sons then, with their vile attorney, conveyed arms and a store of provisions into the house, and at once turned their mother and servants out and barricaded the place. “In their rage they shot a woman who was passing by; also their own mother and a servant who would not give up possession of the books of account. The constables and the military at length arriving, they capitulated.” The youngest son and another man were executed for the murder; the others were found guilty of manslaughter. In 1750 the roof of a pottery belonging to Mr. Oade was thrown down by an earthquake, and an account of the circumstance was sent to the Royal Society by William Jackson, a potter.

Isleworth.

The manufacture of porcelain at Isleworth was commenced by Joseph Shore in 1760, and was continued to be made about forty years. In 1795 Lysons says: “There is a china manufactory at Isleworth belonging to Messrs. Shore & Co.” In 1800 it was discontinued, but the stock is said to have remained on the premises until 1830, when the works, having in the meantime been used for the manufacture of earthenware—principally “Welsh” or “streaked” ware,—were closed. A few years afterwards the manufactory was removed to Hounslow, and the site converted to other purposes. Joseph Shore is said to have come from the Worcester China Works, and his partner and principal painter, Richard Goulding, was his son-in-law, who was, later on, assisted by his son, William Goulding Wm. Goulding,
June 20th, 1770.
✳ (a dated piece of his having the name as in the margin). I am inclined, however, to think that Joseph Shore must have[162] originally belonged to the Derby China Works, as several of that name were connected with them. After Shore’s death, the works were continued by the Gouldings. The works were at Railshead Creek, by the ferry side.

Stepney.

A manufacture of porcelain was carried on here in the middle of last century; for Jonas Hanway, writing in 1750–1, says, “It is with great satisfaction that I observe the manufactories of Bow, Chelsea, and Stepney have made such a considerable progress.”

Greenwich.

In 1747 it appears there was a small manufactory of china here, but nothing is known of its history. In the London Tradesman of that year occurs this note:—“Of late we have made some attempts to make porcelain or chinaware, after the manner it is done in China and Dresden. There is a house at Greenwich, and another at Chelsea, where the undertakers have been for some time trying to imitate that beautiful manufacture.”

Ransome’s Patent Stone Works.—These works, situated at Blackwall Lane, East Greenwich, were established at Ipswich in 1844, and removed to this locality in January, 1866. In 1871 the present company was incorporated in extension of the preceding firm. Mr. Frederick Ransome, the inventor of the processes, is a member of the well-known Ipswich family, and was in early life connected[163] with the Orwell Works firm of Ransomes and Sims. It was while there, and noticing a workman engaged in dressing a millstone, that he conceived the idea of producing artificial stone, capable of being moulded to any form, and to be a perfect imitation, both in appearance and substance, of the blocks taken from our best quarries. At the commencement Mr. Ransome had, as I have said, his stoneworks at Ipswich. For ten years the difficulties he had to encounter were very great, but he persevered, and, though often discouraged, toiled and experimented on scientific principles until he succeeded in making not only perfectly equable and homogeneous grindstones, with keen cutting powers, and that need no dressing, but also ornamental and decorative stonework of ornate character, which has been well introduced in the Brighton Aquarium, London Docks, Albert Bridge, the Indian Court, Whitehall, St. Thomas’s Hospital, &c., the University of Calcutta and other buildings in India, and for ornamental buildings in France, Belgium, Holland, Egypt, Turkey, China (where a splendid fountain of Ransome stone adorns the public gardens at Hong Kong), and other countries. The demand for this artificial stone becoming much extended, the inventions were taken up by a company, and extensive works were erected at East Greenwich, to which the business was transferred, Mr. Ransome continuing with the company as managing director.

The works are of great extent, and occupy a space of about four acres, that was formerly a dreary waste, on the banks of the Thames. They are connected with the river by a tramway and a jetty, supplied with a powerful derrick. The works consist of a large covered building, with a dividing wall across the centre, in which there are two openings for the tramways that are laid from one end to the other, and on which the work is conveyed from one point to another as the different processes require.

The material is, to all intents and purposes, a pure sand-stone, whose silicious particles are bound together by a cement of silicate of lime—a mineral substance well known to be of the most indestructible nature; its composition, mechanically and chemically, is precisely that of the Craigleith and other best quality building-stones. It can be moulded to any form while in a plastic state, and can be worked with the chisel the same as any natural stone. The process of manufacture is based upon one of the most beautiful of chemical reactions; flints are dissolved by means of caustic alkali under high pressure, so as to form silicate of soda, a kind of waterglass.[164] This viscous and tenacious substance is then rapidly mixed with a proportion of very fine and sharp silicious sand in a pug mill, so as to form a soft, plastic mass, which can be moulded into any shape that is desired. The soft stone is next immersed in a bath of chloride of calcium solution, which is made to penetrate every pore by means of hydraulic or atmospheric pressure. Whenever this solution comes into contact with the silicate of soda the two liquids are mutually and instantaneously decomposed, the silica taking possession of the calcium and forming the hard, solid silicate of lime, and the soda uniting with the chlorine to form chloride of sodium in a small quantity. Instead, then, of the particles of sand being covered with a thin film of the liquid silicate of soda, they are covered and united together with a film of solid silicate of lime—one of the most indestructible substances known. The small quantity of soluble chloride of sodium, one of the results of decomposition, is then washed out of the stone by a douche of clean water, or by hydraulic pressure, its complete removal being ensured by chemical tests. The stone is then dried and is fit for use.

The productions of these works may be said to comprise most of the useful as well as ornamental purposes to which stone can be applied. In the ornamental departments, vases of admirable design and of great variety, fountains, tazzas (in these three departments some two hundred different designs are produced), terminals, flower-boxes, flower-pots, tree-pots, garden edgings, &c. Figures and busts are also produced. In the more useful architectural departments, chimney-pieces, balustrades, chimney-shafts and tops, window-heads, vases, plinths, capitals, and many other articles are made, as well as memorial crosses, gravestones, cemetery numbers and labels, and other mortuary articles, of such excellent design and finish as to take the place of real stone, at a great reduction of cost.[165] Another speciality of the productions of these works is the manufacture of grindstones and scythe-stones. These are said to preserve their cutting edges better than stones dressed in the ordinary way. Filters, too, for reservoirs, are made extensively, and have the reputation of being the most effective of any introduced. Pavement tiles, both red, white, grey, and other colours, and also inlaid in different patterns, are made. These, among other places, have been adopted on the new Albert Bridge, at Chelsea, with good effect, and are giving entire satisfaction, on account of their great hardness, strength, and non-liability to become slippery.

Another admirable and important element of Mr. Ransome’s inventions is the applying of the silicate of lime to the preservation of stone. The sculpture on St. George’s Hall, Liverpool, the Custom House at Greenock, Trinity College, Dublin, and many other public buildings, have been successfully treated with this solution, which hardens and renders the surface indestructible by time or weather.

The trade mark of the company, which is the only mark used in this manufactory, is a winged genius grinding an arrow, from an antique gem at Rome. It is shown on Fig. 373. The works are under the personal superintendence of Mr. A. Pye-Smith, with Mr. Frederick Ransome as consulting chemist; Mr. Bessemer is the chairman.

Deptford.

In the seventeenth century a pottery existed here, where were manufactured melting-pots, “the best in the world, especially for founders.” These were in great repute, and gradually superseded those imported from Holland, Germany, and Denmark.

Merton (see “Aldgate”).

Hounslow.

About 1830 the manufacture of earthenware (commenced by Joseph Shore and carried on after his death by his son and grandson Richard and William Goulding) at Isleworth was removed to Hounslow, but died out in the course of a year or two, and has not been renewed.

Wandsworth (see “Aldgate”).

Ewell.

“Nonsuch Pottery.”—A pottery existed here in the early part of last century, but about, or soon after, 1790, the bed of clay having been exhausted, it was discontinued. About 1800 the steward of the Nonsuch estates, on which the pottery was situated, gave permission for a new pottery to be established wherever the clay could be found; and soon afterwards the present “Nonsuch Pottery” was opened in Nonsuch Park. It was founded by Mr. William Richard Waghorn, who was joined in partnership by his son. This firm continued the works until 1851, when they were transferred to Mr. Swallow, who had, until that time, been their foreman. By him and his partner, Mr. Stone, the business was continued under the style of “Stone and Swallow,” and by them a pottery—principally for the manufacture of fire-bricks—was established at Epsom. Mr. Swallow died in 1866 or 1867, and since then his partner, Mr. Stone, continued the works alone: they are known as the “Nonsuch Pottery,” or as “Stone’s Ewell and Epsom Potteries.” The goods manufactured by Mr. W. Waghorn were “Italian tiling”—used very extensively in the buildings of the time and remarkable for their strength and durability; ornamental roof tiles; ridge tiles; “Nonsuch Fire Bricks;” “Nonsuch Fire Loam;” paving and other tiles; moulded bricks, &c., for Gothic buildings; ornamented chimney-pots; pipes; flower-pots and vases, &c.; and on their lists was a view of the old Nonsuch Palace, with an historical notice of the same. At the present time the same descriptions of goods are produced—the mark, where used, being simply the words “Stone & Co.”

Cheam.

A pottery was worked here, about 1840, by Messrs. Waghorn, of the Ewell Pottery; but on their retiring, in 1851, was transferred to Mr. Baker, by whom it was worked until 1868, when he was succeeded by Messrs. Cowley & Aston. It was closed in 1869. In the same year another pottery was opened by Mr. Henry Clark, by whom it is still carried on, for the manufacture of ornamental and plain flower-pots, rustic fern-stands, vases, chimney-pots, drain-tiles, &c. They are of a bright red colour, and when a mark is used, it is simply “Henry Clark, Cheam Pottery.”

Chiselhurst.

The West Kent Potteries were opened in 1820, before which time other works were in operation and carried on by the steward of Lord Sydney, the owner of the estate, for the manufacture of wares for the use of the estate. At Christmas, 1822, the works were taken by Mr. Pascall, who continued to carry them on until January, 1869, when he died in the ninety-second year of his age. Since then it has been carried on by his sons, Messrs. Pascall Brothers, the present owners. The productions of the works are the ordinary red-ware flower and root pots, sea-kale pots, and other horticultural ware: building and paving bricks and tiles; roofing and ridge tiles; drain, socket, and other pipes; chimney-tops, &c. Messrs. Pascall are patentees of the famous West Kent flower-pots with loose bottoms, celebrated for their convenience for changing and examining the roots; and of the patent sea-kale pots for growing sea-kale in hothouses. The works are extensive, and the production of horticultural-ware is large.

“Chelsea buns,” “Chelsea pensioners,” and “Chelsea china” are surely three things, each one in itself sufficient to make a place famous, but when brought together, a three-fold fame must certainly attach to the locality which has given them a name. With the buns and the pensioners, however, I disclaim all connection in my present work. The former are not sufficiently works of Art-manufacture to entitle them to a place in our columns, and the latter are certainly not articles of virtù which can be collected together and stowed away under glass shades by the connoisseur. And yet the “Chelsea Bun-house” has its story—full of interest and of incident—and the “Hospital” has a history and a host of associations connected with it, which render these two places memorable, and give them an imperishable interest. It is with the “China”—the third of the matters I have named, and of whose story the least is known—that I have now to do. The establishment of the Bun-house, and its history to the latest time, is easily traced out and written; the foundation of the Hospital, and the events which have from time to time filled it with pensioners, are matters of record which are easily gathered together; but the formation of the china works, and many of the changes the establishment has undergone, are lost to us, and will be difficult to recover. It is my object here to attempt to get back so much as may be of the early history of the works, and to throw together the scraps I have collected, into the form of a narrative, which may become the nucleus of a larger and more extended history, as fresh facts are brought to light in the course of my own investigations or of those of others interested in the matter.

It is better to state at the outset that the history of the Chelsea[169] China Works is very obscure. In fact, a London fog, such as is proverbial in the month in which I write (November), seems to have closed around, and enveloped the place in such a dense mass as to make it next to invisible. A little of this cloud of mist I have already removed, and I trust that in the course of future researches I may be able to almost entirely dispel it. At all events, every item of information is valuable, and in the following narrative a vast deal of new matter will be found, which will materially assist the collector in understanding the history of these, the most celebrated of any of the old china manufactories of the United Kingdom.

The south-western district of London, on both sides of the water, has, as I have already shown, for a long period, been the seat of fictile manufactories of an extensive and important character. Fulham, Chelsea, Battersea, Vauxhall, Pedler’s Acre, Lambeth—all had their potteries at an early date, and all, probably, had their origin from one common source. What that first source was—i.e., where the first pottery was founded—is, of course difficult to say, but from it others sprung up, in different directions, until quite a nest of manufactories was located in the suburban districts. The artisans of the seventeenth century were chiefly Dutchmen; indeed, the manufacture was of that kind of ware known as “Delft-ware”—originally made in Holland, and introduced into England by workmen from thence. The importation of “Delft-ware” in this (seventeenth) century was considerable, and at that period the manufacture of a kind of porcelain is said to have been achieved at Delft.

I have shown on another page that large quantities of ware were imported into England from Holland in the seventeenth century, and that Dutch workmen of skill and enterprise were induced, from the prospect of a good home trade here, to settle in England. These workmen, it is not too much to believe, were acquainted with the art of manufacturing porcelain as produced in Delft, as well as the ordinary kind of ware made in their native country; and thus the knowledge was brought into our kingdom, and carried on, to some little extent, by those who settled here. The first maker of china, as I have shown in my account of the Fulham Works, was Mr. Dwight, and to him I am inclined to award the honour of being the father of the Chelsea China Works, about whose origin so little is known. The probability is that after Dwight had succeeded in making porcelain, and abandoned it, some other potter started the works at Chelsea, and with good result.

When first commenced they were, of course, of a very small size, and were, it is said, principally confined to painting and finishing Oriental china, which was imported for that purpose. There is a tradition—but only tradition—that the origin of the Chelsea works took its rise from the fact of clay being brought as ballast in vessels from Chinese ports, which was found to be the veritable clay used by the Oriental potters. This clay is said to have been used both at Chelsea and at Bow, and to have enabled the workmen successfully to compete with their Eastern rivals. The tradition, however, goes on to recount that the Chinese, finding that the uses of this clay had been discovered, and perceiving that they were losing trade in consequence, wisely “stopped the supplies,” and peremptorily refused to allow any more to leave their ports. The workmen were then driven to seek elsewhere for material, and, as a matter of course, soon found enough to use in our country.

By whom the works were carried on in their early days is not recorded, but in the year 1745 the art had evidently attained a high continental as well as home celebrity. In this year the French company, in their petition for the exclusive privilege of establishing a porcelain manufactory at Vincennes, urged the benefit which France might be expected to derive by having a manufactory of porcelain which should counteract the reputation of English and German make, and stop their importation into France. There is nothing to show that Chelsea, any more than Bow, was intended by this; but as ten years later, according to Rouquet, “that of Chelsea is the most considerable” of the three or four china manufactories in the neighbourhood of London, it is probable it was then one of the seats of manufacture of which France was jealous.

George II. gave the Chelsea establishment his countenance and earnest support, and did much to encourage its works, and to ensure its success. He procured for it workmen, models, and materials from the State of Saxony, and thus enabled the factory to produce works of such high merit as to successfully rival the productions of Sèvres and Dresden. This royal patronage of course produced its results, in procuring the patronage of many of the leading men of the day. Thus, the Duke of Cumberland not only took it under his special care, but allowed a sum of money annually for its furtherance and support. In 1750 it belonged to M. Nicholas Spremont, or Sprimont, a foreigner of considerable taste and talent, who did much towards establishing its already acquired reputation. At this time[171] the productions of the establishment must have been of a particularly high order. In Watkins’s “Life of Queen Charlotte,” it is stated that “there are several rooms in Buckingham Palace full of curiosities and valuable movables, but not ranged in proper order. Among other things I beheld with admiration a complete service of Chelsea china, rich and beautiful in fancy beyond expression. I really never saw any Dresden near so fine. Her Majesty made a present of this choice collection to the duke, her brother—a present worthy of so great a prince.” Horace Walpole, too, in 1763, wrote, “I saw yesterday (March 3, 1763) a magnificent service of Chelsea china, which the king and queen are sending to the Duke of Mecklenberg. There are dishes and plates without number, an epergne, candlestick, salt-cellars, sauce-boats, tea and coffee equipages, &c. In short it is complete, and cost £1,200.”

In the Lansdowne MSS.[57] in the British Museum is a curious document relating to the Chelsea works, which, being particularly interesting, I here give in full. It is entitled “The case of the Undertaker of the Chelsea manufacture of Porcelain Ware.”

“Many attempts towards this art have been made in Europe for a long course of years past; the success which has been met with at Dresden has revived these pursuits in many parts of Europe.

“The Empress Queen has a manufacture of her own.

“The French King has one, and has patronised and encouraged several; the King of Naples has one; the late Duke of Orleans was, at the time of his death, and had been for many years, engaged very earnestly in this pursuit, but none have come up to the pattern they have been endeavouring to imitate.

“Several attempts have likewise been made here; few have made any progress, and the chief endeavours at Bow have been towards making a more ordinary sort of ware for common uses.

“This undertaker, a silversmith by profession, from a casual acquaintance with a chymist who had some knowledge this way, was tempted to make a trial, which, upon the progress he made, he was encouraged to pursue with great labour and expense; and as the town and some of the best judges expressed their approbation of the essays he produced of his skill, he found means to engage some assistance.

“The manufacture was then put upon a more extensive footing, and he had the encouragement of the public to a very great degree, so that the last winter he sold to the value of more than £3,500, which is a great deal, considering the thing is new, and is of so great extent that it has been beyond the reach of his industry to produce such complete assortments as are required in a variety of ways. This has been a great spur to his industry, so that, notwithstanding some discouragements, the ground-plot of his manufacture has gone on still increasing.

“The discouragements, besides the immense difficulties in every step towards the improvement of the art, have been the introduction of immense quantities of Dresden porcelain.

“It was known that, as the laws stand, painted earthenware, other than that from India, is not enterable at the Custom House, otherwise than for private use, and of course becomes forfeit when offered to sale, as well as lace from France, or any other unenterable commodity; and though it was publicly sold in a great many shops, and that there were even very frequent public sales of it, it was hoped that what was exposed to sale was chiefly the stock in hand, and when that should be got off, this grievance would cease. It has, nevertheless, happened quite[172] otherwise, for not only the importations continue, and considerable parcels are allowed to pass at the Custom House, as for private use, by which means the shops abound with new stock, and public sales are advertised at the very beginning of the winter, and in large quantities; but there is reason to believe, from the diminution in the price of the Dresden china, that this is done on purpose to crush the manufactory established here, which was a project threatened last year.

“It is apprehended that if recourse is had to the Custom House books, it will be found that considerable quantities have been entered there for private use, besides what may have been allowed to pass as Furniture to foreign ministers.

“This earthenware pays eightpence by the pound when entered for private use; but a figure of very little weight may be worth five pounds, so that the real value of what is sold here will be found to be considerable; and, indeed, it must be so, as this ware makes an important article in a number of great shops, besides the number of public sales during the course of a winter, and the other private ways there are of carrying it about.

“It may be a motive to let it be entered at the Custom House, that great names are made use of there; but it is to be regretted, that either these names are often made use of without authority, or that names are often given for very mean purposes; and as nobody is named, it may be said that a certain foreign minister’s house has been, for a course of years, a warehouse for this commerce, and the large parcel, advertised for public sale on the seventh of next month, is come, or is to come from thence.

“Even the right of entering this ware at all is a doubtful point, and the affirmative is taken upon presumption, because the law says it shall not be entered for sale.

“The manufacture in England has been carried on so far by great labour, and at a large expense; it is in many points to the full as good as the Dresden, and the late Duke of Orleans told Colonel York that the metal or earth had been tried in his furnace, and was found to be the best made in Europe. It is now daily improving, and already employs at least one hundred hands, of which is a nursery of thirty lads, taken from the parishes and charity schools, and bred to designing and painting—arts very much wanted here, and which are of the greatest use in our silk and printed linen manufactures.

“Besides the advantage great honour accrues to the nation, from the progress made in so fine an art, without any of those aids by which it has been set on foot and supported abroad; nor has there even been any application for new laws or prohibitions in its favour, which has been a rule in every country upon the establishment of new manufactures.

“The execution of the laws which have all along been in force, and which can give no offence to anybody, it is apprehended will answer the purpose; all that is therefore requested is, that the Commissioners of the Customs may be cautioned with regard to the admission of this ware under the pretence of private use, and that the public sale of it may not be permitted any more than that of other prohibited goods. A few examples of seizures would put a stop to this, and which cannot be difficult, as all Dresden china has a sure mark to distinguish it by; but if this commerce is permitted to go on, the match between a crowned head and private people must be very unequal, and the possessors of the foreign manufactures will at any time, by the sacrifice of a few thousand pounds, have it in their power to ruin any undertaking of this kind here.

“This must be the case at present with the Chelsea manufacture, unless the administration will be pleased to interpose, and enjoin, in the proper place, a strict attention to the execution of the laws; for if, while the manufacture is filled with ware, these public sales of, and the several shops furnished with, what is prohibited, are to take off the ready money which should enable the manufacturer to go on, it must come to a stop, to the public detriment, and the ruin of the undertaker, as well as great loss to those who have engaged in his support.”

Who the “undertaker” of the works here referred to was, is not stated in the document, which, according to Mr. Franks, bears internal evidence of having been written after 1752 and before 1759. Whether the Customs acceded to his views or not does not appear; but certain it is that, despite the abuse of import privilege enjoyed[173] by cabinet ministers and others, he was, by his own showing, carrying on a very extensive business, selling £3,500 worth of goods in one winter, and employing more than a hundred hands, including a nursery of about thirty lads, who were learning the arts of potting and painting.

In 1754 the following advertisement, which is most important as showing the class of goods then made at Chelsea, appeared in the Public Advertiser of December 17th:—

In Mr. Franks’s possession, and in other collections, examples of these “toys” are preserved. Mr. Franks has a smelling-bottle in form of a group, being a boy seated and writing a letter, while a girl looks on: the letter is inscribed, “Fe: 1759, This is.” In that year a Mr. Hughes, an ironmonger in Pall Mall, in his advertisement of May 2nd—

After much research I find that Mr. Spremont continued the works until 1768 or 1769, when he retired, principally through ill health,[58] after having amassed a comfortable fortune; his ledgers dating from 1759 to 1768. During the time of his carrying on the establishment the works were very flourishing—indeed, it was said that “the china was in such repute as to be sold by auction; and as[174] a set was purchased as soon as baked, dealers were surrounding the doors for that purpose.”

Mr. Spremont’s managing man was Francis Thomas, of whom I shall have a few words to say presently. When Spremont retired from the concern, it was purchased by, or assigned over to, Mr. James Cox, who engaged Francis Thomas as overseer, at a salary of £100 a year, and this arrangement continued to the 6th of January, 1770, when Mr. Thomas died. Shortly afterwards the concern again, and for the last time, changed hands. Mr. Thomas was a man of good ability and of much practical skill, and to his energy in directing the works under Mr. Spremont much of their fame may be traced. He was buried in the south aisle of the parish church of Chelsea, where an inscription to his memory now remains.

I have in my possession a bill from Elizabeth, widow of Francis Thomas, which is somewhat interesting, as refuting the statements which have been made as to the position held by this gentleman, and which I therefore give entire:—

The following announcements refer to the sales and proposed sales of the manufactory, and its models, plant, &c.:—

In the Gazetteer, or New Daily Advertiser, for May, 1769, is the following advertisement:—

In reference to this last advertisement, Josiah Wedgwood thus wrote to Thomas Bentley:—“The Chelsea moulds, models, &c., are to be sold, but I’ll enclose you the advertisement—there’s an immense amount of fine things;” and about the same date, writing to his clerk, William Cox, he says:—“Pray enquire of Mr. Thomas whether they are determined to sell less than the whole of the models, &c., together: if so I do not think it would suit me to purchase. I should be glad if you could send me any further particulars of the things at Chelsea.”

About this time Dr. Johnson was busying himself in experimentalising in compositions for the manufacture of porcelain, and an interesting account of his progress at Chelsea, as given from the lips of the foreman of the works, is preserved by Faulkener. He says, in his “History of Chelsea:”—

Dr. Johnson certainly took much interest in the manufacture of porcelain, and after the discontinuance of the Chelsea works visited those at Derby. He does not, however, seem to have carried his researches on to any practical result.

In 1769 Mr. William Duesbury, the proprietor of the famous Derby China Works, became the purchaser of the Chelsea works, and for many years carried on the two establishments conjointly. The Derby works had at that time attained to a high degree of excellence and of celebrity, and Mr. Duesbury (who became the purchaser, not only of the Chelsea works, but those of Bow, Giles’s, Pedlar’s Acre, &c.) was doing more trade than was done at any other establishment in the kingdom. He had opened an extensive connection with London, and was rapidly increasing his concern, both in that and other markets, and had become more than a successful rivaller of the excellence of the Chelsea wares.

The purchase of the Chelsea works was arranged on the 17th of August, 1769, and completed on the 5th of February, 1770, when a payment of £400, in part of the purchase money, was made. The original document, now in my possession, is highly interesting, and is as follows:—

Thus the Chelsea works, which had been taken to by Mr. Duesbury in August, 1769, and had been, indeed, carried on at his cost from about that period, finally passed into his hands on the 8th of February, 1770. The purchase included not only the “Porcelain[177] manufactory and its appurtenances and the lease thereof,” but the stock of finished and unfinished goods then on the premises; and this gave rise to a long and tedious lawsuit, of which I shall have to speak hereafter. Mr. Duesbury also, it would appear, covenanted to pay all liabilities on the estate, and of course to receive all moneys due to it. At the foot of the bill from Mrs. Thomas to Mr. Cox, printed above, there is this very significant foot-note:—“Mr. Cox sold Mr. Deusbury the whole, who was to pay the above, and every other matter.” Other bills, in my possession, including one from William Payne, the carpenter, for £19 15s. 5d., for repairs done at the works for Mr. Cox, are endorsed as paid by Mr. Duesbury. In this carpenters bill one item shows that the works were palisadoed:—“Dec. 9, 1769. To repairing the yard gates and palisades, setting on locks, 9s. 6d.” The accounts do not appear to have been quite cleared up until the year 1780, when, upon the winding up of the affairs of Mr. Cox, on his failure or death, a claim was made on Mr. Duesbury by the solicitor, Mr. Jasper Jay, for balance of account as then “standing open in the books of Mr. Cox.” The account is but short; but as all this is useful material towards the history of the Chelsea works, and is therefore of importance, I give it entire.

The lawsuit to which I have alluded was commenced the same year that the works finally passed into the hands of Mr. Duesbury, and was brought by that gentleman against Burnsall (I presume the auctioneer named above), to recover a quantity of goods said to have been unlawfully sold to him by Francis Thomas, and which in reality belonged to Duesbury, as a part of his purchase. The goods, which appear to have been made by Spremont, and of his own materials, were alleged by Thomas to have been sold to him[178] by Spremont; but although the books of the concern were kept by Thomas himself, no entry of such sale and purchase was to be found. There were also cross actions. The action was first heard in Michaelmas Term, 1770, and lasted until Hilary Term, 1772. Evidence was given that the articles demanded of Burnsall were made of Mr. Spremont’s materials, and at his manufactory; that Mr. Spremont never sold them to Thomas, and that they were found in rooms lately belonging to the factory, and were therefore included in Mr. Duesbury’s purchase by the formal words. Mr. Spremont, whose health had been gradually failing, died while the action was going on, in June, 1771, and in the end the defendant Burnsall’s counsel, representing to the court “Mrs. Thomas’s situation in a madhouse, and four small children, and the attorney swearing that there was nothing else for to support them, the court would not let us keep the action at law any longer in court, so we must pay the costs.” The action thus came to an end, and Burnsall immediately announced a sale of china, “in which are some capital pieces of Chelsea porcelain”—a part, doubtless, of the disputed goods.

Under Mr. Duesbury, the manager of the Chelsea works, was Richard Barton (a modeller and general workman); and the “weekly bills” of wages and disbursements, now in my possession, as made out by him, are highly interesting and valuable, as showing the kind of articles then made at Chelsea, the names of the workmen and painters, and the amounts earned by each from week to week. These bills commence in March, 1770, and run over the next three or more years. The final destruction of the works is carefully described in some excellent letters, also in my possession, to which I shall refer later on.

From these “weekly bills” I have selected some items which are of more than passing interest, and which tend, more materially than other information can, to throw light on the Chelsea works at this particular period—a period, it must be borne in mind, later than that at which the works are generally said to have been discontinued. It must be remembered that, until my account of the “Derby China Works” appeared in the columns of the Art-Journal, in 1862, nothing had ever been known of the connection of Duesbury with the concern. The information I there gave of his purchase of the Chelsea factory was new; and upon what I then wrote every later account of the Chelsea works has been founded. The works were till then generally believed to have been discontinued in 1765,[179] but I have been enabled to show that they were not finally given up until 1784, when the kilns were taken down.

In June, 1776, her Majesty Queen Charlotte paid a visit to Duesbury’s London Show Rooms in Bedford Street, Covent Garden, and was shown through by his agent, Mr. Wood. The following is an account of the event:—

The “weekly bills” of the Chelsea China Works, in my own possession, are very carefully prepared, and give the names and salaries of the workmen employed, as well as the kinds of goods they were engaged in making. They are thus particularly interesting and important, and are calculated to throw no little light on the history of the works. I quote two weeks in full, May 12th to 19th, 1770; and March 16th to 23rd, 1771, as examples of the style of these “weekly bills;” and I have added to these some few extracts, to show the kind of ware then being made, and the prices which the workmen received for painting, &c.

From these “weekly bills,” of different dates from 1770 to 1773, I make the following extracts for the purpose of showing collectors the period to which they may safely attribute the manufacture of such specimens as may be in their possession. The extracts are from the “overtime” made by the hands, and are taken hap-hazard, and without any attempt whatever at classification.

I give entire some few other of the weekly statements of “Work Don at Chelsea by Barton, Boyer, &c.,” the painters, Boreman, Wollams, Snowden, and Jinks, not being included.

	£	s.	d.
Boarman, 6 days at 5s. 3d.	1	11	6
Wollams, 6 days at 4s. 6d.	1	7	0
Snowden, 6 days at 3s. 6d.	1	1	0
Jinks, 6 days at 3s. 6d.	1	1	0
Boyer, 6 days at 3s. 6d.	1	1	0
Barton, 6 days at 3s. 6d.	1	1	0
Piggot, 6 days at 1s. 9d.	0	10	6
Ditto Sunday, Teaking care of the Horse	0	1	6
Chasing and Polishing:
2 Double handle Cups and Covers at 1s. 4d. each	0	2	8
3 Ditto and Ditto at 1s. 2d. each	0	3	6
2 four Scallop’d Jarrs at 2s. 3d. each	0	4	6
3 Large Pieces of the Crimson Service at 2s. 3d. each	0	6	9
Polishing only:
4 Row Waggons at 0s. 9d. each	0	3	0
2 Small Perfume Potts at 1s. 6d. each	0	3	0
3 Ornamental Perfume Potts at 1s. 0d. each	0	3	0
2 Jonquill Jarrs at 1s. 9d. each	0	3	6
1 Egg shaped Jarr	0	2	0
1 Small Jarr	0	0	4
Exd. and Entd.	£9	6	9

In the “weekly bill” on the same paper are the following entries relating to the “bust.” It would be highly interesting to know what bust is meant.

From these weekly lists of “work don by Barton, Boyer,” and others, I add, for the same purpose, the following highly interesting extracts:—

Mr. Duesbury continued working the manufactory at Chelsea, together with his large and important works at Derby, until the year 1784, when he pulled down the buildings, removed all that was useful to Derby, and so totally put an end to the manufacture of “Chelsea China.” For some years he had been gradually drafting off the workmen, models, &c., to Derby, and in the end finally gave up the manufacture at Chelsea, and continued his works, entire, at their original place, Derby.

It has been said, and generally believed, that the excellence of the Derby works dates from the time when the Chelsea workmen and the Chelsea models were brought to it; but this is, undoubtedly, a great and a grave error. The truth is, the Derby works had risen to such extreme eminence, and had attained to so high a degree of excellence, as to more than rival Chelsea, which, in consequence, began to decline. The successful owner of the Derby establishment was thus enabled to purchase the Chelsea works, as he also did those of Bow, and to carry them on, as long as he considered advisable, conjointly.

I am enabled to give copies of two letters now in my possession, describing the taking down of the buildings, the removal of some of the kilns to Derby, and the arrangement made with the old and faithful workman, Robert Boyer, whose name appears so regularly on the “weekly bills.” The letters are much decayed and mutilated, but fortunately are decipherable. They will be read with much gratification by all who take an interest in the history of Chelsea and its China works.

To this letter Mr. Duesbury, who bore a most excellent character for kindness and consideration towards his work-people and servants, evidently returned a satisfactory and pleasant reply, as is evidenced by the following letter from Boyer:—

In the former of these two letters it will have been observed that mention is made of a “mould of the large figure of Britannia;” this was one of the finest figures produced at Chelsea or Derby, and is now of great rarity.

The “hands” employed at Chelsea, so far as they are entered in[186] these “weekly bills,” appear to have been as follows. I give their names and the rates of wages they were receiving:—

During the time the Chelsea and Derby works were carried on conjointly, the proprietor held periodical sales by Messrs. Christie and Ansell, “at their Great Room, next Cumberland House, Pall Mall,” and afterwards “by the Candle,” at his own warehouse, by Mr. William Hunter of New Bond Street. Of many of these sales (see “Derby” china works) I possess catalogues—some of them priced; and they are particularly valuable and interesting as describing the articles made at the period. The goods offered for sale were evidently the best that were produced, and many of them are of a most costly and magnificent character. From the catalogues of 1781 and 1782—three years before the Chelsea works were taken down—I have selected a few examples:—

The manufactory was situated in Lawrence Street, Chelsea, at the corner of Justice Walk, and was held by Mr. Spremont—or, at all events, one house was—at the yearly rental of £24.

Several of the adjoining houses are said to have been used as show and ware rooms; but the whole of the premises have been, of course, rebuilt many years. In a pleasant gossiping conversation between Nollekins, the sculptor, and Betew, a friend of Hogarth, related in Smith’s “Life of Nollekins,” the following allusion to the works and its situation is made:—“The factory stood just below the bridge, upon the site of Lord Dartery’s House. ‘My father worked for them at one time,’ said Nollekins. ‘Yes,’ replied Betew, ‘and Sir James Thornhill designed for them. Mr. Walpole has at Strawberry Hill half-a-dozen china plates by Sir James, which he bought at Mr. Hogarth’s sale.[61] Paul Ferg painted for them. The cunning rogues produced very white and delicate ware, but then they had their clay from China, which when the Chinese found out, they would not let the captains have any more for ballast, and the consequence was that the whole concern failed.’”

It is much to be regretted that no view of the works is known to be in existence; and their absolute site is not, as far as I am aware, marked on any plan of the locality.

The following relate to these works, and possess more than a passing interest:—

Rec^d 7 June 1770 of Mr. William Dewsbury the Sum of four pound Ten Shillings in full for paint Sent to Chelsea China Work. Charged to Mr. Cox.

The body of the Chelsea china is very frequently uneven—i.e. it has often the appearance of being unequally mixed. One of its peculiarities is that it would bear no fresh exposure to the heat of the kiln, and consequently could not be re-painted and altered. The second application of heat would most probably end in the entire cracking and destruction of the piece. The body was not so compact as the Derby, and of very different general character from Worcester.

The earliest examples made at Chelsea I believe to have been the ordinary white with blue patterns, after the Delft and other makes; and in these early days no marks were used. The glaze, too, was somewhat thick and clumsy, and unevenly laid on. A little later on, Oriental patterns were copied very successfully, both in blue and white and in mixed colours, and the potting became careful and less clumsy. Some early specimens of cups and saucers copied from Oriental patterns, which I have seen, are remarkably well potted, and bear a wonderfully close resemblance to the originals, both in body and in ornamentation. The best Oriental specimens which could be had were, however, used as models, as were also those of France and Germany; and very soon the articles produced at Chelsea most successfully rivalled the best productions of Dresden and Sèvres, both in modelling, potting, colouring, and glazing. The colours were remarkably fine and vivid; and as only the best artists were employed as painters, the pieces produced were extremely choice and good. Many of the landscapes, of which Boreman (or Bowman) was for a long time the chief painter, are in most exquisite taste, both in colouring and choice of subject. The groups of figures, historical, mythological, or otherwise, are, too, remarkably[190] fine, and evince a correct taste and a high degree of manipulation on the part of the artists employed. In modelling, Bacon, Nollekins, and many other of the most eminent men were employed, and the figures they produced were of the highest possible degree of beauty.

In flowers and insects, the Chelsea painters were particularly happy and successful, and they had a peculiar “knack” in “accidental arrangement” which produced a most pleasing effect. Thus, on a plate or dish, the little groups or single sprigs of flowers were often thrown on, as it were, “hap-hazard” along with butterflies, bees, lady-cows, flies, moths, and other insects, and thus produced a pleasing, because an apparently unstudied, effect. The raised flowers, arranged on vases and other ornamental pieces, are usually of extremely good character, and are well painted; and the birds and figures which are introduced along with them are also very nicely and carefully modelled.

Specimens of Chelsea china are to be found in most collections, both public and private, and, being much sought after, usually produce high prices when offered for sale. It may be well, as a guide to collectors, to quote the prices which have been realised in some few instances. In the Bernal collection were the following:—

At the sale of the late Queen Charlotte’s collection, the Chelsea porcelain realised in many instances very exorbitant prices. At the Strawberry Hill sale a pair of cups of the famed claret colour, without saucers, enriched with figures of gold, sold for 25 guineas. Another pair, blue, with gold figures, sold for 17 guineas; and a similar pair, with groups of flowers on a ground of gold, made £11 6s. At the sale of the Angerstein collection a pair of bleu-de-roi vases, with paintings, were bought by Lord Kilmory for 100 guineas. Another pair, pink and gold ground, with paintings, and with open-work lips, realised 142 guineas. A single vase and cover, from Queen Charlotte’s collection, sold for 106 guineas; and a pair of splendid globular vases and covers, with paintings of Bathsheba and Susanna, realised 203 guineas.

In the British Museum are some good examples of Chelsea porcelain, presented to that Institution in 1763; and in the Museum of Practical Geology, in Jermyn Street, are also some excellent specimens, which can be examined by the collector. The Foundling Hospital, until recently, possessed a remarkably fine blue vase, richly gilt and painted, which was presented to that excellent institution in 1763, during the time the works were in the hands of Mr. Spremont, by Dr. Garnier.

The vase, which has been broken, has passed by purchase into the hands of the Earl of Dudley, who, about the same time, became the purchaser, for the sum of £2,000, of the famous vase belonging to the late Earl of Chesterfield.

The earliest specimens of Chelsea ware have no mark, and can only be judged by the body, the general style of workmanship, and the glaze. But it is difficult correctly to appropriate many examples, especially those in which the painting alone was Chelsea work on foreign bodies. In many of the old examples the marks produced by the triangle or tripod are said to be indicative of the Chelsea works; but this is by no means to be relied on, as the same appearances are frequently found on the productions of other work.

The general distinctive mark of Chelsea is an anchor—sometimes drawn with the pencil, at others raised from a hollow mould; and this is used either singly, two together, or in conjunction with one or more daggers. It is usually said that the raised anchor is the oldest mark; but this can scarcely be depended on, for instances are known where, on the same set, the raised anchor appears on some of the pieces, while the anchor drawn with the pencil occurs on others.[62] This being the case, it is difficult to decide which is the oldest; but, judging from the workmanship of the specimens I have examined, I should feel inclined to say that the earliest mark was the simple plain anchor, drawn on the piece with the hair pencil, in the colour which the workman happened to have in use at the time. It has been asserted that the mark of the best kind of porcelain was an anchor in gold, and of the inferior an anchor in red. This is, however, erroneous: the quality of the body had nothing whatever[193] to do with it, and I believe the golden anchor is never found on pieces except where gold is used in the ornamentation. The raised anchor

appears on the cup and saucer.

One of the most, if not the most, interesting marks connected with Chelsea occurs on a cream ewer formerly belonging to Dr. Wellesley, and afterwards to Mr. W. Russell, the Accountant-General. One of the marks usually ascribed to the Bow works is the triangle (Fig. 378);

and in the Museum of Practical Geology is a cream ewer bearing this mark in the paste. This specimen was formerly in the Strawberry Hill collection, and afterwards in Mr. Bandinell’s. The cream ewer which belonged to Mr. Russell is moulded in the same mould, and is, in fact, identically the same as the one in the Museum, but has, in addition to the above mark, the word “Chelsea” and the date “1745” upon it. The mark and the words “Chelsea, 1745,” are graved or scratched in the soft paste before firing, and, of course, under the glazing (Fig. 379). This mark is particularly interesting and curious, as being the earliest dated example of English porcelain known. This example, and the occurrence of the triangle with the name of Chelsea, was first noticed by me in my history of the Chelsea works in the Art-Journal of 1863.

Fig. 380 is an engraving of an elegant little scent-bottle, formerly in my own collection, which bears the embossed anchor. The bottle has a continuous landscape running around it, which is beautifully pencilled, and is evidently of early work. The plain anchor, drawn in red

, I have copied from a leaf-shaped dessert dish of early workmanship. The dish is beautifully painted in small groups and sprigs of flowers, thrown indiscriminately on the surface, and intermixed with well-painted insects. The form of the anchor varied, as is natural to be supposed, according to the idea of the workman, and it was occasionally drawn with the cable attached. Figs. 382 to 389 exhibit some of the varieties; they are drawn in different colours, red, blue, and brown, and in gold.

Two anchors, side by side, occasionally occur. Fig. 381 is from[194] a small vase in the Museum of Practical Geology, Jermyn Street. The vase is of deep blue colour, with peacocks, and is painted in compartments and richly gilt. An anchor and a sword, or an anchor and two swords, are not unusual marks, and Fig. 391 is an elegant vase, with open-work rim, on which it occurs. The raised flowers are beautiful in their modelling, and the colouring is extremely good. Between the flowers, leaves, &c., are painted on the vase, which is also decorated with butterflies, caterpillars, and other insects. On either side is a cherub’s head, surrounded by raised flowers. The mark on this vase engraved (Fig. 392) is the usual anchor, preceded by a dagger, in red. It is worthy of remark that on the inside of the cover of the centre vase—a globular cover surmounted by a bird, and covered with raised flowers of similar character to those on the vase here given—the mark is reversed, the anchor preceding the dagger.

A singular mark (Fig. 394), communicated to me by Mr. Octavius Morgan, M.P., occurring on some small groups of figures belonging to Lady Mary Long, is an anchor, with cable, in red; on one side is an upright dagger, point upwards, in red; while on the other is a[195] horizontal dagger, point outwards, in blue. This mark occurs on each piece. Another mark is the anchor with cable, and dagger sometimes on its right, and at others on its left side. It has been surmised that the cabled anchor and dagger, or sword, may be Bow; but there is no reason for supposing this to be the case, and I am inclined to believe they are really what I have named them—Chelsea. In reference to this remark I give the following marks, which are considered by Mrs. Palliser to belong to Bow; but of course there is no proof either way. Those collectors whose affections mainly centre in Chelsea ascribe pieces having these marks to that locality, while those whose loves direct them to the attractions of Bow, with equally as little hesitation pronounce them to belong to those works. It seems in fact to be, in the instance of these marks, that the collector has to act on the showman’s advice—he “pays his money” for the rare piece of china and “takes his choice” whether he appropriates it to Chelsea or to Bow! I am disposed to think the anchor really is, as has always been considered, the true Chelsea mark, and that most of the varieties belong to those works, but that it was also used by other manufacturers, either separately or in combination with other devices.

It would leave my notice of the marks of the Chelsea works incomplete, were I not to introduce the mark which was, for a time, used to denote the fusion of these works into those of Derby. When Mr. Duesbury purchased the Chelsea works, and carried on the two together, he added the letter D to the Chelsea anchor (Fig. 403): and this is the mark which denotes what[196] is known to collectors as “Chelsea Derby” or “Derby Chelsea” ware, and which, being of comparative rarity, is eagerly sought after.

It may be well, perhaps, to notice a curious mark which I have described in my account of “Salopian China,” for the purpose of suggesting that it may have been engraved for marking on porcelain made at Caughley, and intended to pass as “Chelsea Derby.” This mark I reproduce. It occurs on a copper plate (for a mug), and represents a landscape—a river, with swans sailing, trees on either side, boat with fishermen, sailing boat, &c.; and in the background a bridge, a church with ruins to the left, and a tall, gabled building, over which are the words “Sutton Hall” to the right, above which are the words “English Hospitality.” It is also well to hint that all china bearing the well-known red or golden anchor must not be taken to be Chelsea, for examples which are undoubtedly the production of other works are constantly occurring.

Second China Works.—Another small china manufactory was commenced, according to Lysons, at an old mansion by the water side. This would probably be the works started by a party of workmen from Staffordshire, thus spoken of by Shaw:—“Carlos Simpson was born at Chelsea, to which place his father, Aaron Simpson, went in 1747 along with Thomas Lawton, slip maker; Samuel Parr, turner; Richard Meir, fire-man; and John Astbury, painter, all of Hot Lane; Carlos Wedgwood, of the Stocks, a good thrower; Thomas Ward, and several others, from Burslem, to work at the Chelsea manufactory. They soon ascertained that they were the principal workmen, on whose exertions all the excellence of the porcelain must depend; they then resolved to commence business on their own account at Chelsea, and were in some degree successful; but at length, owing to some disagreement among themselves, they abandoned it and returned to Burslem.” The fact may be as Shaw stated it, so far as regards the workmen going to Chelsea, for some reason leaving it again and commencing for themselves; but his remark as to their being “the principal workmen on whose exertions all the excellence of the porcelain must depend” is sheer nonsense, as at that time (1747) the Staffordshire workmen did not make porcelain at all.

Wedgwood’s Chelsea Works.—In 1769 or 1770 Josiah Wedgwood established a branch of his manufactory at Chelsea. This was for[197] the decoration of his vases by his “peculiar species of encaustic painting in various colours, in imitation of the ancient Etruscan and Roman earthenware.” The reason for the founding of this branch was that it was judged better to have this peculiar style of ornamentation carried on near London, where suitable artists could easily be got together, and where the operations could be conducted under the personal superintendence of Mr. Bentley, who there resided, and for whom in 1769 a house was taken at Chelsea. The partnership between Wedgwood and Bentley had reference only to the ornamented, not to the useful ware; but both kinds were decorated at Chelsea, the two being kept separate in the accounts. The workmen at Chelsea were thus employed on both branches, the amounts paid them in wages being distinguished as on “Josiah Wedgwood’s account” and as on “Wedgwood and Bentley’s account.” Thus, for instance, in the following document, John Lawrence, for the week ending October 6th, is paid for six days’ work, at 1s. 9d. a day, of which 5s. 3d. is charged to “J. W.,” and the other 5s. 3d. to “W. & B.” I am enabled, from the following document in my possession, to show the names of a portion, at all events, of the artists who were employed there in the month of October, 1770. The document is very fragmentary and imperfect, but, so far as remains, is as follows. The year 1770, it must be borne in mind, was the very year when the Chelsea China Works finally passed by purchase into the hands of Duesbury, the owner of the Derby China Works:—

How long the establishment at Chelsea was continued, I do not know; but painting was done in London for Wedgwood to a late date. A letter, dated February 27th, 1795—the month following Josiah Wedgwood’s death—while speaking of painters and enamellers on porcelain, says, “I believe Wedgwood’s men here do not get less than 26s. or 28s. per week,” and the presumption is that these men might be employed at his Chelsea establishment.

Chelsea Pottery.—About 1774 a pottery was established in Upper Cheyne Row, Chelsea, for the manufacture of crucibles and melting pots. It was established by a person named Ruhl, or Ruelle, who was succeeded by his son-in-law, C. F. Hempel. It had the reputation of producing the best made crucibles in this country. After the death of Mr. Hempel, his widow, Johanna Hempel, on the expiration of the lease, removed the works from Cheyne Row to the King’s Road, where she not only made crucibles, but table services, being patronised by Queen Charlotte. In 1790 she took out a patent for “a certain composition made of earth and other materials, and the means of manufacturing the same into basins and other vessels, which, so manufactured, hath the power of filtering water and other liquids in a more cheap, easy, and convenient manner than water or other liquids could then be filtered.” In 1797 Mrs. Hempel became bankrupt, and the plant and stock-in-trade, including table services, vases, crucibles, stoves, &c., and a carved sign of the Queen’s Arms, were sold by auction. The manufactory was afterwards carried on by Messrs. Ludwig and Warner.

Near this pottery, in 1795, was a manufactory of artificial stone, carried on by a Mr. Triquet.

Bow.

Nothing is known definitely as to the date of the first establishment of this very important china manufactory situated at Stratford-le-Bow. It must, however, have been in existence some little time prior to 1744, for in that year it was carried on by “Edward Heylyn, in the parish of Bow, in the county of Middlesex, merchant,” who, in conjunction with “Thomas Frye, of the parish of West Ham, in the county of Essex, painter,” took out a patent for “a new method of manufacturing a certain material, whereby a ware might be made of the same nature or kind, and equal to, if not[199] exceeding in goodness and beauty, china or porcelain ware imported from abroad.” The patent, which was for fourteen years, bore date the 6th of December, 1744, and the specification was duly enrolled on the 5th of April, 1745. This specification I have printed in full on page 112, and it will be found of the highest interest and totally different from what is put forth by Chaffers as a copy of it. On the 17th of November, 1748, the same “Thomas Frye, of the parish of West Ham, in the county of Essex, painter,” took out another patent, by which he “lawfully might make, use, exercise, and vend my new method of making a certain ware, which is not inferior in beauty and fineness, and is rather superior in strength, than the earthenware that is brought from the East Indies, and is commonly known by the name of China, Japan, or Porcelain ware.” The specification was duly enrolled on the 17th of March, 1749, and is highly interesting. This will be found printed entire on page 113.

There is nothing, it will be seen, in these patents or specifications to show that the works at Bow were carried on by Heylin and Frye—the one being simply described as of the “parish of Bow, merchant” (not potter), and the other “of the parish of West Ham, painter;” nor has anything yet been found, to my knowledge, to prove that they were actual proprietors of the manufactory. Indeed, Frye is stated, in more than one work, to have been engaged to superintend the manufactory. He was an artist of considerable skill, who is said to have come to London in 1738, and soon afterwards to have painted a portrait of Frederick, Prince of Wales, for[200] the Saddlers’ Company. He was also a mezzo-tint engraver of considerable note. To his skill as an artist no doubt he was in the main indebted for the position he held at Bow; and here it would appear he remained some fifteen years, to the great injury of his health, and then returned to his previous occupation; he died in 1763. His daughters are stated to have assisted him in the painting of china at Bow.

In 1750 the works appear, from the original account-books in the possession of Lady Charlotte Schrieber, to have come into the hands of Messrs. Weatherby and Crowther, who, I may add, were potters at St. Catherine’s, near the Tower. At this time the manufactory was evidently called “New Canton,” by which name it continued to be known for some years. It was thus named because, as Thomas Craft wrote in 1790, “the model of the building was taken from that at Canton in China.” With reference to this name of “New Canton” a remarkably curious and very interesting example is in existence, and belongs to my friend, Mr. Binns F.S.A. It is an inkstand of flat circular form, and is decorated in blue with flowers, etc. On the top it bears the words, “MADE AT NEW CANTON, 1750.” In the centre of the well for the ink, and around it, are five pen-holes. It is shown on the accompanying engraving (Fig. 405). The date, 1750, would show that it was made in the year when the works first passed, as is supposed, into the hands of Crowther and Weatherby. Another similar inkstand, deposited in the Museum of Practical Geology by Mr. Brooks, is dated one year later, its inscription being, “MADE AT NEW CANTON, 1751.”

On the 7th of February, 1753, the Bow manufactory opened a wholesale and retail warehouse in Cornhill, London; as shown in the following advertisement which I copy from the Derby Mercury of Friday, March 9th, in that year:—

In November of the same year an advertisement for painters appeared in Aris’s Birmingham Gazette, as follows:—

In 1760, among the many clever artists employed was one Thomas Craft, who has left a most interesting souvenir of his connection with these works in the shape of a fine punch-bowl, measuring nearly nine inches in diameter, which is accompanied by the following note in his own handwriting:—

And the allusion to the works, a little later on—perhaps about 1780—will be found in “Nollekins and his Times,” as follows:—

It will be perceived that Betew and Nollekins both speak of the Bow works as a thing of the past. And so they were; for in October, 1762, says the London Chronicle, “Mr. Weatherby, one of the proprietors of the Bow china warehouse in Cornhill, died at his house on Tower Hill, on the 15th October, 1762;” and, in the following year, 1763, his partner, “John Crowther, of Cornhill, china-man,” was gazetted a bankrupt. This bankruptcy, however (which was followed by that of “Benjamin Weatherby, of St. Catherine’s, merchant,” probably son of the above), appears only to have had reference to the London warehouse and business, and not to the manufactory at Bow. The stock was sold by auction, by order of the assignees of John Crowther, on March 12 and following days, and on May 19th and 30th, the two first at the Bow warehouse in Cornhill, and the last at the great exhibition room in Spring Gardens, and consisting, among other things, of “curious figures,” “girandoles,” “branches for chimney-pieces finely decorated with figures and flowers,” “dishes,” “compotiers,” “beautiful desserts of the fine old partridge and wheatsheaf patterns,” “knife and fork handles,” &c. John Crowther, however, it seems, retained and still, in his own name alone, carried on the manufactory at Bow, and after a time opened a warehouse in St. Paul’s Churchyard, which he continued to hold from 1770 to 1775, when he sold his entire concern—the works, moulds, tools, &c.—to Mr. William Duesbury, the proprietor of the Derby China Works.

Mr. Duesbury, who not only held the Derby China Works, but had purchased those of Chelsea, Giles’s, and one at Vauxhall, thus became proprietor of the Bow works as well, and was therefore the largest holder either in those or later days. Mr. Duesbury, as he did with those of Chelsea, removed the moulds, models, implements, &c., to Derby, and the Bow manufactory was brought to a close. The next year, 1777, John Crowther became an inmate of Morden College, Blackheath, being elected on the foundation on the 17th of March, and here he was still residing in 1790, “and,” says Thomas Craft, “I am the only person of all those employed there (at Bow) who annually visit him.” On the site of the works some small tenements and a turpentine manufactory soon sprang up, and their exact site was forgotten, having been later on converted into chemical works by Mr. Macmurdo, the calico printer. Afterwards a portion of the place was used as emery mills by Mr. Marshall, and, since then, as a manufactory of lucifer matches, vesta lights, &c.,[203] by Messrs. Bell and Black. In 1867, during some sewering operations at these works, a considerable number of fragments of Bow china—probably on the site of one of the old kilns—was discovered. Of this discovery the following interesting account appeared in the Art Journal for 1869:—

“In trenching a drain from the manufactory into the sewer, the workmen, at about eight or ten feet from the surface, came upon the débris of the old Bow China Works.

“Mr. Higgins, jun., who is attached to the match-manufactory, received his first intimation of the trouvaille from perceiving fragments of delicate biscuit china in the hands of some children, who had picked them up as playthings. This led him to keep strict watch over the excavation, and, by permission of the proprietors, the ground remained open for a few months, and, as leisure permitted, he examined the earth for some distance immediately round the spot. Limited as the space was, he found a great quantity of specimens, which he and his sister, Miss Higgins, have taken the pains to arrange carefully in trays, and through their kindness we are enabled to describe some of the more interesting examples.

“Although fragmentary, they are particularly interesting, as showing us the various descriptions of ware made at Bow, verifying its products, and enabling us to identify not only the paste and glaze, but the methods of ornamentation.

“The spot where the excavations were made is supposed to have been where one of the kilns formerly stood; this is borne out to a certain extent by the presence of a quantity of bricks cemented together, the inner surface having become vitrified by the heat of the kiln; and also by a vast number of broken saggers, or cases of baked earthenware, used to contain the china, and protect it from the flame and ashes in the kiln. One of these saggers, of cylindrical form, measures 10 inches in diameter by 8½ inches in height; it had three rows of holes pierced through the sides, at equal distances from top to bottom, into which clay pegs (like large clout nails) were inserted, to support the circular platforms within, at convenient distances, on which the china articles rested while baking. The cockspur, or point, used to separate the china is a simple cone of baked clay, not the usual form, which is like the caltrop, having always three points below and one only uppermost. Large pieces of china clay were found, some in a soft, soapy state, others hardened; bones of animals, which entered into the composition of the paste, as well as calcined[204] flints and pieces of quartz, used in making the frit or glaze; a number of circular medallions of baked clay, from two to six inches in diameter—one was marked on each side with H and M cut into the clay. All the fragments of vessels discovered are of porcelain biscuit: not a piece of Delft or common earthenware was found among them: some few are glazed, but these form the exceptions.

“The first we shall notice, and probably the earliest manufacture, are the pieces decorated with blue painting: the designs are painted, in mineral colour, on the biscuit, and have not been glazed or burnt in. These designs are principally of Chinese landscapes, flowers, figures, and birds. A few examples are given on the next page, to show their general character.

“A very frequent pattern of simple character in the blue ware is three hanging branches of willow leaves. Among the rest is a mottled ground plate with white angular medallions of light blue scenery. The only variations in colour are a cup with green leaves and lake flowers, and a fragment painted in lake camaïeu, with a castellated mansion, of high finish: these two are glazed. Not a single specimen of blue-printed china was discovered: all are painted with a brush. This is not at all surprising, for it must be remembered they are all unfinished pieces, which have never been out of the factory; and, when this decoration was required, they were sent to Liverpool to be printed.

“The next division consists of biscuit china, fragments of services ornamented in relief, the favourite pattern being the Mayflower. The hawthorn is represented quite after nature, with its thorny branches and blossom. About a dozen of the moulds for stamping these flowers were also found quite perfect; they are of biscuit, three inches by two and a half in diameter. Fig. 408 is interesting, being the original mould of a biscuit cup which has its exact counterpart glazed. These pieces form a history in themselves.

“Another mould is of two roses and leaves on a stalk (Fig. 409). The raised figures on the biscuit are remarkably sharp; but the application of the glaze fills up the spaces.

“The other decorations in relief are the basket pattern, overlapping leaves, vertical bands overlaid with scrolls, ribbed cups and basins, a biscuit candlestick in form of a vine-leaf, another of different pattern painted blue. In this extensive collection we find milk-pots, cups, cans, and saucers, open-work baskets, octagon plates, cup-handles, lion’s-paw feet, small pots for colour or rouge; but not[206] a single piece has any mark which can be assigned to the fabrique. One of the cups has the name of ‘Norman’ written on it in pencil—perhaps the name of one of the painters. Among other relics are pieces which have been injured in the kiln by falling into ugly and distorted shapes, plates and saucers that have inadvertently gone in contact with each other and could not be separated.

“There is a great variety of china biscuit knife-handles, some plain, others with rococo scrolls in relief, heightened with blue; two specimens are here given (Figs. 414 and 415).

“Some few pieces of an ornamental character are among the débris. The foot of a salt-cellar beautifully modelled in biscuit, formed of three shells, with smaller shells and seaweed between; the upper shell, to hold the salt, is wanting. A sketch of it is here given (Fig. 413). To these may be added the foot of a large centre ornament of the same character as the last, to hold sweetmeats, also modelled by hand in shells of all sorts, rock-work, coral, seaweed, &c., with three escalop shells: this has had one or more tiers above, but broken off at stem. Some natural shells were found which served as copies. There are two pug-dogs nearly perfect, with collars, on which are roses. Two handles, in form of female heads, in high relief, for tureens and other large bowls (Fig. 416); and a man’s head, with a high cap and feather, nicely modelled (Fig. 417); also the body of a female figure in biscuit, with laced bodice.

“The Bow paste is exceedingly hard, and the fracture very close and compact; consequently the pieces, as a rule, are very heavy for their size, but many of the cups and saucers are almost of egg-shell thickness. The colour is a milky white.”

In the Art-Journal for 1869 a notice of the account-books of the Bow works, now belonging to Lady Charlotte Schrieber, is given; and this I here quote, as it contains some highly interesting matter:—

“The first contains the accounts from January, 1750.—1. O.S.,[207] in which year the partnership of Messrs. Crowther and Weatherby commenced, up to December, 1755. From these it appears that a branch establishment was opened in London in 1753, which, no doubt, was that of St. Catherine’s, near the Tower,[69] although the place is not mentioned. An account is given in separate columns of the value of the bisket and glazed-ware taken into the warehouse at Bow, and sold out of the warehouses at London and Bow, in each year.

“A statement for the year 1754 is here given, to show the extent of the business transacted.

“The following extract will show the actual cash receipts at Bow and London, 1751 to 1755, exclusive of the book debts received[208] during the year, which, as will be seen in the preceding account for 1754, amounted to upwards of £7,000.

“This statement gives us an idea of the steady increase of the business, which had nearly doubled itself in five years.

“The next entry gives us the weekly account of biscuit china made at Bow in 1754, and is interesting, as it distinctly informs us that the name of the Bow factory was New Canton; the China works being, as Thomas Craft says, on the same plan as that of Canton.”

“There is a cash-account book for 1757 and 1758, of receipts and payments of a London branch of the Bow factory, either at St. Catherine’s or in Cornhill: it is balanced weekly. The moneys received are principally from customers, whose names are given, and ready money taken daily, cash received from St. James Street, &c., averaging about £120 per week. The bulk of the money was paid to Mr. Crowther every week, occasionally to Mr. Weatherby.

“Mr. Frye frequently received sums varying from £15 to £30, possibly for expenses at Bow; Mr. Heylin’s name occurs once or twice only for small sums. Other payments are for powder gold[209] and for grain gold for Bow; freight of clay; weekly wages—to Mr. Brown, 18s.; Mr. Sandys, 12s.; Hugh Williams, 12s.; Stephenson, 12s.; Burnett, 10s.,—which average about 60s. per week.

“The book we now refer to contains memoranda made by John Bowcocke, in 1756; he was one of the managers, or perhaps traveller, for the Bow works. In it we find orders from customers, and many interesting notes relating to the business. We shall have occasion to quote largely from this manuscript, as the items throw considerable light upon the various descriptions of ware made there, among which many will be identified by the curious reader.

“‘1756. Insure £450 on board the Antilope: John Cowling.

Mr. Crowther paid Thos. Osborne for an anchor for the ship Antilope £12 1s. 0d.

2 doz. crimson buttons for Mr. Frye.

Jany. 29. Mr. Fogg: a sprig’d sallad vessel, 12s.; 1 pair sprig’d boats, 6s.; 16 cooks, 2s. each, abated; a swan; two harlequins (returned), 7s.

March. Mr. Fahy: 9 gentlemen and ladies, at 9s., £4 1s. 0d.

Mr. White: 1 small fluter white: 3 pair boys and girls; 1 pair small fidler and companion; 1 pair tamberines; 1 cook.

Mr. Fogg: 2 doz. odd cups and 2 doz. imag’d small; 2 pair image ewers; 6 swans; 6 white boars; 6 sprig’d handled cups and 6 cans; 1 pair sauce boats, Mr. Vere’s pattern, 4s.; 1 pair large ribbed boats, 4s.; 1 large dragon milk-pot; 12 dragon breakfast cups and saucers with good deep colour; 1 sprig’d upright teapot, 3s.; 1 sprig’d cream ewer; 24 octagon nappy plates, partridge pattern; 1 vine-leaf milk-pot.

March 27. Mrs. Ann Howard, the Lamb, in Broad Mead, Bristol. 10 round dishes; 2 of each size from the smallest to the largest, both included; 1 largest octogon dish; 1 next less size dish; 36 table plates; 12 soup plates; 2 pair rib’d boats; 3 pair flatt salts, without feet; they must all be the bordered image, blue and pale, as you please.

She has it greatly in her power to serve the factory. I hope they will be very neat and charged reasonable; I have not told her any price. Add 1 soup dish, 13, or not above 14 inches over; 12 table plates. Imaged pale blue.

Quy. What’s to be done with white bud sprigs; what quy. of Cupids and B is wanted white; white floras, &c.

March 30. Lent Mr. Frye, cash £8.

April 22. Colol. Griffin, Brook Street; 4 small upright pint mugs to be painted to the very fine landskip pattern, as soon as possible.

April 22. 4 doz. blue plates, Newark pattern; 8 doz. mosaic do.

April 28. Lord Southwell: Mr. Heylin has promised him to make an oval tureen, the image pattern, and to be done in 6 weeks without fail. Think of the Chinese head for Mr. Weatherby.

May 4. Mr. Vanderkist: an enamelled partridge coffee-pot, 9s. Mr. White: 1 imag’d cup and 7 sprig’d chocolates. What is meant by 36 white men with salt-boxes? Mr. Hunter desires to have some mustard ladles as the cream ladles, only small boles and long handles; 6 enamelled roses; 2 pr. green leaf candlesticks; 4 white leaf candlesticks.

Mr. Kentish: mandrill coffee-pot.

Mr. Fogg: 2 swans, wings open.

Mrs. Whitfield to have 1 pr. white branch candlesticks. Mr. Williams, 1 pr. sporters; 1 enamelled pero, 6s. 1 shepherd, imperial, 7s.; 1 shepherdess, 9s.

May 7. Quy. whether any Windsor bricks were received at the glass house, which is charged to the porcelain compy.

Paid Mr. Heylin, Minshull’s draft, £10 10s. 0d. J. B. paid Sir Joseph Hankey for Messrs. Weatherby and Crowther, £348 18s. 0d.

Mr. Fahy: 1 pr. of the new shepherd and compn.; 1 pr. Dutch dancers, 9s.; 1 gentleman and lady, 18s.; 1 cook, 7s.; 1 boy and girl, 12s.; 1 Paris cries, 6s.; 1 woman with chicken, 7s.

[210]

Whether any bucks is wanted? There was 5 pair sent down, and only 1 pair came back.

Send down what does there is in town, and send down the Bow books.

May 28. Patterns received from Lady Cavendish: a Japan octogon cup and saucer, lady pattern; a rib’d and scollop’d cup and saucer, image pattern; a basket bordered dysart plate; a Japan bread and butter plate.

Mr. Williams: 12 setts blue teas, at 2s. 10d.; a sett compleat of the second printed teas.

May 15. Recd. a pair of birds on pedestals, to be painted for Mr. Legg, corner of Birchen lane.

Lady Stairs: a compleat sett Dresden sprig, the canister top; parteridge octogon plates.

Mrs. Whitfield to have 1 pr. white biscuit candlesticks.

May 20. Duchess of Leeds: 2 square enamd. and sprig’d desst. 15s.; 1 blue dolphin-pickle stand, 5s.; 1 white basin and cover, 3s.; the Duke of Argyle’s acct., £20 5s. 0d.

The Duchess of Portland’s acct. to be made out, and wait on the steward, Mr. Guidon, in Privy Gardens, Whitehall, and will be paid when her ladyship returns.

June 18. Mr. Fogg: 1 pint printed mug, 5s.; 1 half-pint do., 3s. 6d.; 1 fine plate, 4s.; 1 partridge handd. cup and saucer, 3s. 6d. Allowed Mr. Fogg. In a Pero’s broken hat, 1s. (Pierrot); in two Turks 3s.; octogon dysart partridge plate, 3s. 6d. Mr. Fogg to know the price of the best cock plates; 4 pair rib’d boats, at 4s., good; 2 pr. small imaged boats and plates; 6 squirrels; butter tubs; 2 small dragon milk-pots; 2 do., a little larger; 1 dragon sugar dish.

Mr. Morgan lent me a leaf for the roses; 4 vauses; 1 pair Minervas of each size.

2 double dozn. of lase and 2 double doz. dysart rose pattern knife handles; to be mounted and sent in Baxter’s parcel.

July 24. Mr. Fogg to have 1 pair of coloured squirrels.

The knife-handles; how many sold of Dresden flowers; and to have a double dozn. mounted.

Has Mrs. Bernardeau had what she ordered of the wheatsheaf?

To buy a partridge either alive or dead.

To bring down the Chelsea cabbage leaves and bason.

Recd. and gave Mr. Beswick receipt for £107 12s. 0d. in full to Sept. 1755, for Weatherby and Crowther. J. B.

Mr. Coleman: harliquin, columbine, and Pero (Pierrot). 1 small sprig’d round teapot.

Goats, swans, and every other sorts of toys to be sent in Baxter’s order, flatt drawers to be made on purpose, and each kept separate.

A plate of the Princess Wales’ pattern, good.

Aug. 30. Paid Mr. Heylin’s draft on Mr. Crowther for £13, and charged Mr. Crowther’s cash acct. with it: quy. how is Mr. Heylin made Dr. and J. C. Creditor?

Nov. 29. J. Bowcocke borrowed of Mr. Crowther for Bow £30.

Mr. Fogg: caudle-cups, white sprig’d and saucers; 3 pr. image cream ewers, full blue; 4 white leaf candlesticks, 2s. 3d.; 1 set large sprig’d teas, handled; 2 pr. rib’d boats, at 4s. 6d.; 1 sprig’d tea pot, 4s., good.

Patterns received from Lady Cavendish; a Japan octogon cup and saucer, lady pattern; a rib’d and scollop’d cup and saucer; a basket bordered dysart plate; a Japan bread and butter plate. To be returned in a month, May 28th, 1756.’

“On analyzing these memoranda, although they are but imperfect and necessarily curt, being written only for the writer’s guidance, we are made acquainted with many facts not before disclosed; for example—it has never been suggested that printed china was produced at Bow, yet it is evident that china was decorated with transfer engravings as early as the year 1756, as appears from the following entries:—

“‘One pint printed mug, One half-pint, do., A sett compleat of the second printed teas.’

“The patent which Messrs. Sadler and Green, of Liverpool, proposed taking out as inventors of the process is dated 1756, but they had brought the art to perfection several years before, and had kept it a profound secret. Transfer printing on enamel was in vogue at Battersea before 1755, and the process would be the same on china as enamel. Horace Walpole, writing to Richard Bentley in Sept. 1755, says, ‘I send you a trifling snuff-box, only as a sample of the new manufacture at Battersea, which is done with copper-plates.’ Mr. Binns, of Worcester, has a Battersea enamel watch-case with the tea-party from the same plate as the impressions on china. The Liverpool Guide of 1799 says ‘copper-plate printing upon china and earthenware originated here in 1752, and remained some time a secret with the inventors, Messrs. Sadler and Green. The manner in which this continues to be done here, remains still unrivalled in perfection. As late as 1783, Wedgwood constantly sent his ware to Liverpool to be printed.’

“The proprietors of the Bow works availed themselves of assistance by occasionally sending their china to Liverpool to be printed.[70] All the pieces decorated with transfer engravings, have, without discrimination, been erroneously assigned to Worcester, owing to the want of a thorough investigation of the quality of the body.

“Lady Charlotte Schreiber has a teapot with a transfer portrait of the ‘Prussian Hero,’ the handle and spout ornamented in relief with the enamelled flowers peculiar to Bow; a bowl with prints of the well-known tea-party, and garden-scenes; and two plates, part of ‘a sett of the second printed teas,’ before alluded to, with poultry and leaves. All these are undoubtedly of Bow body, probably decorated at Liverpool.

“Large quantities of blue-painted ware issued from the Bow works, and there are frequent allusions to them in the order-book, for cheap services. On examining the blue pieces, which can be safely assigned to Bow from the nature of the body, there is a peculiarity in the glaze which arises in this way: blue being at that time the only colour that would bear the intense heat of the kiln (au grand feu), it is always painted on the biscuit before being dipped in the glaze; consequently portions, however slight, are apt, while the glaze is in a fluid state, to spread over the surface, giving it a blue tinge, especially on large surfaces; the other colours, as well as the gold, are painted over the glaze, and set in a kiln of lower[212] temperature, called the reverberatory or muffle kiln. Hence the blue, being under the glaze, is imperishable, but the other colours, from frequent use, get rubbed off.

“We find in the order-book the blue Newark pattern; blue dolphin pickle-stand; ‘setts of blue teas.’ A dinner-service was ordered to be ‘blue and pale as you please,’ &c.

“Among the patterns noticed in the same book are white bud sprigs, sprigged tea sets, and Dresden sprigs; partridge services, imaged services, and dragon services, were in great demand; Chelsea cabbage leaf, the lady pattern, and the Princess of Wales’s pattern, white men with salt boxes, mugs painted to the fine landscape pattern, &c.

“Of the figures and groups, only a few are mentioned, such as Minerva of two sizes, Flora, imperial shepherd and shepherdess, the new shepherd and its companion, Cupid, gentleman and lady, boy and girl, fluter, fiddler, harlequin, columbine, and pierrot or clown, tambourine-player, sportsman, cook, Dutch dancer, woman with chicken, Turk and companion, female figure, birds on pedestals, swans, boars, squirrels, buck and doe, goat, and toys of all sorts.

“These short notices of Bow figures, although far from being important examples, will remind many of our readers of similar pieces which have been classed as Chelsea.

“We may also refer to the pair of white china figures of Woodward the actor, and Mrs. Clive, in the costumes as given in Bell’s ‘Collection of Plays.’ A pair of these in the white Bow china, exquisitely modelled and finished, bear the date 1758 stamped in the clay: they are in the possession of a lady whose family has retained them ever since they came from the factory.

“There is very little to interest us in this book. Bowcocke was at Dublin for the first eight months, receiving consignments of glass and china from the works, which were sold principally by auction. The money taken was remitted weekly to the company.

“In the front of this book is a note in pencil, written in 1866, stating that—

“In the same collection are two books of pencil sketches by a French artist named De la Cour, of plants, trees, festoons of flowers, rococo scrolls, cane handles, frames, chimney-pieces, landscapes (among which is a view of London), figures, single figures for statuettes, &c. Another book contains coloured engravings by Martin Engelbrecht, of Nuremberg, of a great variety of subjects suitable for painting on china: costumes of various nations, ladies and gentlemen splendidly attired, shepherds and shepherdesses, garden scenes and summer-houses, palaces, birds, animals and insects, hunting scenes, musicians, Chinese figures and scenery, interlaced ornaments, &c. A fourth book, published by Edwards and Darley, 1754, consists of engraved subjects,—Chinese interiors, vases, figures, pagodas, bridges, animals, exotic birds, insects, &c. The Chinese designs are mixed up with rococo scrolls and other ornamental work.”

Enough will have been gleaned from the foregoing regarding the various productions of the Bow Works. One or two noted examples, however, require to be specially named, as being usually associated in the minds of collectors with this manufactory. One of these is a well-known small goat milk-jug which was formerly always attributed to Bow. It bears a bee in relief under the spout which was supposed to be allegorical of the initial B of Bow. Some examples, however, are without the bee. They are occasionally marked with a simple triangle, which, however, has been shown to have been occasionally used at Chelsea; and that the goat jugs were also there made.[71]

The marks attributed to the Bow factory are numerous and varied; and some which are so ascribed have not, I believe, the[214] slightest connection with those works. The following are among the marks, said by one writer or other to belong to Bow, but some of them are very doubtful. Indeed, there is almost an absolute certainty that some of those ascribed to Bow, in reality belong to Chelsea and other places. Some of these marks are incised.

Stratford.

The London Chronicle of 1755 contains the following paragraph: “Yesterday four persons, well skilled in the making of British china, were engaged for Scotland, where a new porcelain manufacture is going to be established in the manner of that now carried on at Chelsea, Stratford, and Bow.” From this it is evident that in 1755 a china manufactory, distinct from that at Bow, was carried on at this place. Nothing, however, is at present known as to its history.

Kentish Town.

In the middle of last century John Giles had a small establishment and kiln at Kentish Town, where he finished and burned china, &c., procured in the white from other manufactories. He[215] advertised “to procure and paint, for any person, Worcester porcelain to any or in any pattern;” and here vases and other articles, decorated by himself and by other artists and amateurs, were burned. An interesting reference to this kiln will be found in my account of the Bow china works on another page, where Thomas Craft, speaking of a bowl he had made, writing from memory in 1790, says “about the year 1760:” “I took it in a box to Kentish Town, and had it burned there in Mr. Gyles’s kiln, cost me 3s.” In 1771 Giles took premises in Cockspur Street, as a sale-room, &c. On the 9th of July in that year the lease of these premises was granted from “George Stubbs, of the parish of St. Margaret, Westmr., in the county of Middx., Esq.,“ to James Giles, of the parish of St. James, within the liberty of Westmr., in the said county of Middlx., china-man,” of “all that messuage or tenement and premises, lately called or known by the name of the Gun Tavern, in the parish of St. Martin-in-the-Fields, in the said county of Middx., situate and being on the north side of a street called Cockspur Street, leading from Pall Mall to Charing Cross, and lately in the tenure or occupation of Susannah Cannon, deceased, together with all ways,” &c., &c., for a term of 21 years, at an annual rental of £110. These premises were held from the Crown, on a longer lease, by Stubbs, so that this was a sub-letting to Giles, who had power to enter upon them on the above date, but to be free from rent until September 29th in consideration of any sums he might lay out in repairs, he covenanting to lay out in improvements and repairs £300, if requisite. The deed, in my own possession, bears the signature and seal of “Geo. Stubbs,” and the attesting signatures of “G. Stubbs. Jos. Mead, his Clerk.”

Giles appears to have become involved soon after this, and was assisted with loans and money and in other ways, by Duesbury, of the Derby china works. This is proved by papers in my own possession, amongst which are several notes of hand, as “Borrowed of Mr. Duesbury five guineas, which I promise to repay on demand. James Giles.” “Paid Mr. Heath a Bill on Mr. Giles, dated Feb. 20, at two months, value £120.” “April 1, James Giles’s note due 4th June, 1777, £50.” “May 29, Jas. Giles’s note due July 12, £50,” etc., etc. Ultimately Mr. Duesbury, on the failure of Giles, took to his stock and entire concern, and the original accounts, &c., connected with this are in my own possession. One of these, the balance-sheet of the estate for 1776–77, is very curious as showing some of the fashionable people with whom he did business:—

The £25 2s. 10d. “for enamelling sundries to complete stock” was thus expended:—

Acct. of Goods Enamel’d to compleat the Stock, and Deld. to Mr. Duesbury, Augt. 28th, 1776, by Js. Giles.

The “Debt to Flight & Co.,” and “Cost of Arrest to do.,” as entered under the date of April 30th, is thus explained:—

Received 30th April, 1778, of Mr. James Giles, the above-named Defendant, Fourteen Pounds, eight Shillings and 2d., for the purposes above mentioned.

One of the assignees of James Giles was Mr. Wm. Randall, who died before Dec. 23, 1779. In the balance-sheet of his accounts, from May 7, 1776 (the date of assignment), to that date, are frequent entries of postage of letters from Worcester; and among the receipts are accounts from Lady Melbourne, Lady Warren, Paul Orchard, Esq., Mrs. Powis, — Kent, Esq., Lady Jersey, Dutchess Dowager of Leinster, etc. The account is as follows:—

The Account of the late Mr. William Randall, as one of the Assignees of the Effects of the late Mr. Giles, from May y^e 7th, 1776, to December y^e 23rd, 1779.

Euston Road.

In 1860 Messrs. W. and T. Wills, sculptors, having turned their attention to the production of works of art in terra-cotta, commenced the manufacture at this place. The works produced consist of vases, figures and groups of figures, busts, &c., of a size and character for drawing-room use. The subjects are principally mythological, and are admirably modelled—each piece sent out receiving its finishing touches from the artist’s own hands. In colour, Messrs. Wills’ terra-cottas are a delicate pink and deep rich red. Their names are marked on each piece.

Oxford Street.

Among London establishments who, from a long and intimate connection with some of the more eminent of our porcelain works, may almost be considered to be manufacturers, are the following. To these firms the world owes many of the most striking and beautiful of ceramic productions. These have been designed by the firms themselves, and made specially for them; they thus become literally their own productions.

Will^m. Randall, Cred^r.
1776.		£	s.	d.
May 7.	For a year’s rent of Mr. Giles’ House, due at Xmas 1775, & paid to Mr. Stubbs	110	0	0
„	For a Bill to Mr. Stubbs, Attorney	5	13	9
„ 31.	For a Quarter’s Rent paid to Do., due at Ladyday	27	10	0
June 26.	For a Letter from Worcester	0	0	4
„ 29.	For an half-year’s Interest of £200, due April ye 4th, upon Bond, to Mrs. Twiss	5	0	0
Aug. 21.	For a Bill to Mr. Sheppard, Attorney	21	18	6
	For a Letter f^m Worcester	0	0	4
„ 23.	For a Quarter’s Rent, due at Midsummer, paid to Mr. Stubbs	27	10	0
Nov. 16.	For Do. „ due at Michaelmas	27	10	0
1777.
Jan. 15.	For an half-year’s Interest, due Oct. 4th, 1776, to Mrs. Twiss	5	0	0
„ 29.	For a Letter f^m Worcester	0	0	4
Dec. 13.	For a Year’s Rent, due at Michaelmas, and paid to Mr. Stubbs	110	0	0
1778.
Dec. 28.	For Do. „ due at Do.	110	0	0
1779.
	For a Letter from Worcester	0	0	4
Dec. 23.	For a Year’s Rent, due at Michaelmas, to Mr. Stubbs	110	0	0
Per Con: D^r.
1776.		£	s.	d.
May 7.	For cash recd. of Messrs. Stubbs—Shop Account	42	6	6
„ 8.	For Do. „ of Lady Warren Do.	11	7	0
„ 9.	For Do. „ of Paul Orchard, Esq. Do. 10 10 0
	Deducted for China broken 0 10 6
		9	19	6
„ 20.	For Do. „ of Mrs. Powis Do.	15	4	0
„ 23.	For Do. „ of — Kent, Esq. Do.	2	10	0
—	For Do. „ of Lady Melbourne Do.	15	1	0
„ 31.	For Do. „ of Mr. Harris, for a Quarter’s Rent of the House late Mr. Giles’, due at Ladyday	35	0	0
June 11.	For Do. „ of Lady Jersey—Shop Account	2	14	0
Nov. 16.	For Do. „ of Mr. Harris, for an half-year’s Rent due at Michaelmas	70	0
Dec. 7.	For Do. „ of the Dutchess Dowager of Leinster, Shop Account	32	13	6
1777.
June 17.	For Do. „ of Mr. Tho: Jones Do.	0	8	6
Dec. 13.	For Do. „ of Mr. Harris, for a Year’s Rent, due at Michaelmas	140	0	0
1778.
Dec. 28.	For Do. „ of Do. „ „ due at Do.	140	0	0
1779.
Dec. 23.	For Do. „ of Do. „ „ due at Do.	140	0	0

Mortlocks; Oxford Street.—This house was established in 1746, by John Mortlock, and has been uninterruptedly continued since that date through five generations, in direct line, of the same family; its head at the present time being, as it was more than one hundred and fifty years ago, a John Mortlock. In the palmy days of the old Rockingham works, John Mortlock was London agent for the goods made there. One speciality of these works, the “Cadogan” teapot, formed on the model of an example of Indian green ware brought from abroad by the Marquess and Marchioness of Rockingham, or the Hon. Mrs. Cadogan, was the means of adding largely to his connection with these works. The first of these was made for the Marchioness of Rockingham; and when the Prince Regent, afterwards George IV., visited Wentworth House, the seat of Earl Fitzwilliam, these teapots were then in use, and were much admired; the prince, who was a great connoisseur in tea, I believe, bringing one of them away with him. On the return of the prince and his suite to town, inquiries were made for them of John Mortlock, who supplied the palace with china, &c. He at once saw that they would come into great repute, and ordered a large quantity, stipulating[220] that his name, MORTLOCK, should be stamped upon them. This was done in place of the word ROCKINGHAM, and they thus passed as Mortlock’s own make; he ordered at one time as much as £900 worth for one season’s consumption. (See “Rockingham Works.”)

When the Nantgarw works were first started, Mr. Mortlock became a large purchaser as well as agent. He regularly took a large quantity of the ware in the white; this he had painted in London, by Webster, Randall, and various other artists, and fired at the enamel kiln of Messrs. Robins and Randall, in Spa Fields. At this time Mortlock was also agent to the Coalport and Swansea works; and Mr. Nore, of Coalport, feeling a jealousy, and finding that the sale of the Swansea and Nantgarw productions interfered with his own, bought up those two concerns, removed their models, &c., to Coalport, and closed them. The firm still retain an agency for Coalport, and also for Messrs. Minton & Co. Mr. Mortlock has special marks for some of the Coalport productions prepared from his designs.

Hoxton.

In 1693 there was “a famous brick-moulder at Hoxton.” Some very interesting particulars are given by Houghton, in his “Husbandry and Trade Improved,” 1693.

Hammersmith.

Houghton, in 1693, thus alludes to the brick works at this place: “Some can make fourteen or 15,000 in a day, some 18,000; but Nicholas Gooding, of Hammersmith, for a wager of 10l., made in one day 22,000 bricks, upon which Sir Nicholas Crisp assisted him to set up, and he is now living at Hammersmith, and worth several thousand pounds. His master’s name was Gosling, who had three men whom he often encouraged to wagers.”

Worcester—The Royal Porcelain Works.

There are three things for which the “faithful city” of Worcester, so celebrated in history for its loyalty, is at the present day especially famous. These are its porcelain, its gloves, and its sauce. For who has not drunk out of or seen “Worcester china,” worn “Dent’s gloves,” or tasted “Lea and Perrin’s Worcestershire sauce”? These three are things which are identified with its name wherever Worcester is heard of, and, in the minds of some people, take precedence of its glorious cathedral, its tomb of King John, or its exquisitely beautiful shrine of Prince Arthur. With the first of these only I have now to do, and its history is one of great interest, as connected with that of the general porcelain manufacture of the kingdom.

At a time when foreign china was much sought after, when Fulham, Chelsea, Bow, and Derby were gradually working their way into favour, and gaining ground on their foreign rivals in the estimation of people of taste, Worcester was quietly experimentalising in the same direction, and gradually paving the way for the establishment of those works which have since become so great a benefit to it, and so great an honour to the country. Exactly in the middle of the last century these experiments were carried on, and the works were soon afterwards established, and rapidly grew into note. So rapidly, indeed, did the ware made at this manufactory come into repute, that in the year following the opening of the works[222] it was noticed in the Gentleman’s Magazine, and in 1763 was alluded to in the “Annual Register.”

The “faithful city” was indebted for the establishment of its pottery to the exertions and scientific researches of Dr. John Wall, a physician of that city. The learned doctor was born at Powick, a village in Worcestershire, in the year 1708. His father was a tradesman in Worcester, of which city he served the office of mayor in 1703; he was descended from a good family in Herefordshire. Dr. Wall’s father dying while he was young, he was educated at the King’s School, Worcester, and in 1726 became a scholar at Worcester College, Oxford. Nine years later, at the age of twenty-seven, he became a fellow of Merton College. Having studied at Oxford and at St. Thomas’s Hospital, he in 1739 took his degree, and commenced practice in Worcester. He married Catherine Sandys, cousin to the first Lord Sandys. Dr. Wall, besides being a clever practitioner and an excellent chemist, was also an artist of great ability; he painted historical pictures with great judgment, and his conceptions were sometimes marked with considerable originality and grandeur. One of his principal pictures is that of the founder, &c., in the hall of Merton College, Oxford—a painting[72] he presented to that college in 1765. Of his other works, his “Brutus condemning his Sons,” “The Head of Pompey brought to Cæsar” (now at Hagley), “Regulus returning to Carthage,” “Queen Eleanor sucking the Poison from the Arm of Edward I.,” “Elijah fed by the Ravens,” “Moses striking the Rock,” “The School of Physic,” “The Shunamite’s Child restored,” and “The Head of St. John the Baptist,” are among the best. He also etched some remarkably clever plates,[223] and designed the stained-glass window in the bishop’s private chapel at Hartlebury, the “Presentation of Christ in the Temple,” a window at Oriel College, and others. Dr. Wall was also the author of several medical works, and was eminently instrumental in bringing the Malvern waters into public notice. He was also one of the most zealous supporters of the Worcestershire Infirmary.

Dr. Wall, besides his other accomplishments, was, as has already been intimated, an excellent practical chemist; his laboratory was at No. 33, Broad Street. He turned his attention more particularly to experimentalising on materials which might be used for the manufacture of porcelain; and in 1751, about a year after the establishment of the works at Derby, and while those at Chelsea and Bow were being carried on, he brought his experiments to a successful issue; the result being the discovery of a body of surpassing excellence.

It has been said, and there is indeed a traditional belief in the fact, that the mainspring of Dr. Wall’s experiments was a political one, and that he was induced to turn his attention to the subject in the hope of introducing into Worcester a new branch of manufacture, by which “the low party of the county” might be enabled, by the votes it would command, “to stand a competition for members of parliament with the ministerial or popular party.”[73] I cannot, however, for a moment, and, despite all that has been brought forward on the matter, believe that this was the motive power by which Dr. Wall, a man of high intellect and attainments, and of noble character, was impelled to the prosecution of his inquiries; but that for the good of science and of commerce alone, and with a knowledge that a branch of manufacture of the kind, if once well established, must be lucrative to its possessors and advantageous to the city, he was induced to work hard and zealously in his laboratory until he had mastered the difficulties which surrounded him, and had produced a material that should successfully rival the foreign examples which he took for his model. However, be this as it may, in the year 1751 success had so far attended his labours that he formed a company for the manufacture of porcelain in Worcester, and thus laid the foundation of that manufacture which has been carried on with uninterrupted success for a century and quarter.

The “Worcester Porcelain Company,” founded, then, in 1751 by Dr. Wall, consisted of several gentlemen who joined him in his undertaking, and thus formed a “joint-stock company” for the[224] manufacture of the chinaware on the principle he had discovered. The names of these proprietors from 1751 to 1772 were Dr. Wall, Richard Holdship, Rev. Benjamin Blayney, Samuel Bradley, Rev. Samuel Pritchett, Wm. Oliver, David Henry (in place of Richard Holdship), Wm. Davis, John Salway, Germain Lavie, Rev. Thomas Vernon, Mary Blayney, Richard Cook, Henry Cook, and John Thorneloe. The company thus formed commenced its operations in a fine old mansion, formerly the residence of the Warmstrey family, in Warmstrey Slip and Palace Row, nearly adjoining the bishop’s palace; the grounds at the back, at that time beautifully laid out, running down to the banks of the Severn, and commanding a delightful view of the valley, and of the Malvern and Abberley hills beyond.

The family was one of considerable note, and monuments to Mrs. Cecil Warmstrey, widow of the registrar of the diocese, 1649; to the said registrar; and to Dr. Thomas Warmstrey, dean of Worcester, their son, 1661, who was a famous divine, and was one of the persons appointed by the city to treat as to terms of its surrender to the army of the parliament in 1646—are to be seen in the cathedral. The building still remains, and is now occupied by Messrs. Dent and Co. for the manufacture of gloves. The old part of the building has been entirely denuded of its ornament, and stripped of every vestige of its former grandeur; the gardens have been covered with engine-houses, scouring and dyeing rooms, and other buildings necessary to the works now carried on, and which find employment for many hundreds of people.

Warmstrey House was sold in 1707 by its then owners, the Rev. Chewning Blackmore and Abigail his wife, for the sum of £340, to William Evett, glover. On the 16th of May, 1751, the premises were leased by William Evett, glover, to Richard Holdship the younger, glover, for the term of twenty-one years, with right of renewal for a further term of twenty-one years on payment of a fine of £20, the annual rent being £30.

This Richard Holdship was one of the partners in the porcelain company, and it was, it appears, for the purposes of this company that he became lessee of the premises. The company at this time, on its first formation, appears to have consisted of Dr. John Wall, Mr. Richard Holdship, the Rev. Benjamin Blayney, and Mr. Samuel Bradley, a goldsmith, who kept the house in High Street for retailing the ware. To these were subsequently added the others named above. In 1772–4 the partners were Dr. Wall, the two William Davises, father and son, Rev. T. Vernon, Robert Hancock the engraver, and Richard Cook of London. In 1774 Hancock left the concern, and from 1776 to 1783 the two Davises and Vernon were the only proprietors.

The company at first turned its attention principally to the production of imitations of the Chinese porcelain, both in form and colour. Thus the blue and white patterns—then so general in Chinese porcelain, and the characteristic of the Nankin ware—were for a time, it appears, exclusively followed at Worcester. Some of the brilliant colours of the Japanese ceramists were, however, soon attempted, and with complete success; and by the conventional arrangement of these colours in new patterns the[226] Worcester potters were gradually led on to more elaborate productions.

The works must have been commenced on a tolerably large scale, and have rapidly risen in importance, for in 1752—only a year after the formation of the company—the premises were very business-like in their arrangement and extensive in their proportions, and were sufficiently important to be engraved in the Gentleman’s Magazine of that year. Of that view the accompanying engraving is a reduced fac-simile, and it will show at once how soon the works had risen to a state of importance. The following explanatory references from the Magazine will make it better understood:—“Explanation. 1. St. Andrew’s. 2. Warmstrey Slip. 3. Biscuit kilns. 4. Glazing kilns. 5. Great kiln for segurs. 6. Pressing and modelling gallery. 7. Rooms for throwing, turning, and stove-drying the ware on the first floor, a, of the chamber floors. 8. The garden. 9. The yard for coals. 10. Mr. Evett’s house and garden, landlord of the premises. b. The eight windows in two large chambers, in which the ware is placed on stallions, on the east and north, where are the painters’ rooms. All the beginning of the process is carried on under the quadrangular building, ground floor, marked A; in its N.W. angle is the great rowl and ring; in the N.E. the horses turn the same, and the levigators near to the rowl. The next (on the ground floor) is[227] the slip and treading-rooms; behind No. 4 is the glazing-room; behind 5 is the secret-room on the ground-floor.”

Accompanying this engraving, which bears the initials “J. D. delin.” (probably John Davis, one of the partners) and “J. C. sculp.” (probably J. Cave), is the following interesting note:—“N.B. A sale of this manufacture will begin at the Worcester music-meeting on Sept. 20, with great variety of ware, and, ’tis said, at a moderate price.”

This was probably the first time the Worcester goods were brought into the public market. The goods were first vended by Mr. Samuel Bradley, one of the partners, at a shop opposite the Guildhall in High Street, and afterwards in larger premises near the Cross.

The characteristic of the early ware was a peculiarly soft greenness of hue in the body, and by this, as well as the general style of ornamentation, and by the marks, Worcester specimens may without difficulty be recognised. The first mark used I believe to have been a simple letter W., but the marks are so various in the early period of the manufacture that it is most difficult, indeed impossible, to arrange them chronologically. Like the D on the Derby porcelain, which might be either the initial of the founder of the works, Duesbury, or that of the town, Derby, the Worcester ware had a W., which might be the initial of its founder, Wall, or of the city, Worcester, itself. The different varieties of the letter W which have come under my notice are the following, and these may certainly all of them be ascribed to an early period. Another distinctive mark of about the same time is the crescent, which is sometimes drawn in outline, sometimes filled in in lines, and sometimes of full blue colour. This mark is supposed to be taken, and perhaps with some probability, from the arms of the Warmstreys, which decorated the rooms used by the workmen. It is worthy of note here, that one of the marks of the Caughley or Coalport porcelain was also a crescent. As these works are said to have been established by Worcester workmen, the use of this mark may be attributed to them, and it may have had the double signification of a crescent and a C for Caughley.

As the Worcester aim was to copy, and emulate in design and material, the ceramic productions of China and Japan,—indeed, there were scarcely any others to copy from at this early period,—so it appears to have been the study of the artists to copy, or to simulate, the marks used on the productions of these foreign manufactories; and thus a great variety of marks are to be met with principally, or, I may say, entirely, drawn in blue. Some of the most characteristic and general of these I here append.

A considerable variety of other marks are to be met with, but I apprehend they are most probably but the distinctive marks of the artists employed. It must be borne in mind that in other factories the “hands” were numbered, and, as was the case at Derby, were required to attach each one his number below the general mark of the establishment. At Worcester I am not aware that such a regulation existed; and thus, probably, each artist had his “mark” instead. A few examples of these I here give:—

After a time the Dresden and Sèvres productions were studied and successfully followed at Worcester, the salmon-coloured ground and bleu de roi being excellently managed. Tea and dessert services, vases, &c., were produced in these styles, some of which are remarkable for the elegance of their painting and ornamentation. On many examples of this period the Dresden mark was used, as shown in the accompanying woodcut.

In March, 1756, “The proprietors of the Worcester China Manufacture, for the better accommodation of merchants and traders, have opened a warehouse at London House, Aldersgate Street, London, where they may be supplied every day, between the hours of nine in the morning and three in the afternoon, with a sortment of goods, wholesale, on the most reasonable terms. Orders are likewise taken and executed with dispatch for home and foreign trade.”

A remarkable bowl, apparently from a mould cast from a silver original, is of the date of the commencement of these works. It is in possession of Mrs. Barr, and bears beneath it the date

Mr. Binns also possesses specimens which may be attributed to about the same period.

In 1756, the truly important invention of printing on china, i.e. transferring printed impressions from engraved copper-plates on to the china body, is said to have been made in Worcester. At all events, it is an undoubted fact that, in 1757, the art in Worcester had arrived at a wondrous state of perfection; and it is but fair, therefore, to say that the belief in its being practised in the previous year is well founded. To have arrived at the state of perfection which is exhibited in the example to which I am alluding (a mug bearing the head of the King of Prussia, and dated 1757), must at least have been the work of months, if not of years. The invention of transfer printing is claimed,[230] and very plausibly, for Liverpool, and is said to have been made by Mr. John Sadler, who drew up papers, and procured affidavits, for obtaining a patent, in August, 1756; on the 27th of July in that year he and his partner, Guy Green, were sworn to have printed more than twelve hundred earthenware tiles in six hours. Whether the Worcester idea was taken from Liverpool, or whether both were taken from Battersea, or whether, as is not unfrequently the case, the invention originated in two minds about the same time, without one being at all connected with the other, it is not for me now to determine. It is enough for my present purpose to say that highly finished printed goods were made at Worcester in 1757, and the dated example now in existence clearly establishes the fact that it was a work of some forethought and care. On this mug the following poem appeared in the Gentleman’s Magazine for December, 1757:—

A different version of this poem was reprinted in the Worcester Journal of January, 1758, with the addition of a couple of lines. It is there headed:—“On seeing an armed bust of the King of Prussia curiously imprinted on a Porcelain Cup of the Worcester Manufacture, with Fame resounding her Trump and an emblematical representation of his victories: Addressed to Mr. Josiah Holdship;” and an “extempore on the compliment of imprinting the King of Prussia’s Bust being ascribed to Mr. Josiah Holdship.” The extempore being the following important lines:—

From this it would seem that the credit of the invention (for more information see the chapters on the Liverpool potteries and[232] the Coalport china works) was even then a vexed question in Worcester; some ascribing it to Holdship, and others to Hancock; and, no doubt, each of those individuals claiming it for himself. Robert Hancock was an engraver of some eminence in Worcester, and “was chief engraver[79] to the Worcester Porcelain Company on its first establishment;” and it is also said he was in partnership with Dr. Wall. He died in 1817, aged eighty-seven. Valentine Green, the historian of Worcester, and a famous mezzo-tint engraver, was a pupil of Robert Hancock’s (by whom many of the plates in his “History of Worcester” are engraved), as was also James Ross, the line engraver. Valentine Green died in London in 1813, and was buried in the churchyard of St. Mary’s, Paddington, where his gravestone now stands. Hancock, it is believed, had, previously to printing on porcelain at Worcester, produced some printed plaques at Battersea, specimens of which, with his name attached, are in existence.[80]

Richard Holdship, it will have been seen, was one of the original proprietors of the Worcester works, and became, in 1751, the lessee of the premises (Warmstry House) in which the manufacturing operations were commenced. In 1759 he, conjointly with his brother Josiah Holdship, purchased the property for £600, having previously purchased some houses to the south of the works, on whose site he erected a large and commodious mansion. He, however, became bankrupt in 1761, having sold his shares in the porcelain works to Mr. David Henry, of London, for the immense sum of five shillings.

Shortly after that, Holdship appears to have left Worcester, and, as evidenced by the original deed in my own possession, in 1764 bound himself by bond and various articles of agreement, to Messrs. Duesbury and Heath, of Derby, for the making and printing china or porcelain ware. In these “articles of agreement” he is described as “Richard Holdship, of the city of Worcester, china maker,” and in it he agrees for “the sum of one hundred pounds of lawful British money,” to be paid down, and for an annuity of thirty pounds a year, to be paid to him during life, to deliver to Messrs. Duesbury and Heath, “in writing under his hand, the process now pursued by him the said Richard Holdship, in the[233] making of china or porcelain ware, agreeable to the proofs already made (by him) at the china manufactory of the said John Heath and William Duesbury, in Derby;” also, “during his life to supply and furnish” them “with a sufficient quantity of soapy rock used in the making of china or porcelain ware, at such a price as any other china manufacturers do, shall, or may at any time hereafter give for that commodity;” and “also that he, the said Richard Holdship, shall and will during his life print, or cause to be printed, all the china or porcelain ware which the said John Heath and William Duesbury, their heirs, &c., shall from time to time have occasion to be printed, of equal skill and workmanship, and upon as reasonable terms as the said (Heath and Duesbury) can have the same done for by any other person or persons whomsoever, or agreeable to the prices now given in.” He also binds himself not to disclose or make known his process to any other persons during the continuance of these articles, nor to bequeath, sell, or communicate them to any persons, so as to take place after his death, unless the articles are cancelled during his lifetime. The agreement was to continue in force so long as Duesbury and Heath determined to carry on the business according to his process; and whenever they should decline doing so, then Holdship was to be at liberty to sell or communicate his process to any one else. At Derby, Holdship also printed stoneware. As I have stated in my account of the Derby china works, the printed ware did not appear to meet Mr. Duesbury’s views, or to be so advantageous as the higher class of goods painted by hand, for which he was famed, and thus there were constant complaints and recriminations passing between Holdship and his employers. From some of the documents I glean that his process was “for printing enamell and blew;” that he had an assistant named William Underwood; that he valued his press at £10 10s.; offered his “utensils and copper engraved plates at half prime cost;” that his “enamell collours, weight 151 lbs.,” he valued at £35, including his process for making the same; and that he proposes to “yield his process for printing enamell and blew, for which he hath been offered several hundred pounds.” How long the agreement continued I cannot say, but at all events, Holdship was still employed at Derby at the end of 1769.

Of much of the work of Robert Hancock, fortunately, there can be no possible doubt, for his name appears in full on some examples,[234] and his initials—at least, initials believed to be his—on others. These will be seen in the accompanying engraving:—

Two of these, it will be seen, are somewhat curious, having the Chelsea anchor attached to the name of Worcester. It is a problem worth solving whether this monogram of RH conjoined was that of Robert Hancock, and, if so, whether he had previously been connected with the Chelsea works; or whether the anchor was adopted as a mark by Richard Holdship in allusion to his name, hold ship, which, it must be admitted, would be a clever and very appropriate colophon. The engraving, looked at as engraving alone, upon some of the pieces of this period, is truly beautiful and sharp; but when considered as transfer on to china paste, is very wonderful.

In Mr. Binns’s possession is a watch-back of Battersea enamel, transfer printed, bearing the initials “R. H. f.” The subject was a popular one for china and enamels, and was frequently reproduced.

Richard Hancock, it is supposed, was employed at Battersea before coming to Worcester, where he must have been settled before the date (1757) of the poem just quoted. He was an excellent engraver, as the watch-back (Fig. 518) will testify. Examples of his engravings, transferred on to Chinese porcelain, are also preserved, and are considered to be his trial pieces from transferring on to this material.

The copper plate itself from which these foreign china specimens as well as many of the choicest known examples of Worcester china have been printed, I had myself the good fortune to discover a few years ago at Coalport. It bears the engraver’s name—R. Hancock fecit.

I know, for the first time such a thing has been done, give as an illustration (on Plate II.) impressions actually printed from this very plate engraved by Hancock a century ago.[81] On the same [235]plate, it will be noticed, is another engraving by Hancock, of a group of children playing at “Blind Man’s Buff,” which collectors will recognise as occasionally occurring on rare examples. On Plates III. and IV. I also give, for the first time, impressions from other copper plates, to which I shall make allusion later on. Among Hancock’s pupils were Valentine Green, the historian of Worcester; James Ross, who earned a considerable local reputation; and, it is believed, Thomas Turner, afterwards of the Caughley china works. In 1769 Hancock purchased from the mortgagees of Richard Holdship the buildings he had erected, and became a partner in the china works; in which he held a sixth share. The partnership, however, did not last long, and in 1774 he was “paid out,” as appears by the following entry:—“Whereas certain controversies, differences, and disputes had arisen between the parties touching the said Robert Hancock’s share of the said stock, it was agreed by indenture, dated October 31, 1774, in order to prevent all such disputes, to purchase from him his share in said stock for the sum of £900, being exactly one-sixth.” Hancock, it is said, left the works in the same year, 1774. The group (Fig. 517) exhibits a selection of the early transfer-printing examples of Hancock’s work and that of his clever contemporaries.

A few years before the Chelsea works passed into the hands of Duesbury of Derby, it appears that some of the workmen migrated[236] to Worcester, and this circumstance gave a fresh impetus to the manufacture of porcelain in that city, and enabled the proprietors of the works to produce many exquisite articles after the Dresden and Sèvres schools of art. Some examples of this Chelsea style are shown grouped on Fig. 520. In 1776 Dr. Wall died, and was buried at the Abbey Church, Bath, in which city he had resided for some time for the benefit of his impaired and declining health. Soon after this time the works began to decline; the goods produced were far inferior to those made in former years, and their whole style, body, and finish showed an evident falling off in the management of the works. It is surely not too much to attribute this decadence in a great degree to the loss of the master mind of Dr. Wall.

After many changes in proprietorship,[82] the Worcester works, in 1783, were purchased by Mr. T. Flight, a merchant of Bread Street, London, and of Hackney (who was agent to the Worcester Porcelain Company), for his sons, Joseph and John, for the sum of £3,000, including premises, models, plant, and stock, and here he established them. These two brothers were jewellers, and carried on both concerns at the same time. Under their management the works rapidly more than regained their former eminence, and became very successful.[237] The mark used by Messrs. Flight was as follows—

simply the name in writing letters. Another mark of this period was the name, in italic capitals, impressed on the ware, sometimes with the crescent painted in blue. In 1786 Joseph Flight, one of the partners, “jeweller and china manufacturer,” advertised that he had taken Mr. Bradley’s shop, 33, High Street. Shortly afterwards he removed to larger premises, No. 45, where he received the king and queen.

In 1788 an event of great importance to the works occurred. In that year the king, George III., with Queen Charlotte and the princesses, visited Worcester, and having gone through the porcelain works, and been much pleased with the beauty of the articles manufactured, his majesty desired that the word “royal” might be prefixed to the name, and recommended the proprietors to open a show-room in London. This suggestion was at once acted upon, and a warehouse opened in Coventry Street, which secured a large and very fashionable patronage for the ware. After the king’s visit the distinctive mark of a crown was added to the marks, which at this time were the following. The subsequent changes in the proprietorship, consequent on deaths, were “Messrs. Flight and Barr”—Mr. Martin Barr having joined the concern in 1793—“Barr, Flight, and Barr,” and “Flight, Barr, and Barr” (Joseph Flight, Martin Barr, and Martin Barr, jun., and afterwards George Barr in place of the elder Martin). From 1829 till 1840 the firm was simply “Barr and Barr,” the parties being Martin and George Barr. Some of the marks I here give. Others, which were printed marks, it is scarcely worth while to engrave; they are as follows:—“Flight, Barr, and Barr”—B, the initial of Barr, scratched in the ware; “Barr,[238] Flight, and Barr, Royal Porcelain Works, Worcester; London House, No. 1, Coventry Street,” in five lines, and surmounted by two crowns; “B.F.B.,” imprint on the ware: “Barr, Flight, and Barr, Royal Porcelain Works, Worcester; London House, Flight and Barr, Coventry Street” (within an oval), “Manufacturers to their Majesties, Prince of Wales, and Royal Family; established 1751” (surrounding the oval); the whole surmounted by a crown and the Prince of Wales’s feathers: “Flight, Barr, and Barr, Proprietors of the Royal Porcelain Works, Worcester, established 1761,” in five lines; above are the royal arms, and beneath are the Prince of Wales’s feathers, the whole within a circle; surrounding the circle is, “Manufacturers to their Majesties and the Prince Regent; London Warehouse, No. 1, Coventry Street.”

In 1786, Robert Chamberlain, who was the first apprentice to the old Worcester Porcelain Company, and who had continued with the different proprietors up to that period, commenced business for himself in premises at Diglis—the same which are now carried on by the Royal Worcester Porcelain Company. Chamberlain was a painter, and on the first establishment of his business bought his porcelain from the Caughley works (Coalbrookdale) and painted it at Worcester. In a very short time, however, he made his own, and his works soon grew into public favour and eminence. His son was an excellent artist, and a portrait of the Princess Charlotte, which he painted, is said to have given the highest satisfaction to Prince Leopold and others. The mark adopted by Chamberlain was simply his name in writing, thus, “Chamberlain’s,” or

completes the sentence.] Afterwards the following marks were used:—

As a companion picture to the fac-simile of Dr. Wall’s works I give views of those of Chamberlain’s (Fig. 537), and, later, of Flight and Barr’s, the latter copied from an engraving transferred to porcelain. From these the extensive character of the place will be seen. It has, however, been much increased since the amalgamation of the two establishments, and within the last few years has been almost entirely rebuilt by the present proprietors.

The business was afterwards carried on successively by “Chamberlain and Sons” and “Chamberlain and Co.” During the continuance of the two works it is believed that by far the greater part of the entire production of porcelain in the kingdom was made at Worcester; and certainly the books and the samples of various sets still remaining in the show-rooms bear evidence both of the high patronage and the extent of orders received, and of the beauty of workmanship which the proprietary had attained in their ware. The successive changes in the proprietary were as follows:—1786–1798, Robert Chamberlain, senior, Humphrey Chamberlain, and Richard Nash (sleeping partner); 1798–1804, Humphrey Chamberlain and Robert Chamberlain, junior; 1804–1811, the same, with G. E. Boulton as sleeping partner; 1811–1827, the same, without[240] Boulton; 1828–1840, Walter Chamberlain and John Lilly. The marks then used, from 1840 to 1850, being Chamberlain & Co., Worcester, in writing italics, and CHAMBERLAIN’S in capital letters.

In 1800, a third china manufactory was established in Worcester by Mr. Thomas Grainger, nephew of Humphrey Chamberlain, who had for many years taken an active and principal part in Chamberlain’s works. This establishment, of which a few words anon, is still continued by the son of its founder and partners under the firm of “G. Grainger and Co.”

The two principal manufactories, those of “Flight, Barr, and Barr,” and “Chamberlain and Co.,” continued until 1840, when they amalgamated, and the two firms formed one joint-stock company. The plant and stock were removed from Warmstry House to Messrs. Chamberlain’s premises, and the works were there carried on under the style of “Chamberlain and Co.” The mark used by Chamberlain and Co. was as follows:—

From 1840 to 1847 the managing directors were Walter Chamberlain,[242][241] John Lilly, and Martin and George Barr, and Fleming St. John; from 1848 to 1850 the proprietors were Walter Chamberlain and John Lilly; in 1850, Walter Chamberlain and Edward Lilly. In 1850 Mr. W. H. Kerr joined the concern, which was for a short time carried on under the style of “Chamberlain, Lilly, and Kerr;” but on the 1st of January, 1852, another change took place in the proprietary. On this occasion Mr. Chamberlain and Mr. Lilly retired, and Mr. R. W. Binns entered into partnership with Mr. Kerr, and the firm was carried on under the style of “Kerr and Binns,” and “W. H. Kerr and Co.” In 1852 the works were considerably increased, in fact they may almost be said to have been then rebuilt, by Mr. Kerr, whose great desire was to make them the best constructed, and most roomy and convenient, of any porcelain works in the kingdom. In 1862 Mr. Kerr retired from the concern, and it is now carried on by a company of shareholders, Mr. R. W. Binns, F.S.A., who is one of them, holding the proud position of “Art Director,” a post for which no man is better qualified than he is. The total number of hands employed at the present time is between five and six hundred.

The productions of the Worcester works have been brought to a wondrous state of perfection, both as to body, glaze, form, and decoration. Certainly neither in ancient nor in modern specimens of ceramic art have such exquisitely beautiful works been produced as some of the enamels which, under the fostering hand of Mr. Binns, have of late years been made here. The body, unlike the works of Limoges or the Sèvres imitations, is pure porcelain, not a coating of porcelain over sheets of metal; and the effect is produced by the partial transparency of the white laid on the blue ground, instead of by heightening. The tone produced in these enamels is peculiarly soft and delicate, and the colours are pure and intense; they will bear—and bear well—a close and critical comparison with those of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries.[83] Examples consisting of an ewer and stand, a[243] vase, a pastile-burner, a plate, a tazza, and other articles, are given on Figs. 547 to 553. The late Mr. Bott, an artist of the very highest eminence, was brought up by Mr. Binns specially for the production of these enamels, and his early death has been a great loss to Art. Through his death examples have become very scarce, and realise high prices. At the present time a pair of vases—still in the hands of the Worcester Company—are valued at 1,500 guineas, and an ewer and basin at 350 guineas, and the probability is that they will still increase rapidly in value. To Mr. Binns is entirely due the introduction and carrying out of the Worcester enamels in the style of Limoges; the ivory porcelain, a soft-glaze body of an ivory tint; the Raphaelesque porcelain; jewelled porcelain, of a totally different and far higher character[244] than that of Sèvres; and Japanese decoration on porcelain and pottery. Besides these, to his taste, skill, and judgment are due the great varieties of styles and improvements in form and decoration which now characterize these works.

In parian, the Worcester works produce a large variety of figures, busts, groups, and ornamental articles of every kind, and of a remarkably clean and pure body.

The ivory porcelain—an improvement upon parian, and capable of greater development—is one of the specialities of these works. Besides being used for busts, figures, and ornamental pieces, in its simple state, when it has all the softness, beauty, and natural tint of ivory itself, it forms the basis of many of the ornamental decorations, especially the Raphaelesque ware, which is the colouring of the surface in relief in the style of the old Capo di Monte ware and the Buen Retiro porcelain. This style was first introduced by Mr. Binns for the Exhibition of 1862, and has retained its popularity to the present hour.

The jewelled porcelain, for which Worcester now is famous, is totally different from that made at Sèvres or Tournay, whether ancient or modern. The French jewels are all made by enamellers, and each colour is fused on a small plate of metal which forms the setting, and may be stuck on the vase or plate with gum if it is not required to pass it through the fire. These jewels may be bought by the dozen or hundred in any variety: but the work decorated with them is essentially French, and tinselly. The English jewelling, though perhaps not so brilliant, is of far higher and purer character, and is far more[247] legitimate as a decoration for pottery. Each of these jewels is formed of colour melted on to the china, and occasionally raised higher and higher by repeated firings, and thus it becomes, and is, a part of the material itself. The most elaborate piece of work produced at Worcester in this style is a déjeûner set made for presentation to the Countess of Dudley on her marriage, from the city of Worcester. It is powdered all over with turquoise, but so arranged in geometric lines that only the different sizes of the jewels are noticed. In Japanese porcelain the Worcester works produce a vast variety of articles; amongst these are vases, spill-cases, jardinières, toilet ornaments, trays, and an infinite number of other elegancies. These Japanese productions are not servile imitations of native art; they are Japanese art and art-characteristics adapted and rendered subservient to the highest aims of pure design of our own country. Mr. Binns, to whom this introduction is owing, has caught the very spirit of Japanese art, and, with the happy facility he possesses of turning everything to good account, has so grafted it upon English productions that the one becomes an essential and component part of the other. Among the more pleasing and characteristic of the vases are a set on which the designs, in relief (admirably modelled by Mr. Hadley) upon tablets, represent the various processes of the potter’s art as followed in the East; and these pictures—for true pictures they are—are so minutely and exquisitely painted and gilded (by Callowhill), that it requires a good[250] lens to bring out their many and very minute beauties. Of these I give some engravings. This introduction, which now forms a distinctive feature of the Worcester works, is a marked and decided advance in ceramic art; the effect of bronze and other metals being quite an achievement.

In majolica the Worcester works produce many splendid varieties of articles, and many spirited and beautiful designs. Dessert services, floral table decorations, shell-pieces, spill-cases, and vases are among the articles produced. The body is finer and more compact than that frequently used by manufacturers, and the colouring is faultless and in the purest taste. It was a wise thought to graft this branch of ceramic art on to that of the finest porcelain at Worcester, and its rapid development shows how thoroughly it has been appreciated.

But it is not in ornamental goods only that these works take high rank. They produce every possible variety, from the simple gold and white to the most highly decorated tea, coffee, déjeûner, dinner, toilet, and other services. These are produced in very large quantities, and form a staple and constantly increasing branch of the manufacture; and in all these, however simple, the same purity of taste in patterns is displayed as in the rarer and more costly gems of art.

It is a common belief that high art and commercial success cannot go hand in hand,—that to make things sell you must sink art—or that, if you produce high art examples, you must give up all expectations of a remunerative trade. This theory I do not[251] believe in. I hold it to be the mission of the manufacturer, in whatever branch he may be engaged, to produce such goods as shall tend to educate the public taste, and to lead it gradually upwards to a full appreciation of the beautiful. The manufacturer is quite as much a teacher as the writer or the artist, and he is frequently a much more effectual one. In pottery especially, where the wares of one kind or other are hourly in the hands of every person in the kingdom, it behoves the manufacturers to produce such perfect forms, and to introduce such ornamentation, even in the commonest and coarsest ware, as shall teach the eye, and induce a taste for whatever is beautiful and perfect and lovely in art. The mission of the manufacturer is to create a pure taste, not to perpetuate and pander to a vicious and barbarous one; and I believe, in the end, that those who do their best to elevate the minds of the people by this means will find that, commercially, their endeavours will be most satisfactory—assuredly they will be the most pleasant to their own minds. The Worcester people seem to understand this thoroughly, and to have wisely determined that nothing, even of the most simple design or common use, which is not pure in taste and elegant in form shall be issued from their works.

The marks of Messrs. Kerr and Binns were the following:—

But they had also another, a special mark, designed by Digby Wyatt, which is used solely for marking the goods made for her Majesty. In the mark (Fig. 568) in the third quarter of the shield, left white in the engraving, the initials of Mr. Bott, the painter, are found on his beautiful enamels.

The Worcester works have, at one time or other, been favoured more than most English establishments with orders from royalty. Of these I give five examples of plates, to show the beauty and intricacy of their designs. Fig. 569 is a part of a service made for the Queen; Fig. 573, from the service made for Prince William Henry, Duke of Clarence, in 1789; 572, for the[254] Princess Charlotte on her marriage; 571 for his Majesty King William IV.; and 570, for the Duke of Cumberland in 1806.

A curious feature in connection with these works, and one which I am only aware has been followed by one other English china manufactory (that of Pinxton), was the issuing of porcelain tokens—that is, china money—for the convenience of the masters and workmen at the factory. They are, it will be seen, in the form of a promissory note. They bear the “promise” on the obverse, and on the reverse the letters W P C (Worcester Porcelain Company), and were issued for various amounts.

Examples of some of the more recent productions of the Royal Worcester Porcelain Company (as shown at the French Exhibition of 1868) are shown on our cuts, Figs. 560 to 565.

Royal China Works.—The porcelain works of Messrs. Grainger and Co. are situated in St. Martin’s Street, with show-rooms in the Foregate. They were established in 1800, as I have before stated, by Mr. Thomas Grainger, nephew to Mr. Chamberlain, to whom he served an apprenticeship as a painter; the latter part of his apprenticeship being devoted to taking a share in the general management of the works. When out of his time, Mr. Grainger started a manufactory on his own account, and took into partnership a Mr. Wood, a painter of considerable skill and eminence, whose productions on the early porcelain made by them are characterized by a peculiar mellowness of shade, and who excelled in “mezzo-tint drawing;” and the works were carried on for some time under the firm of “Grainger and Wood.”

Afterwards, Mr. Grainger took into partnership his brother-in-law, Mr. Lee, and the style of the firm was then changed to that of “Grainger and Lee.” The mark was as appended.

In 1810, about two years before Mr. Lee became a partner, the works were destroyed by fire. The manufactory was shortly rebuilt on a new site, on the opposite side of the street, and has been considerably enlarged. Mr. Lee having retired from the concern, the business was then carried on by Mr. Grainger until his decease in 1839, when his son, Mr. George Grainger, one of the present proprietors, succeeded him, and has carried on the works, under the style of “G. Grainger and Co.,” to the present day. Up to the year 1850, porcelain alone was made at this establishment, and its quality was remarkably good, both in body and in ornamentation. In that year, however, Mr. George Grainger invented a new body, which he named “semi-porcelain.” This new ware was first made public at the Great International Exhibition of 1851, and from its peculiar qualities of durability, hardness, and freedom from cracking with heat, attracted considerable attention. The surface of the semi-porcelain bears every characteristic of the finest china, and, of course, in colour, in painting, and in gilding can be made quite equal to it; but it has the additional advantage of being so completely vitrified that the inside, in case of being chipped or broken, remains of its original whiteness. It is peculiarly adapted for dinner-services through not flying or cracking with heat so readily as the ordinary china does, and because of its power of retaining heat for a much longer time. It is somewhat extensively exported both to France and to India. Mr. Grainger manufactures very largely of this material chemical vessels, batteries, insulators for telegraph wires, &c., and for these purposes its superiority is admitted by the highest scientific authorities. These insulators (in an unglazed state) after being soaked for many hours in acid, stood the test of a battery of two hundred Daniel’s cells—a very severe test—showing thus great[256] strength and resisting power—a strength which would be much increased when glazed.

The mark of the present firm is as follows:—

Another has simply the words “Chemical Porcelain, Grainger and Co., Manufactory, Worcester.” Messrs. Grainger and Co. also produce some admirable vases, excellent parian figures and ornaments. Another variety of goods is the perforated parian ware, in which is made vases, &c., of remarkably pure design and careful execution. Some of the best specimens of lace drapery have been produced by this firm. At the Exhibition of 1862, the last at which the firm exhibited, a medal was awarded them for this “semi-” or “chemical porcelain,” which, undeniably, well deserved such a distinction.

The toilet services of this firm are of considerable elegance in design, as will be seen on Figs. 581 and 582. Fig. 580 exhibits a “honeycombed” coffee-service of very elegant design, the foliage being gracefully thrown.

A new invention of Messrs. Grainger is their “Opalite,” a highly vitrified and very fine body, in which they have produced, with remarkably good effect, embossed tiles for external decorations in shop fronts, &c. A design of a celadon ground with the blackberry, conventionally treated, in relief, in white, with the stems relieved with burnished gold, burned into the body, is remarkably beautiful and effective.

Mr. St. John’s Encaustic Tile Works.—After the removal of Messrs. Flight and Barr’s works to the present site of the Royal porcelain manufactory, on the amalgamation spoken of on a preceding page, Mr. Barr for a time continued making encaustic paving tiles on the old premises. In this he was joined by Mr. Fleming St. John, who was one of the managing directors of the Royal porcelain works, and some excellent patterns, and of good colour and material, were produced. The tile works were, however, in 1860, sold to Messrs. Maw, who continued to carry on the manufacture until 1852, when they removed to Broseley, where the manufacture is still continued (see “Broseley”). In 1853 the premises were purchased from Mr. Fleming St. John by Mr. Allcroft, one of the partners in the firm of Dent, Allcroft, and Co., and their business of glove-making was removed within the same year.

“Worcester Tileries,” Rainbow Hill.—These works were established in 1870 by Mr. H. C. Webb, their present proprietor. The tiles produced are in three series—1st, geometrical tiles in five colours, viz. black, red, buff, grey, and chocolate; 2nd, geometrical tiles in these colours with the addition of cream, fawn, blue, white, and green; 3rd, the whole of these, with encaustic or inlaid tiles added. The geometrical tiles are made of various sizes and of every necessary shape, and thus pavements of admirable and effective design and of endless variety are produced, which are equally suitable for small villas, cottages, schools, &c. The colours are clear and good, and the quality hard and durable. The mark used by Mr. Webb is the name HENRY C. WEBB, WORCESTER, in raised letters, in a small circle impressed in the clay.

St. George’s Pottery Works.—These works were established by their present proprietor, Mr. D. W. Barker, formerly of Frome in Somersetshire, in 1869, for the manufacture of rustic ware, terra-cotta,[259] and patent bricks—the latter being the main production of the establishment. The works are situated on Gregory’s Bank, close to the canal, on the north side of Worcester, where they occupy a large area of ground. The kilns were erected from the designs of the patentees, Hoffman and Licht, of Berlin and Dantzic, and the machinery by the patentees, Bradley and Craven, of Wakefield. As these are said to be among the best constructed of modern brick and terra-cotta works, I quote the following particulars:—

The analysis of the clay, as reported by Dr. Arthur E. Davis, is as follows:—silica, 56·74; alumina, 31·66; oxide of iron, 6·96; lime, 3·43; magnesia, trace; alkaline salts, 0·53; loss in analysis, 0·68; total, 100·00.

The rustic terra-cotta ware produced at these works is of a very[260] superior quality, and the designs are so true to nature as to be faultless in every respect. In this ware garden-seats, flower-pots, and flower-vases, mignonette and other boxes, spill-cases, and a variety of other articles have been made, and all are equally good in design. Among the rustic flower-pots and stands some are excellent representations of the gnarled root of a tree; the small branches of trees nailed to the sides of the vessel; and the bole of a tree beautifully modelled, and apparently hollowed out to receive the plant. In these cases the grain of the wood is well copied. Mr. Barker’s great forte in these designs seems to have been the accurate and truthful copying of nature in the barks and peculiarities of growth of various trees.

Mr. Barker manufactures the ceramic part of Beckitt’s patent photographic apparatus—an apparatus consisting of an earthenware cylinder and a series of troughs of the same material, in which the cylinder is made to revolve by means of a handle; the troughs being intended for the hyposulphate bath, the gold solution, and wash, respectively.

Ordinary flower-pots and other horticultural ware, of good quality and excellent material, are extensively made, and form a staple branch of the St. George’s trade.

Stourbridge.

The Lye Works have the reputation of being the oldest in this district, having been established in 1750. Its present proprietors are Messrs. William King Perrens, of Wilmcote Hall, and George King Harrison, of Hagley. They are makers of fire-bricks of all kinds, blast furnaces, glass-house furnaces, gas retorts, gas ovens, &c., and are proprietors of best Glasshouse pot-clay.

I am indebted to Mr. George King Harrison, of the “Lye Works,” Stourbridge, for the following interesting particulars respecting Stourbridge clay. He says—

Stourbridge clay (properly so called) is found only in a comparatively small district, say within a circle of not more than two miles, taking the valley of the Stour at the Lye as the centre, and at depths varying from three or four yards from the surface to one hundred and eighty yards; its position in the strata is in all cases below the thick coal, at distances varying from twelve to twenty-five yards; and it is generally overlaid by a shaly, friable kind of coal, called “batts,” from twelve to twenty-four inches thick. The thickness of the seam varies very much, rarely exceeding thirty-six to forty-two inches, and sometimes thinning down to five or six inches when close to faults or small disturbances in the measures. The quality is very variable, in some instances as hard as stone, having to be blasted with powder, and in others soft and easily workable. There is a great variation in its component parts, arising principally in the proportion of silica; a clay containing only about fifty per cent. of silica being very inferior, and contracting very much on exposure to intense heat. In order to show this difference in a practical form I have had eight clays from as many mines in the Stourbridge district, prepared under precisely similar circumstances, subjected to the same heat, and all burnt in the kiln at one time.[262] The result showing the great variation and power of resisting heat, since, in the eight samples, hardly two are of the same weight and size. The eight bricks all made in one mould.

The usual treatment of clay for glass-house purposes is as follows. After having been carefully selected, it is broken into small pieces by women accustomed to its appearance, who throw on one side all pieces of discoloured and irregular clay; it is finely ground by heavy edge-runners, and mixed with a certain proportion of ground potsherds (old broken burnt pots); the proportion of burnt clay varies according to the purpose for which the clay is to be used; it is then mixed with water, and tempered with the foot, and allowed to lie a considerable time—which should not be less than six or seven weeks—when it should acquire great tenacity before being made into pots.

These pots are built up by hand gradually, great care being taken that the last layer of clay is not allowed to become hard or dry, or it will not unite properly; neglect in this respect causing the pot to give way in the furnace. The pots are dried very gradually, and are seldom fit for use under six to eight months.

The clay, after the selection of the best pot-clay, is allowed to lie in large heaps, subjected to the action of the atmosphere, and is then used in the manufacture of gas-retorts, fire-bricks, &c. The quantity of bricks made annually in the Stourbridge district is about fifty millions.

In the midst of one of the most historically interesting districts of the kingdom—a district abounding in spots rendered famous in various ages by the events which have occurred within its boundaries, and full of associations as varied as they are interesting—within a few miles of Boscobel, and Tong, and numberless other places possessing a sad interest as connected with the wanderings and the painful vicissitudes of King Charles II.,—within a short distance of those two glorious monastic ruins, Buildwas Abbey and Wenlock Priory—not far from the “English Nineveh,” Uriconium, and within easy distance of Shrewsbury and Ludlow,—is a group of manufactories whose simple history is as interesting as that of many of these places.

Broseley, whose pipe manufactories two hundred and fifty years ago were as famed as they are now, and whose makers then got rid of their goods without advertising the emphatic words, “When you ask for a Broseley pipe, see that you get it!”—Jackfield, famed of old for its earthenware, and where it is still to some little extent made;—Caughley, formerly a successful rival of Worcester in the excellence of its porcelains;—Coalport, a rival of all other works at the present day;—Horsehay, with its discontinued pot works;—Benthall, where “yellow ware” works are in constant operation, and where the magnificent encaustic and enamelled tile and mosaic works of Messrs. Maw are situated;—Ironbridge, with its famous one-arch bridge, the first iron bridge erected in England, from which it takes its name, spanning the Severn:—Madeley, with its[264] extensive iron furnaces;—Benthall Edge, with its limestone works;—Coalbrookdale, whose iron works are known throughout the world, and where terra cotta is manufactured,—and a score of other busy hives of industry, are here gathered together, and demand careful attention. To the history of some of these I therefore devote this chapter.

Like those of Worcester and Derby, the Salopian manufactory of porcelain dates from the middle of last century; and, like them, has continued from its first introduction to the present time without interruption. Indeed, it may be said of the district that an almost—if not an entirely—unbroken historical chain may be traced from the Romano-British period down to the present day; for, as I have already shown, the same beds of clay which, fifteen hundred years ago, produced some of the fictile ware of the Roman occupiers of the soil, have been worked in the intermediate ages, and still produce, more largely than ever, articles of daily use for every class of the people of England. The same beds which supplied the magnificent city of Uriconium with jugs, mortaria, bowls, and colanders of white ware, still supply the neighbourhood with innumerable articles of daily use.

Caughley.

The Worcester porcelain works, as I have shown, were established in the year 1751; and the commencement of those in Shropshire must have been, if not coeval, at all events closely subsequent to that event. Indeed, the two works may be almost said to have sprung into existence at the same time. The site of the first Salopian china works was at Caughley, about a mile from the present manufactory, and on the opposite or south side of the river Severn. The works were situated on the hill overlooking the valley of the Severn, as it flowed on to Bridgnorth, and commanding a magnificent view of the surrounding country. On this spot, it is said, a small pottery was begun by a Mr. Browne, of Caughley Hall, and after his death managed by a gentleman named Gallimore, who was a relative, to whom, in 1754, a lease of the place was granted for the term of sixty-two years. This Mr. Gallimore does not appear to have been long connected with the works; for the only name, as proprietor, which I have at present been able to establish, is that of Mr. Thomas Turner, who married Dorothy, daughter of Mr. Gallimore and niece to Mr. Browne, and carried on the manufactory.

Mr. Thomas Turner was the son of Dr. Richard Turner, of Magdalene Hall, Oxford, rector of Cumberton, vicar of Elmly Castle and Norton, all in Worcestershire, in 1754, and who was also chaplain to the Countess of Wigtoun. This Dr. Turner, who took his degree at Magdalene Hall, Oxford, was the author of several works on astronomy, gauging, trigonometry, education, history, &c., and, in 1765, was a “teacher of geometry, astronomy, and philosophy” at Worcester. He died in 1791, and was buried at Norton-juxta-Kempsey, near Worcester. Besides his son Thomas, he had two other sons, Richard, LL.D., and Edward, the first of whom also published some works on geography, &c., and the latter was a general in the army in India, where he died; and two daughters, Elizabeth, married to Abraham Wyke, of Broseley, surgeon, and Sarah, married to Dr. William Hancock Roberts, rector of Broadwas and minor canon of Worcester Cathedral. Mr. Thomas Turner, by his first wife, Dorothy Gallimore, who died in 1793, had issue two children who died in infancy; and by his second wife, Mary, daughter of Thomas Milner, of Dothill, and widow of Henry Alsop, had issue one son, George Thomas Turner, of High Broughton, near Manchester, who died at Scarborough March 17, 1869, without issue, and one daughter, Catherine Georgiana Cecilia, who married John Jacob Smith, of St. James’s Priory, Bridgnorth, for more than half a century town clerk of that borough, by whom he had issue the present Hubert Smith, Esq., of St. Leonards, Bridgnorth, the gifted author of “Tent Life with English Gipsies in Norway,” who is the lineal and only representative of the main line of the Turner family. Mr. Turner was born in 1749, and is said to have been brought up as a silversmith at Worcester; but this is an error, as, for the purpose of obtaining the freedom of the city, he was, as a matter of legal form only, apprenticed to his father. It seems pretty certain that he was, at an early period, connected with the Worcester china works, and it is an established fact that he was an excellent chemist, and had thoroughly studied the various processes relating to porcelain manufacture. He was also a skilful draftsman and designer, and occasionally engraved: he was also a clever musician. He became a county magistrate for Shropshire, and was a freeman of the city of Worcester and the boroughs of Wenlock and Bridgnorth. He was also chairman of the Court of Equity for the three counties, which he had been mainly instrumental in establishing. In 1772, he succeeded his father-in-law, Mr. Gallimore, at the Caughley[266] works (Mr. Gallimore having leased them from Mr. Browne in 1754), and carried them on until 1799, when he sold out all interest in the works and retired from business. He died at his residence at Caughley in 1809, aged sixty, and was buried in the family vault at Barrow, where, later, his daughter, Mrs. Smith, was also buried. After his death the commissioners of Oldbury Court presented his widow with a memorial silver cup of large size, bearing on one side the arms of Turner, and on the other an appropriate inscription. This is in possession of his representative, Mr. Hubert Smith.

Mr. Turner had a partner named Shaw. They had a warehouse in London, and, as was usual in those days with other works, had periodical sales by auction of their goods. In my own possession is a bill of this firm, dated January 24th, 1794, and headed “Salopian China Warehouse. Bought of Turner and Shaw.” The lots in this bill were bought “at public sale,” and consisted of “jugs,” “bakings,” “china dishes,” and other “sundry pieces;” the lots were “put up at half price” at the sale. In 1795, Mr. Turner’s manager at Caughley was one Thomas Blase; and I have a letter of his, dated 20th February in that year, concerning a painter, named Withers, at that time employed there, but who had wrongfully left his employment at the Derby china works, where he was “Mr. Deusbury’s articled servant.”

No doubt the incentive to the establishment of the Caughley works were the experiments long carried on at Worcester by Dr. Wall, and the knowledge that at this spot the two principal materials wanting in a pottery of this kind could be had at a trifling cost. With abundance of coal within twenty feet of the surface, with clunch of the best quality for the making of seggars overlying the coal, and with the navigable river at hand for bringing the materials and for carrying away the finished goods, the inducements were strong for the fixing on this spot the manufactory which was destined ultimately to grow into such enviable importance. To Worcester, of course, coal and clunch and other materials had to be conveyed at great cost; but here they were ready to hand, and indeed were cropping out in every direction, inviting to be used. In 1756 the works had attained a considerable degree of excellence; and an example is in existence, bearing that date, which gives most satisfactory evidence of the excellence of the body at that time—a body, however, which speedily became greatly improved. In the[267] early years of the Caughley manufactory, the ware was not many degrees removed from earthenware; but it gradually assumed a finer and more transparent character. Like the early Worcester examples, the patterns were principally confined to blue flowers, &c., on a white ground; and in this style and colour the Caughley works excelled, in many respects, their competitors. An excellent example of the body, as made in 1776, is exhibited in a mug, bearing that date, now in the possession of a family at Coalport. This interesting mug, here engraved, is white, with blue and gold flowers, and bears the words “Francis Benbow, 1776,” surmounted by an anchor; the Francis Benbow, for whom it was made, being a barge-owner.

In 1772, as I have shown, Mr. Turner succeeded Mr. Gallimore in these works, and set about enlarging them. In 1775 we read, “The porcelain manufactory erected near Bridgnorth, in this county, is now quite completed, and the proprietors have received and completed orders to a very large amount. Lately we saw some of their productions, which in colour and fineness are truly elegant and beautiful, and have the bright and lively white of the so much extolled oriental.” In 1780 he visited France, for the purpose of “picking up knowledge” on the porcelain manufactures of Paris and other places. He is said to have been an excellent draughtsman, and this added to his chemical knowledge—for he had a regular laboratory fitted up at the top of his house—must have been a great advantage to him while in that country of beautiful and chaste designs. On his return from France he brought with him some skilled workmen, and at once entered with increased spirit into the manufacture of porcelain in his own works at Caughley. One of the men whom he had brought over appears to have been a clever architect; and from his design a very tasty and elegant château, which he called “Caughley Place,” and where he[268] resided, was built for Mr. Turner, near the works. This building being of a novel design in England—more especially in the sequestered neighbourhood of Caughley—attracted much attention; and its peculiarities of construction and arrangement are still often talked about by the old inhabitants of the place. This house and Caughley Hall, after Mr. Turner’s death, came into the hands of Lord Forester, and were pulled down in 1820 or 1821; part of the materials being used for making additions to the present works at Coalport. At the present time no vestiges of the house or works remain at Caughley, with the exception of traces of foundations, and here and there a spring flower or two which still make their appearance where once the elegantly laid out gardens existed.

In 1780 Mr. Turner introduced the making of the famous “Willow Pattern”—the first made in England—at Caughley, and about the same time the “Broseley Blue Dragon” pattern. The willow pattern is still commonly known in the trade as “Broseley pattern.”

An excellent example of dated Caughley ware is the puzzle-jug in the possession of Mr. Edmund Thursfield, here engraved. It is eight inches in length, and is formed of the usual body of these works. It is decorated with blue sprigs, and bears on its front the name, in an oval border, of “John Geary Cleak of the old Church Brosley 1789.” On the bottom is written in blue, “Mathew the v & 16,” though one would fail to see any allusion in the text here referred to either to the vessel or to its purpose. In Mr. Smith’s possession is a fine Caughley mug; white, with blue flowers of bold character: it bears the words, “Wm. Haslewood, 1791,” and has the mark S on the bottom. This William Haslewood was the representative of an old family of that name in this neighbourhood, and his property passed to the Mr. J. J. Smith already spoken of.

In 1788 Mr. Robert Chamberlain commenced his china works at Worcester, and for some time bought his ware at Caughley, had it sent down by barge to Worcester, and there painted and finished it. The same thing was also done when Grainger’s works were first started at Worcester. The number of hands employed[269] at Caughley must have been somewhat large, as the premises were extensive, and the quantity of goods required by Mr. Turner, for his own trade and for Worcester, was considerable. In 1798 or 1799, in consequence of the increase of the trade of Mr. Rose, who had been apprenticed to Mr. Turner, and afterwards commenced on his own account, by which the Caughley business was much injured, the works were disposed of to Mr. Rose and his partner; Mr. Turner entirely retiring from the concern. The Caughley works were then carried on by Messrs. Rose and Co., in conjunction with their own. The coal at Caughley beginning to work out, and the cost of carrying the unfinished ware from thence down the hill and across the water to Coalport was so great,—the unfinished ware being carried on women’s heads the whole distance,—that Mr. Rose determined to remove the works to Coalport, which he did at different times, gradually drafting off the workmen, until about 1814 or 1815, when they were finally removed, the kilns and rooms taken down, and the materials used for the enlargement of the works at Coalport. The last of the buildings, with the house, were not, however, destroyed until 1821, when the materials were brought to Coalport to build the present burnishing-shops and some workmen’s cottages.

The works were built in form of a quadrangle, with an entrance gateway surmounted by an inscribed stone. Of these historical works I am enabled, through the courtesy of my friend Mr. Hubert Smith, to give an engraving from an original drawing in his possession.[270] The entrance building, it will be seen, was three stories in height, the remainder two stories, and the kilns were of large size.

The marks used at Caughley and Coalport have been very few, but they are very important, and require careful attention at the hands of the collector. In my account of the Worcester works I have given several varieties of the crescent as a mark of that establishment, and have also stated that it was used at Caughley. I believe the first mark used at Caughley to have been the crescent alone, and that it was, as I have before stated, intended to have the signification of a C for Caughley, and that its connection with the Worcester works may, in a great measure, be traced to the fact of the goods on which it appears being printed, not at that city, but at Caughley. I have seen examples of this mark on undoubted Worcester body, and also on equally undoubted Caughley make, bearing precisely the same printed patterns. The following are some of the varieties of the crescent occurring on Caughley specimens, and show pretty clearly its transition from a common “half-moon” (I have often heard it called “half-moon china”) to the finished and engraved C.

Another mark said to have been used at Caughley, but of which at present I have met with no example, is the accompanying,

which is very similar to the mark ascribed to the Leeds manufactory.

Another distinctive mark of the Salopian works was the capital letter S, of which the following are varieties:—

When the S was introduced it is difficult to say; but, at all events, it appears on the dated example alluded to above in 1776, and it was used at the same time as the C for a considerable period. On many of the engraved plates still in existence, indeed, both the C and the S occur, and this leads me to suspect that the one was used to mark the goods sent to Caughley to be printed, and the other those made [271]and printed for their own market. I have seen precisely similar articles in pattern, bearing each of these letters. Occasionally the S and crossed daggers occur.

Another circumstance is also worthy of note. On two mugs printed from the same engraved plate, which I have seen, the one bears the S, and the other the accompanying curious mark (Fig. 598), which is evidently of the same character as the examples of assimilated Chinese ones, which are occasionally ascribed to Worcester, but which are in reality, I believe, those of Caughley. Of these I give the following as examples; many of these are disguised figures.

Following the C and S, two impressed marks, bearing the word “Salopian,” were used. These are as follows:—

and it is worthy of remark that, on some examples of plates bearing this impressed mark, the blue printed S also appears; as, on others, does also the crescent. Others, probably merely workmen’s marks, are

The subject of printing upon porcelain, to which I have already alluded under “Worcester,” is one so intimately and intricately connected with the Caughley and Coalport works, that it will be necessary to consider the period of its introduction at some length. I have already shown that transfer-printing was used as early as 1757 on Worcester porcelain (p. 229, ante); and I have little doubt that quite as early, if not a few years before that period, it was practised at Caughley. Indeed, in the early years of the manufactory, the two works, Caughley and Worcester, seem to have been closely connected, and to have worked “in and in,” if I may be allowed the use of so unscientific an expression, and I believe, with ample reason, that a great proportion of the printed goods bearing the Worcester mark were printed at Caughley. Indeed, it is known that the ware[272] was sent up from Worcester by barge to be printed at Caughley, and returned, when finished, by the same mode of conveyance. I have closely examined the style of engraving and the patterns of a large number of examples, and I am clearly of opinion that they are the work of the same hands.

I do not, by this, claim for Caughley the honour of inventing the art of transfer-printing on to porcelain; but I feel assured that that art must have been there practised at quite as early a period as the dated example of Worcester make; and I am led to this belief partly from the fact that the Robert Hancock whose beautiful productions I have before spoken of, and to whom the engraving of the dated example is ascribed, also engraved for the Caughley works. And I have an impression of a plate, of an identical pattern with the famous tea group, which bears his monogram on the Worcester specimens, on which his name, R. Hancock fecit, occurs in full at Caughley. Collectors, therefore, in a case of this kind, must not be too hasty in ascribing, from appearance alone, examples to either one or the other make, but must be guided, in a great measure, by the body on which the engraving occurs.

It cannot be wondered that an art, then such an important secret, should have been followed at Caughley,—a place so perfectly retired from the world, situated in the midst of woods and wilds, almost unapproachable to strangers, and with every facility for keeping the workmen away from all chance of imparting the secret to others,—in place of in Worcester, where secrecy would be almost impossible, and where the information would ooze out from the workmen, at the ale-house or elsewhere, and be greedily caught up by those interested in the process. At Caughley every possible precaution seems to have been taken to secure secrecy; and the workmen—the engravers and printers—were locked up and kept apart from every one else. Who the engravers were I cannot satisfactorily say. It is, however, certain, that Hancock engraved for the works; and it is said that Holdship, of whom I have before spoken, was also employed. Among the other engravers was a man named Dyas, who was apprenticed as an engraver at Caughley about the year 1768, and who continued at the works until his death, at the ripe age of eighty-two. It is also worthy of note that Mr. Minton, the father of Mr. Herbert Minton, was in his early days employed as an engraver at these works. It is not too much to say, that the style of engraving adopted at so early a period was remarkably good, and [273]of really high character. Indeed, some specimens which I have seen of the plates used at Caughley are far superior to most of the productions of the period.

Of the painters employed at Caughley, it will be sufficient to say that amongst those apprenticed there were John Parker, Thomas Fennell, and Henry Boden, famous for their skill in flowers; and that Muss, Silk, and others, excelled in landscapes and figures—some sepia landscapes being remarkable for their pure artistic treatment; while among the gilders, a most important art, and one to which special attention has always been directed at these works, were men of the names of Rutland, Marsh, and Randall who were considered proficients. Of the latter, a nephew, who is the author of pleasant little volumes on the “Severn Valley” and “The Willey Country,” is still employed at the Coalport works, principally on birds.

I have named above that Robert Hancock engraved for Caughley as well as for Worcester, or at all events that plates of his were printed from at the former place possibly for the latter. His name appears on one of the plates as follows:—

and other plates are evidently the work of his hand, though without name. I engraved a curious mark, the monogram RH, anchor, and name of Worcester, in the account of those works. This I reproduce on Fig. 611, and give another which occurs on a plate from Caughley, with the anchor and the word Derby, which I introduce for the purpose of comparison, and to suggest the probability that the place which produced the one with the word Derby (for whatever reason that may have been done), which was undoubtedly Caughley, also produced the one with the word Worcester. The engraved plate, with the anchor and Derby, is a curious one (for a mug), and represents a landscape—a river, with trees on either side, swans sailing in the foreground, behind them two fishermen in a boat drawing a net, beyond them a boat with sails, and in the background a bridge, and church with ruins to the left, and a tall gabled building on the right, over which are the words “Sutton Hall,” whilst above the whole picture is “English Hospitality.”

Coalport.

One of the most flourishing, most important, and most successful in art-productions of any in the kingdom are the Coalport works, at[274] one time also known as “Coalbrook Dale,” to whose history I now devote a few pages. The founder of these works was Mr. John Rose, a man of wondrous skill and enterprise, to whom the ceramic art is indebted for many important improvements. Mr. Rose, who was the son of a farmer in the neighbourhood of Caughley, was apprenticed to Mr. Thomas Turner, of the Caughley China Works, by whom he was taken into the house, and taught the art of china making in all its branches. Here he remained for several years; but ultimately, from causes which it is not necessary to enter upon, a difference arose between them, and Mr. Rose left Mr. Turner, and commenced a small business on his own account at Jackfield, in the immediate neighbourhood. Here he did not remain long, but removed his works to Coalport, on the opposite bank of the Severn, where he fixed himself in some buildings which had previously been a small pottery belonging to a Mr. Young, a mercer of Shrewsbury, and in these buildings in part they have continued to the present day. Mr. John Rose had not long established himself at Coalport, it appears, before he met with opposition; for other[275] works were started on the opposite side of the canal, and only a few yards distant, by his brother, Mr. Thomas Rose, and partners, who commenced business under the style of “Anstice, Horton, and Rose.” These works, however, did not continue long, but passed into the hands of Mr. John Rose and his partners, who, with other additions, formed them into one establishment. In the space of three or four years from the establishment of the Coalport works by Mr. Rose, he had so successfully carried on his business that the Caughley works of Mr. Turner had become greatly reduced, and were gradually beaten out of the market. In 1799 Mr. Turner, of the Caughley works, gave up the business and sold the concern to Messrs. Rose & Co., who thus became proprietors of both works, as well as of those commenced by the brother of Mr. Rose. Both manufactories were then continued by them, thus giving a great increase to the establishment, and rendering it one of the most extensive in the kingdom.

In 1803 Messrs. Blakeway, Rose, and Horton having become bankrupt, a question as to the ownership of the remainder of the Caughley manufactory arose and was submitted to arbitration. The following is the award, for which I am indebted to my friend Mr. Hubert Smith:—

“To all to whom these presents shall come we Ralph Wedgwood of Bransford in the county of Worcester Gentleman and William Horton of Coalport in the county of Salop Gentleman send greeting Whereas by articles of agreement in writing bearing date the Thirteenth day of December last past and made between Thomas Turner of Caughley in the county of Salop Esquire of the one part and Timothy Yate of Madeley in the county of Salop Charles Guest and Elias Prestwich of Broseley in the county of Salop Gentlemen of the other part Reciting that by a Memorandum of an Agreement bearing date the Twelfth day of October One thousand seven hundred and ninety nine and made between the said Thomas Turner of the one part and Edward Blakeway John Rose and Richard Rose of Coalport in the said county of Salop porcelain manufacturers of the other part The said Thomas Turner did agree to assign amongst other things all his interest in a Lease from Mr. Browne to him of the several works buildings and erections called Caughley China Works and also the colliery then held under lease by him from Mr. Browne to the said Edward Blakeway John Rose and Richard Rose The said Thomas Turner also agreed to assign to the said Edward Blakeway and Co. the unglazed stock of goods then in and about the said manufactory and all the materials implements fixtures moulds copper plates and machinery belonging to the said manufactory and colliery And it was agreed that the said Edward Blakeway and Company should have and be entitled to the same liberties and privileges so far as respected the said manufactory and colliery as the said Thomas Turner was entitled to and that the said colliery should be worked in a fair and workmanlike manner and that the clod and middle coals so far as they were getable together or separate to be got so that the best coals should not be got without the clod and middle coals The said Edward Blakeway and Company to pay Mr. Turner Five hundred pounds per annum for the residue of the term and interest in his lease by half-yearly payments as herein mentioned provided the said coals so to be got should not be sufficient for the use of the said manufactory and the best coals should be exhausted the said Edward Blakeway and Company should be at liberty to give up the said works and[276] premises to the said Thomas Turner at the end of any half year during the remainder of the term by which the same premises were held upon giving him six months notice in writing for that purpose and leaving the materials implements fixtures moulds copper plates and machinery then employed thereat not diminishing the same in the mean time But if the said Edward Blakeway and Company should be desirous of continuing the said works and premises till the expiration of the said term the said Thomas Turner agreed to make an allowance of Two hundred pounds per annum out of the said sum of Five hundred pounds per annum from the time the said best coals should be exhausted if the quantity of best coals used had not exceeded upon the average eighteen tons per week, each ton containing forty eight hundred and it was thereby further agreed that in case any dispute or question should arise between the said parties touching any clause article matter or thing therein contained the same was to be referred to and settled by two indifferent persons one to be chosen by each party and in case they should not agree as to the same then by an umpire to be named by the said two persons whose determination should be final And further reciting that the said Edward Blakeway and John Rose together with Robert Winter their partner who then lately held the said works and premises had lately been declared Bankrupt and the said Timothy Yate Charles Guest and Elias Prestwich chosen assignees of their estate and effects and that they the same assignees had lately contracted to sell all their right title and interest to and in the said Caughley China Works Colliery and Premises unto Cuthbert Johnson and William Clarke Esquires And further reciting that a doubt or question had arisen whether the said materials implements fixtures moulds copper plates and machinery were to be the property of the said Thomas Turner at the end of the said term or whether they were to become his property in the event only of the said Agreement being determined before the expiration of the said term And that the same parties had therefore mutually agreed to refer the said doubt or question to the decision of the said Ralph Wedgwood and William Horton and in case they could not agree then to such person as they should name umpire in the premises And that the said Thomas Turner had agreed to sell and the said Timothy Yate Charles Guest and Elias Prestwich had agreed to purchase all the right and interest of the said Thomas Turner of and in the said materials implements fixtures moulds copper plates and machinery at such a price or sum of money as should be fixed thereon by the said Ralph Wedgwood and William Horton or their umpire to be named as aforesaid And further reciting that a dispute had arisen between the said Thomas Turner and the said Timothy Yate Charles Guest and Elias Prestwich respecting the manner in which the said colliery or coalwork had been managed and carried on which dispute or any other difference which might arise pending that reference as a consequence of the investigation of the claims of the respective parties the said parties had agreed should be adjusted and settled by the said Ralph Wedgwood and William Horton or their said umpire to be appointed by them in manner aforesaid It is by the Articles of Agreement now in recital witnessed that as well the said Thomas Turner as also the said Timothy Yate Charles Guest and Elias Prestwich did thereby for themselves severally and respectively and for their several and respective Heirs Executors and Administrators covenant promise and agree to and with each other and to and with his and their Executors and Administrators that they the said parties respectively their respective Executors and Administrators should and would well and truly stand to abide by perform fulfil and keep this award order or determination which the said Ralph Wedgwood and William Horton or their said umpire should make between them as well concerning the said doubt or question concerning the right and interest of the said Thomas Turner of and in the said materials implements fixtures moulds copper plates and machinery and the price or sum of money to be paid him for the same as also concerning the dispute which had arisen or which pending the said reference might arise between the said parties respecting the manner in which the said colliery or coalwork had been managed and carried on so as the award or umpirage be made in writing under the hands of the said Ralph Wedgwood and William Horton or their said umpire within twelve weeks from the date thereof But it was thereby agreed that that Agreement or any clause therein contained or the said award or umpirage to be made in pursuance thereof should not alter or extend to alter the rent and royalty reserved and made payable by the therein recited Agreement but that the same should remain payable upon the terms and conditions therein mentioned And for the true performance of that Agreement each of the said parties bound himself and themselves his and their Executors and Administrators to the other of them his Executors and Administrators[277] mutually and reciprocally in the penalty of One thousand pounds As by the said recited Agreement reference being thereunto had will appear Now know ye that we the said Ralph Wedgwood and William Horton having duly examined and considered the said Agreement and the proofs and allegations of the said parties to the said reference and all such accounts documents and evidence as have been produced to us relating to the said materials implements fixtures moulds copper plates and machinery and also the said colliery coal-mines and premises do hereby award order decide and determine that the said materials implements fixtures copper plates moulds and machinery were by the said Agreement to be the property of the said Blakeway Rose and Rose at the end of the term mentioned in the said agreement and not the property of the said Thomas Turner but in the event only of the said Agreement being determined before the expiration thereof by six months notice being given in the manner in the said Agreement specified And we do further award order decide and determine that the said Timothy Yate Charles Guest and Elias Prestwich as such assignees as aforesaid shall pay unto the said Thomas Turner his Executors Administrators or Assigns for all his contingent or present right and interest of and in the said materials implements fixtures moulds copper plates and machinery the sum of One hundred pounds on or before the Twenty first day of May next And we do further award order decide and determine that the said colliery or coalwork hath been worked and carried on in a fair and workmanlike manner and according to the spirit of the said Agreement of the Twelfth day of October One thousand seven hundred and ninety nine and that therefore the said Thomas Turner not having been injured is not entitled to any compensation or damage from the said Blakeway Rose and Co. or their said Assignees in respect thereof Given under our hands this Sixth day of March One thousand eight hundred and four.

“Witness

Jn. Pritchard

Ra Wedgwood
Willm Horton

On the 23rd October, 1799, an event occurred in connection with the works at Coalport which was most sad in its results. At that time a considerable number of the work-people and painters employed at the works resided at Broseley, and were in the habit of passing backwards and forwards across a ferry near the works. On this night, thirty-two persons, including the best artists, went on board the ferry-boat, which, about midwater, owing to the intoxicated state of the ferryman, was capsized, and twenty-nine were drowned. The principal painter at this time was an artist named Walker, and an unfinished piece of work of his—the piece he left in progress only a few minutes before he lost his life—is still preserved, with almost religious care, in the factory.

Soon after this time considerable additions were made at Coalport, and since then the manufactory has been constantly and considerably enlarged, and now occupies, I am told, considerably more ground than any other porcelain works in the kingdom.

The view of the Coalport China Works given on page 274 will show its extensive character in the early part of the present century, and its pleasant situation on the banks of the Severn. The view is copied from an interesting painting by Muss, who, before his successful artistic career in London, was employed as one of the[280] painters at this establishment. Since the period when Muss made this painting, the works have been constantly increased, and at the present time are about doubled in extent.

The commercial style of the firm has been, ever since its establishment at Coalport, and still is, “Messrs. John Rose and Company,” although many changes in the proprietary have taken place. These changes have been as follows:—“Rose and Blakeway;” “Rose, Blakeway, and Rose;” “Rose, Johnson, and Winter;” “Rose, Johnson, Clarke, and Winter;” “Rose, Winter, and Clarke;” “Rose, Clarke, and Maddison;” “Maddison, Pugh, Rose, and Rose;” “W. Pugh and W. F. Rose;” and the present sole proprietor is “William Pugh;” but the firm is still known by its old style of “John Rose and Co.” Mr. John Rose died in 1841, and was buried at Barrow. He was succeeded by his nephew, Mr. W. F. Rose, of Rock House, Coalport, who retired from the firm in the autumn of 1862, and died in London in 1864, having in the meantime started some small works at Hanley, where he shortly afterwards[282] failed, and unsuccessfully attempted to commence others in Derbyshire. He was a man of the most generous disposition and kindly nature, and his losses were a subject of deep sorrow to myself and his other many friends.

It will be seen from what I have said, that the Coalport works had already, before the commencement of the present century, absorbed those of Caughley, of Jackfield, and of the opposition establishment of Messrs. Anstice, Horton, and Rose. Some years later, the Swansea Porcelain Works, which had risen somewhat into repute, were discontinued, and the moulds, &c, bought by Mr. Rose, who removed them, along with the workmen,[283] to Coalport, about the year 1820. Another famed manufactory, though small, that of Nantgarw, established by Billingsley, the famous flower painter, of Derby, and his son-in-law, Walker, also of Derby, in 1816 (under the assumed name of Beeley and Walker), and which produced, perhaps, the finest examples of porcelain with granulated fracture ever made, also soon afterwards was merged into the Coalport establishment. Billingsley and Walker, on discontinuing the works at Nantgarw, removed to Coalport, with all their moulds and processes, and continued employed there until Billingsley’s death, which took place in 1828. Walker was a remarkably[284] clever workman, and did much during the time of his continuance at Coalport to improve the art of china-making. He removed thence to America, where he established a pottery, which, I believe, he still continues to work. The Nantgarw porcelain was very expensive to make, but was remarkably fine in its body and texture. The original recipes for this peculiar body are in the possession of Messrs. Rose & Co.; and it can be made at Coalport of as fine a quality as ever. I have carefully examined specimens made at Nantgarw with others made by Billingsley and Walker when they first came to Coalport, and these again with examples made by Messrs. Rose in 1860, and they appear all to be of equal excellence of body. It is, however, too expensive a process to be followed to any extent, and is never manufactured there now.

In 1820 Mr. John Rose received the gold medal of the Society of Arts for his improvements in the manufacture of china. The prize, which was offered for the best porcelain glaze produced without lead, was competed for by Copelands, Davenports, and all the principal manufacturers, as well as by Mr. Rose, but was honourably gained by him. It bears the inscription—“To Mr. John Rose, MDCCCXX., for his improved glaze for porcelain.”

The history of the works has been one of complete success from their first establishment to the present day; and this success has been attained by untiring and unflagging energy on the part of the proprietary, and by a determination to make their manufactory second to none in existence in extent and in beauty and purity of work. The porcelain trade owes much to the ability and energy of Mr. John Rose; and this skill, ability, and energy is equally the characteristic of the present proprietor, Mr. Pugh.

Both at the Great Exhibition in 1851 and that of 1862, as well as at the French Exhibition in 1855, Messrs. Rose & Co. carried off medals for their productions; and these recognitions of excellence have been continued at the later International Exhibitions. At the first a magnificent dessert service in the difficult but truly beautiful Rose du Barry colour, which the firm had succeeded in restoring in all its beauty to the ceramic art, was exhibited, and excited considerable interest. This service, considered by competent judges to equal the original Sèvres in evenness of colour, was purchased by Lord Ashburton. At the second, Messrs. Rose exhibited a large number of exquisite examples of their make; and services were purchased by the Emperor of the French, by M. Fould, and by the[285] principal savans of Paris. At the third, the selection of vases and other decorative pieces was of the finest possible character.

At the present hour the productions of the Coalport works take a foremost rank among the best porcelain of the kingdom; many of the specialities of this firm being marvels of beauty; the colours pure and full, and of extreme richness. Sardinian green—a colour for the extreme depth and richness of which these works are celebrated—is introduced with remarkable effect both in services and otherwise. One of the finest pieces of this colour is a tripod wine goblet, with flowers in tablets, and raised and jewelled gold borders. A lighter shade of this fine green is introduced, with tablets of flowers and Westbourne birds, with great effect on two-handled goblets, &c. Rose du Barry has always been a speciality of the Coalport works, and a colour on the excellence of which its proprietors, especially the late clever and enlightened Mr. W. F. Rose, have always prided themselves. This is used as a ground in every conceivable variety of decoration, and when enriched with raised dead and[286] burnished gold, and with the exquisite painting by which it is usually accompanied, has a remarkably rich and chaste effect. A new jardinière, with pierced key top and Sèvres fruit and flowers, is one of the prettiest examples of this colour, combined with raised gold and flowers, which has been produced. One of the finest and most massive pieces in this colour is a claret jug, with raised gold vine-leaves and grapes and other decorations, and splendidly painted on one side with the head of a bacchante and on the other a bunch of grapes. A pink, or light Rose du Barry, is also much used as a ground for pilgrims’ bottles, vases, services, &c., where, for some kinds of decoration, it harmonizes better than the full colour would. A blue with a slightly purplish cast, which gives it an additional richness and fulness, has been introduced, and forms a splendid ground for Japanese decoration in vases, pilgrims’ bottles, &c., in which style of now very fashionable decoration the Coalport artists excel. In these Japanese patterns some of the designs are unusually elaborate and intricate, and the workmanship is characterized by extreme precision and regularity, while the gilding and colour, especially the deep reds and blues, are rich and full in the extreme. Some of the vases in this style vie with those of the native art of the Japanese, and are not excelled by any other house. The principal artists employed at the present time at the works are Mr. Charles Palmere, Mr. Cooke, Mr. John Randall, Mr. Birbeck, Mr. A. Bowdler, Mr. J. Hartshorne, and Mr. Jabez Aston; and among those formerly engaged here was Mr. R. F. Abraham, a student of Antwerp and Paris and a successful follower of the school of Etty. Modellers of a very high class in their respective branches are also employed, and the excellence of their work is apparent in all the higher class productions of this establishment.

The marks used by the Caughley works have already been fully described.[84] After the removal of these works to Coalport, the same letters, both C and S, for many years were used. At Coalport, however, marks have been adopted, perhaps, more sparingly than at any other works; and the great bulk of the goods have been[287] manufactured, from the first down to the present time, without any mark at all. On some examples of the early part of the present century, the written name of “Coalport,” thus—Coalport

—appears; but these are of very rare occurrence. Another mark, adopted somewhat later, though only used very sparingly, was simply the letters

for Coalbrookdale, or the same two letters conjoined thus—

sometimes also Coalbrookdale appears in full, and at others the contraction “C Dale,” in similar writing letters.

Another mark, adopted in 1820, was of large size, and will, perhaps, be as well understood by description as engraving. It is a circle of nearly two inches diameter, in which is a wreath of laurel encircling the words, “Coalport Improved Felt Spar Porcelain,” in four lines across. Surrounding the wreath are the words, “Patronised by the Society of Arts. The Gold Medal awarded May 30, 1820;” while beneath, and outside the circle, is the name “I. Rose and Co.” This mark was adopted consequent on Mr. John Rose obtaining the Society of Arts’ gold medal for “his improved glaze for porcelain” to which I have before alluded, and the articles on which it appears are of extremely good material and very perfect glaze.

Other marks adopted by this firm, although but seldom used (the great bulk of the goods, as I have said before, being sent out without any mark at all), are the following:—

The first of these is a monogram of the letters C B D, for Coalbrookdale, so joined together as to produce a very characteristic and distinctive mark. The second, the same monogram, surrounded by a garter bearing the name of “Daniell, London”—a firm for many years, like Mortlocks and other leading houses, connected with Coalport or Coalbrookdale, who have had that mark used for some especial orders. The third and last is the most recent mark, and is almost the only one now used by the Coalport works: it embraces the initials of the various manufactories which have from time to time been incorporated with, or merged into, the Coalport establishment. Thus the scroll—which at first sight may, to the uninitiated, look like a short “and” (&)—will, on examination, be seen to be a combination of the writing letters, C and S, for Coalport and Salopian,[288] enclosing within its bows the three letters, C, S, and N, denoting respectively Caughley, Swansea, and Nantgarw.

Having now passed through the history of these famed works, and shown their connection with others, both in manufacture and in printing, it only remains to say a few words on the varieties of goods for which the Salopian works have been famed, both in times past and at present. First and foremost, then, of course, come the blue painted and printed wares copied from Chinese patterns, for which both it and the early Worcester works were remarkable. The first painted, as well as printed, wares were close imitations of the foreign; but groups of flowers of original design, &c., were also introduced, and designs based, perhaps, on foreign models were adopted. Groups of figures, in the characteristic costume of the period, were also executed with great taste and ability. Of the Chinese patterns, the two most famous—the well-known “willow pattern” (known generally among the trade as the “Broseley pattern”) and the “blue dragon” (also known as the “Broseley blue dragon”)—owe their first introduction to the Caughley works; and this fact alone is sufficient to entitle them to more than ordinary notice. The willow pattern has undoubtedly been the most popular, and had the most extensive sale of any pattern ever introduced. It has, of course, been made by most houses, but the credit of its first introduction belongs to Caughley; and early examples, bearing the Caughley mark—the cups without handles, and ribbed and finished precisely like the foreign—are rare. The dragon, known still as “the Broseley blue dragon” or “Broseley blue Canton,” was also a most successful imitation of the Chinese, and almost rivalled the “willow” in popularity. A special form of jug, considered in those days to be very far advanced in art, known technically as the “cabbage-leaf jug,” was also first made at the Caughley works.

Later on, the “worm sprig” pattern, the “tournay sprig,” and other equally successful patterns were here introduced from the Dresden, as were also the celebrated Dresden raised flowers and the “Berlin chain edge” pattern. About 1821 a peculiar marone-coloured ground, which is much sought after, was introduced at Coalport, by Walker, of Nantgarw, of whom I have before spoken; and at this time many marked improvements were made in the different processes of manufacture.

The copies, both in embossing, in body, in colour, and oiliness of[290] the glaze, and in style of painting of birds and flowers, of the Dresden at this period were perfect, and, as the Dresden mark was (perhaps injudiciously) introduced as well, were capable of deceiving even the most knowing connoisseur. It may be well to note that at this period an impressed anchor was sometimes used. This must not be taken to be anything more than a workman’s mark. Very successful copies of the Sèvres and Chelsea have also been at one time or other produced, and on these the marks of those makers have been also copied. Collectors of “old Chelsea,” especially of the famous green examples, must be careful, therefore, not to take everything for granted as belonging to that place on which the gold anchor is found.

The egg-shell china produced at Coalport is much finer than any other which has come under my notice, from the fact that the body is pure porcelain, being composed of one stone and one clay alone, unmixed with bone or any other material whatever.

Broseley.

Broseley Pipe Works.—Broseley is perhaps more universally known as a seat of the manufacture of tobacco-pipes than in any other way; for in this particular it has “held its own” against other localities for about three centuries, and seems still likely to do so for three centuries more, should the habit of smoking continue so long. As a few words must in the course of this work be said upon this branch of ceramic art, it may be well here to introduce it; and I cannot do better than give, in an abridged and altered form, what, some years ago, I drew up for the pages of the Reliquary.[85]

The period at which the introduction of tobacco into England took place is a vexed question, which it is not necessary here to attempt to solve. To Sir Walter Raleigh, Mr. Ralph Lane (his governor of Virginia, who returned to England in 1586), Sir John Hawkins (1565), Captain Price, Captain Keat, and others, have respectively been assigned the honour of its introduction and of its first use in this country. But, at whatever period tobacco was introduced, it must not, I think, be taken for granted that to that period the commencement of the habit of smoking must be ascribed. It may reasonably be inferred, from various circumstances, that herbs and leaves of one kind or other were smoked medicinally, in this country, long before the period at which tobacco is generally believed to have been first brought to England. Coltsfoot, yarrow, mouse-ear, and other plants are still smoked by the people, for various ailments, in rural districts, and are considered highly efficacious, as well as pleasant; and I have known them smoked through a stick from which the pith had been removed, the bowl being formed of a lump of clay rudely fashioned at the time, and baked at the fireside. I have no doubt that pipes were in use before “the weed” was known in our country, and that it took the place of other plants, but did not give rise to the custom of smoking.

It is difficult to assign dates to these early pipes, but the one represented in Fig. 645 is probably Elizabethan. It bears on its spur a rose. Mr. Crofton Croker considered that the smaller the pipe, the more distant its date, and therefore he assigned the diminutive example shown on Fig. 648, of its full size, to an early period. This idea, which originated in the knowledge that tobacco was an extremely expensive luxury when first imported, and as it gradually decreased in value allowed a larger indulgence to the smoker, will not, I think, hold good, for dated examples show that some of the later specimens are far less capacious than others which are of an undoubtedly earlier period. The form of the pipe is generally a better criterion of age than its size, though even this cannot always be depended upon. Adopting Mr. Croker’s arrangement as to periods, the following series of examples, partly selected from pipes in my own possession, will be useful to the collector, and enable him pretty accurately to appropriate any specimens which may come under his notice. The engravings are, of course, of a reduced size. Fig. 649 is of similar form to the one above; it is probably Elizabethan.

The next example Mr. Croker assigned to the period of James I.[293] or Charles I. It does not differ very materially in shape from the preceding specimens. Of pipes of this period, a large variety of shapes might be adduced. These forms may be understood from the figures in the accompanying group, copied from engravings of the period. The dates are, No. 1, 1630; 2, 1632; 3, 1640; 4, 1641. The latter example is of the same shape as those known to have been in use in the reign of Elizabeth, and is pretty nearly similar to Mr. Croker’s example. The same form is found in use through several reigns. The usual shape of the period, however, will be seen on Figs. 1, 2, and 3.

The barrel-shaped pipe, engraved as an example of the period comprising the Commonwealth and the reign of Charles II., is from Devonshire, and may be taken as the usual type of that era. Of this period, the examples given are chosen principally from Traders’ tokens. One (2) will be seen to be of the form usually ascribed to William III.’s reign. The dates of these specimens are 1, 1650; 2, 1666 (Dunstable); 3, 1688 (Chipping Norton); 4, probably same year (Southwark); 5, 1669 (Leeds). Pipes were made at Leeds from a peculiar vein of clay found there.

Mr. Croker considered the pipes of the reign of William III. to have had bowls of the elongated form (Figs. 662 and 663), and it would appear probable that this is correct, for at the places where his Dutch troops were stationed, the pipes of this and the accompanying form are most abundant. Barrel-shaped bowls were, however, still in use, and I have copied one from Mr. Fairholt’s book, on which the date 1689 is incised. That these long pipes were not imported in very large quantities, may be gleaned from the following highly interesting notice, which I quote from Houghton:—

From this it appears that, in 1694, only 110 gross, or four chests, of Dutch pipes were imported, and this included both sorts—the “very long ones and also small.” It is worthy of note, for comparison’s sake, that in the same year from Holland 12,000, and from Germany 23 tons, of “marbles for boys to play with,” were imported.

The long-bowled pipes continued in use to the middle of last[295] century, and representations of them may be found on engravings of the period, thus showing that they gradually merged from the bulbous into the elongated form of the time of William III., and so passed on to the wide-mouthed shape of the present day. The heel or spur also changed from the flat form—made to rest the pipe upon during or after use—to the long pointed one now so common, and which took its rise probably from the Dutch. It must be remembered, however, that the Dutch were originally indebted to England for the introduction of pipe-making into that country.

Usually the old pipes were perfectly plain, with the general exception of a milled border, impressed by hand, not in the mould, running round the mouth. It is also worthy of remark, that the bowls of many of the older pipes are scraped into form after having been moulded. Sometimes ornamented examples are met with, but they are of extremely rare occurrence. Mr. Croker had one which he considered to have been of foreign make, but which I think there is little doubt is of English manufacture: and the one in my own possession (Fig. 646) presents some very interesting features; in form it closely resembles one of the examples of James I. and Charles I., and I have no doubt, from the form of the letters, that I am right in appropriating it to that period.

It is not very easy to localise pipes, for but little is known of places where they were made, and the manufacture was of course of so small an extent that it is difficult to trace it. In November, 1601, Mr. Secretary Cecil alludes, in a speech, to a then existing patent of monopoly enjoyed by tobacco-pipe makers; and in 1619 the craft of pipemakers were incorporated, their privileges, according to Stowe, extending through the cities of London and Westminster, the kingdom of England, and dominion of Wales. They were governed by a master, four wardens, and about twenty-four assistants. These privileges were confirmed by subsequent monarchs. At Derby several generations of pipemakers have uninterruptedly carried on business, and it was in one of these ovens that the first pieces of Derby china were fired. The pipes made at Winchester were, in Ben Jonson’s time, great favourites; they were said to be the best then made, and far superior to those of Vauxhall and other places. In the neighbourhood of Bath, pipes were apparently made in the beginning of the seventeenth century, the makers’ names being Thomas Hunt, Henry Putley, Rich. Greenland, Rich. Tyler, and Jeffry Hunt; and some of the examples bear a shield with[296] a branch of the tobacco-plant. At Lichfield they were made to a large extent, as also at Newcastle-under-Lyme, and indeed they were produced in most parts of the country.

From the smallness of size of these early pipes has, I presume, arisen their common name of “Fairy Pipes,” varied sometimes into “Elfin Pipes,” “Mab Pipes,” “Danes Pipes,” etc. They are also sometimes called “Celtic” and “Old Man’s Pipes,” and I have heard them designated by the characteristic name of “Carls Pipes,” a name indicative of a belief in their ancient origin.[87] In Ireland, they are believed to have belonged to the Cluricanes, a kind of wild, mischievous fairy-demon, and when found are at once broken up by the superstitious “pisantry.” In England, they are said to have belonged to the fairies or “old men,” but, unlike their Irish brethren, our peasantry usually preserve them, and in some districts believe that a certain amount of good luck attends their possession. I have known one of these pipes carried about the person for years, and have heard its owner—a Peak-man—declare in his native dialect, on being asked to part with it, “Nay, a’d part wi’ a towth sowner!” A quantity of these “fairy pipes” were found in the parish of Old Swinford, Worcestershire, some few years ago, “and the country folks there had a tradition that it was a favourite spot for the resort of Queen Mab and her court, and that among other appendages of royalty was a fairy-pipe manufactory, of which these were the remains.”

Broseley has been so long famous for its tobacco-pipes, that a “Broseley” is a term familiar to smokers all over the world. That this locality should have been chosen as the place par excellence for their manufacture, is to be accounted for by the excellent clay of the district.

The white pottery found at Wroxeter is made of clay from the Severn Valley, and this shows that the Broseley or other clays were worked at a very early period of our history. The Shirlot clay, of which a few pipes were made at Shirlot and Much-Wenlock, is of a coarse texture, and very inferior to the Devon pipeclay, of which most are now made. This might lead us to suppose that the earliest manufacturers of pipes at first used the clay found in the neighbourhood, but discarded it for the purer clays which they obtained from Devonshire; but I feel assured the Shirlot and Wenlock pipes are[297] not of very ancient date. In the late Mr. Thursfield’s collection were many with marks on the spur. Some of these marks exhibit the maker’s name in full, some abbreviated, others initials only, and one has a gauntlet on the bowl, with S. D. (probably the initials of Samuel Decon, who was alive in 1729) on the spur; three bowls alone only bear dates, viz., Richard Legg, 1687; John Legg, 1687; and John Legg, 1696. These three are engraved on page 293. “I have carefully examined the Broseley parish register,” Mr. Thursfield informed me, “which dates back as early as 1572, and find in 1575, 17th Elizabeth (ten years before Sir Walter Raleigh introduced tobacco), that Richard Legg had a daughter baptized. I therefore consider him to be the father of Broseley pipemakers, for even at the present day some of his descendants follow the trade in this place—from various causes no longer as masters—and still bear the family names of Richard and John Legg. A stone slab let into the front of a substantial cottage, with the words ‘Richard Legg built this, 1716,’ testifies to the well-to-do position held by the family in the early part of the eighteenth century.” The name of Ben Legg also occurs on a pipe found in Worcestershire. The names of the pipemakers at Broseley, judging from the examples I have seen, appear to commence first as follows:—Clarke in 1647, Roden in 1681, Legg 1575, Darbey 1700, Decon 1608, Evans 1615, Hughes 1641, Hartshorne 1620, James 1600, Jones 1590, Price 1608, Partridge 1718, Overton 1700, Smith 1709, Shaw 1630, Wilksone 1733, and Ward 1700. Other names (Brown, Bradley, Dry, Hart, Harper, Overley, and Roberts, for instance) occur as pipemakers here in the olden time.

More than a hundred years ago, the pipemakers began to stamp their names and residences on the stems of the pipes instead of the spurs, the stems being, in many instances, 16 or 18 inches or more in length. They likewise made a small twist or bead mid stem, at such a length from the bowl, that when held between the fingers at that spot, the pipe was balanced.

A pipe-maker, named Noah Roden, brought the long pipes to great perfection, and supplied most of the London clubs and coffee-houses of that day; he died about 1829, and his business was carried on by the late William Southorn, who made great strides in improving the manufacture, and whose eldest son is now carrying on the famed business of maker of the patent and genuine “Real Broseleys.”

About the middle of last century, and since, the Rodens were famous makers of pipes at Broseley, and to them is due the introduction of “churchwardens” and “London straws,” and they were succeeded in the early part of this century by Mr. Southorn, father of the present well-known maker, Mr. Edwin Southorn. The works at present carried on by Mr. Edwin Southorn were established about 1830 by Noah Roden. In 1856 they passed into the hands of Mr. Southorn, and from that time forward their progress has been of marked improvement in every branch of the manufacture. In 1860 Mr. Southorn introduced the process of transfer printing upon pipes, the same as practised in other branches of ceramics. By this means the crests or armorial bearings, names, mottoes, or monograms of his patrons, trade marks or initials of firms, and signs and names of hotels and inns are produced, as are also other devices in colours. In 1868 Mr. Southorn introduced steam-power into his manufactory, and has rendered it available to all parts of his works; he is thus enabled to produce an enormous quantity, counting at the present time about 10,500 gross or 1,500,000 pipes in the course of a year. The “Broseleys” thus, not only in quantity but in quality—for they are the finest produced both in form, in quality of clay, in beauty of surface, and in manipulation of any made—surpass all others. In 1851, Mr. Southorn received honourable mention as “superior tobacco-pipes” at the Exhibition in that year. Mr. Southorn has also introduced the plan of dipping, or “tipping,” his pipes at the mouth-piece with green or any other coloured glaze, which is one of the most marked improvements of modern days.

The variety of pipes produced at these works is somewhat remarkable. Among these are “large bowls,” 21 inches long; “long plain,” 22 inches long; “long Broseley straws,” or “aldermen,” 27 inches long, “fit for an alderman or a king;” “long straws,” or “churchwardens,” 25 inches long, which Dr. Richardson, at the Bath meeting of the British Association, says are unquestionably the best of pipes; “London straws,” 16 inches; “Raleigh straws,” “Lord Crewes,” 27 inches long; “long Dutch straws,” 28 inches long; “short Broseley straws,” “short tips,” “plain tips,” “S. D. straws,” “dhudeens,” “peg-top straws,” “ovarium straws,” “billiard,” “cutty,” “yachting,” “Broseley meerschaums,” and a score of other kinds. One of the specialities, however, of Mr. Southorn’s productions is his “patent Broseley Narghilé.” In this “the pipe,[299] which is formed of clay noted for its fineness and remarkably porous qualities, is enclosed for a portion of its length in a glass tube, which is filled with water; and the action of the water is to draw away the colouring matter and narcotic poison from the smoke before reaching the smoker’s mouth. The proof of this is in the gradual colouring of the water; which may be readily discharged and the tube refilled. A further effect is coolness of the extremity. The glass tubes are supplied from the Broseley pipe works in every variety of style, and we have never seen so much fine art taste combined with utility as in these, some of them vieing with the ancient Venetian glass in the combination of opaque and clear, &c. It is to be understood that by the ‘Narghilé’ is meant the attachment, or tube containing water, which is removable at the pleasure of the holder; a title that serves to recall the luxurious and costly water-pipes of Turkey, to which, in all their best qualities, this patent completely answers. The ‘patent’ Broseley pipe is manufactured specially for the Narghilé, and is the only clay pipe for which it is adapted. It is evident that a clay, either more or less porous than are these tobacco-pipes, would be equally unsuitable; and what is very remarkable, and shows the perfection to which the manufacture has been carried, these pipes are uniform in porousness, in part due to their being manufactured of the very finest and purest clay.”

Many of the forms adopted by Mr. Southorn are adaptations of mediæval examples, and others are of the most artistic and elegant outline. The mark used by him is usually the name “E. SOUTHORN, BROSELEY,” impressed on the stem. Sometimes his name with the royal arms appears printed on the bowl.

The other pipemakers at Broseley at the present day are Mr. William Southorn, of the late firm of William Southorn and Co.; and Richard Tomkis; but of these it is not necessary to speak.

Coalbrookdale.

The terra cotta works belonging to the world-famed “Coalbrookdale Iron Company” were established in 1861. The beds of clay belonging to this company being peculiarly adapted for the finest and best kinds of terra cotta, they, in conjunction with others in the neighbourhood, undertook to prepare and send, for the Exhibition[301] of 1862, examples of goods made from the various clays of the Shropshire coal fields. The result of this determination was the establishment of this branch of the company’s manufacture, and, so far as it has been carried out, it has proved eminently successful. The colour of the terra cotta is a peculiarly light buff of a pleasing and soft tint; and the quality is of the highest order both for firmness, fineness, hardness, and durability. In it the company produce vases, tazzas, pedestals, brackets, pendants, flower-pots and boxes, chimney-pots, and every variety of architectural decoration. With their well-known skill in design, and with the talented artists they employ for their metal work, it may well be supposed that this company would produce striking and beautiful patterns in their vases and other ornamental goods; and such is the case. There is a peculiar sharpness and beauty in the details of many that is far superior to that produced by some other firms. Some of the designs will be seen in the accompanying engravings.

At Lightmoor, in the same neighbourhood, the Coalbrookdale Company have extensive works for the manufacture of moulded and other bricks in white, blue, and red clays; ornamental and plain roofing tiles, many of which are of very effective shapes; garden edgings and ridge tiles of every style of design, from a[302] simple bead to an elaborate Tudor ornament; paving tiles, &c. Nothing could better show the variety, the importance, and the high quality of the clays of this locality than do these varieties. The colour of the red quarries is rich, and improves with washing and wear, while their hardness is beyond any others. The roof tiles of this company are very extensively used (for instance, the Charterhouse Schools, near Godalming, are covered with them), and they have the reputation of being among the hardest and best produced.

Madeley.

A small manufactory of china was established and carried on for about a quarter of a century at Madeley, by Mr. Martin Randall, who served his apprenticeship at the Coalport works; his elder brothers, Edward and William Randall, having been apprenticed at Caughley. From Coalport Martin Randall went to the Derby China Works, where he remained for some time, and became the friend of two of their famed painters, Phillip Cleve and William Pegg. From Derby he removed to London, and entered into business with a Mr. Robins, at Islington. Upon a dissolution of partnership he came down to Madeley, and fixed himself in Park Place, where for a few years he confined himself to re-decorating Sèvres china, which was procured by agents; chiefly of Baldock and Garman, in Paris. White china was obtained where feasible; but when that could not be had, dessert, tea, and breakfast services, vases, wine coolers, jardinières, and other articles, ornamented simply with blue and gold lines, dots, or sprigs of flowers, were purchased; the latter of which were removed by fluoric acid, the glaze being so blended with the body that it gave back a new surface on being passed through the enamelling kiln. The gold was so thick on the pieces that it was usually peeled off with a knife, and was then sent to London to be again reduced by acid. At first Randall used a box[303] kiln, with charcoal; but afterwards erected an enamelling kiln, which he heated with billets of wood.

Mr. Randall soon afterwards removed from Park Lane to a larger house at the bottom of Madeley, where he erected enamelling kilns, and also a kiln which served for biscuit and glaze. His potters were Thomas Wheeler, who was thrower and turner; Francis Brewer, modeller; William Roberts, presser; and David Morris, fire-man. Mr. John Randall, nephew of Mr. T. M. Randall, was an apprentice to the painting, and Mr. Francis Brewer, now of the Tamworth Potteries, was an apprentice to the modelling. Mr. Randall took the decorating department, but he also employed as figure painter Mr. Philip Ballard, a son of Mr. S. Ballard, solicitor, Worcester, and brother to Mr. T. Ballard, R.A. Mr. R. B. Gray, artist, now of Dorking, and father of Mr. George Gray, A.R.A., and his son Robert were flower painters; and the late Mr. Enos Raby was ground-layer, colour-maker, and gilder. Mr. Randall’s want of experience in the processes of making led to frequent errors and losses, the latter being the greater from his constant desire to produce a body which should equal Nantgarrw and Sèvres. “Too much beer” on the part of a fire-man sometimes brought down the entire kiln of ware, so that the saggers disappeared below the trial-hole, and the pieces bulged like wax, till they became fast to each other, and assumed the most fantastic forms. Too much flint in the clay, at another time, produced a chalky absorbent body, that drank up so much glaze that when fired it would fly off in the form of small daggers whilst cooling, and continue to do so for weeks. Mr. Randall, however, kept his temper like a philosopher; and at length succeeded in producing the nearest approach to the old Sèvres of any at that time made in this kingdom. It had all the mellow transparency and richness, and the same capability of receiving the colours into the glaze, of that famous ware, and had this to such an extent that the most experienced connoisseurs found it impossible to distinguish between them, excepting by the mark, which no bribe would induce him to imitate; being a strict quaker, he had a conscientious objection to doing so. From Madeley, Mr. Randall removed his business to Shelton; and here it was that the late Mr. Herbert Minton was so struck with the beauty of his productions that he made overtures to him to join his firm, which, however, he did not do; and he soon afterwards retired from business, and went to live at Barlaston, near Trentham, where he[304] died, and was buried in a spot he had chosen for himself. Mr. Randall, who was uncle to Mr. John Randall, F.G.S., one of the celebrated painters of the Coalport works, used no mark.

Jackfield.

The Jackfield Pottery was one of the oldest in Shropshire, and is believed to have been worked for centuries. The potters had, at different times, probably from being expert hands, migrated into Staffordshire; and I am informed that, as early as 1560, several entries occur in the parish registers of Stoke-upon-Trent of people (potters, of course) as “from Jackfield.” A few years ago a coal-pit at Jackfield, which was known not to have been entered for nearly two centuries, was opened, and in it was found a small mug of brown earthenware, bearing the date 1634. The works were, probably not long after this period, carried on by a person of the name of Glover, who used the old salt glaze for his ware. He was succeeded by Mr. John Thursfield, son of Mr. John Thursfield of Stoke-upon-Trent, about the year 1713. This John Thursfield had married a daughter of Captain Webb, who had been in the wars under Marlborough and Prince Eugene, and had, while in the Low Countries, married a Dutch lady. In 1729 John Thursfield married a lady named Eleanor Morris, of Ferney Bank, who is curiously described in the Broseley register as a “sojoinner.” He died in 1751, leaving two sons—John, who built the works at Benthall; and Morris, who succeeded his father at Jackfield. The kind of ware made at Jackfield was a white stoneware, very similar to the Staffordshire make, and on some examples flowers and other ornaments were incised and coloured, that is, the outlines were cut in while the clay was soft, and the flowers and other ornaments touched afterwards with colour. Tiles of the kind usually known as “Dutch tiles” were also made. In 1763 Mr. Simpson carried on the pottery at Jackfield, and made yellow ware, and a ware the body of which was pipeclay and glazed with salt. This he sent down the Severn to the Bristol Channel for export to America—a trade which the American war of independence put an end to. Maurice Thursfield made at Jackfield a very superior black ware, highly vitrified and glazed; indeed, so highly glazed was it that it had all the outward appearance of glass. The forms, and the potting of these articles, locally known as “black decanters,” were remarkably good, and on some specimens which I have seen ornaments have been judiciously introduced. On[305] one, in the possession of the late Richard Thursfield, Esq., of Broseley, a head and wreath are executed in gold and colour; and on others, paintings in oils, both portraits and views, and raised ornaments, are introduced. Some good examples are preserved in the Museum of Practical Geology. Maurice Thursfield died in America, where he had, it appears, considerable business connections.

In these works Mr. Rose, in conjunction with a Mr. Blakeway, soon after the death of Maurice Thursfield, began making china. The works were not, however, carried on long, but were removed to Coalport, on the opposite side of the Severn, where they were begun in some buildings which had formerly been a pottery (I believe belonging to a Mr. Young, a mercer of Shrewsbury), and where they have continued uninterruptedly to the present day.

In the early part of this century a pottery—spoken of in 1836 as the “new pottery”—was established here by Mr. John Myatt, for brown and yellow stone-wares. Here, too, at the same time, near the Calcuts, extensive brick and tile-works were then and still are carried on.

Jackfield Encaustic Tiles.—Many years ago Mr. Peter Stephan (still at this date a modeller at Coalport), son of Stephan the potter, who was a Frenchman, and at one time at Derby and afterwards of Jackfield, where he had a small pottery, produced some strikingly good arabesque patterns in blue printing. His mark was an anchor with cable, impressed in the body of the ware; and also the crest of an anchor on an heraldic roll, with his name above (see Figs. 683 and 684), and printed in blue on the bottom of the ware. His pieces are of rare occurrence. He also made encaustic tiles. These were the first made in this district.

The Jackfield Works.—The site of the present works carried on by Craven, Dunnill, & Co., for the manufacture of Encaustic and Geometrical tiles, is that of the above old pottery in Jackfield, in which Hargreaves and Craven for several years made geometrical tiles by the clay-dust process, and encaustic tiles from plastic clay; but the buildings being old and dilapidated, Mr. H. P. Dunnill formed a limited liability company, consisting of seven shareholders,[306] for rebuilding and carrying on the concern. The old buildings were taken down, a considerable extent of land added to the premises, and on this land the present handsome new works were erected. They now cover an extent of nearly two acres of ground, and are fitted with machinery and arrangements specially adapted to the requirements of the trade, each department succeeding the other in perfect rotation; so that the clay goes into the blunging-house at one point, from thence into the slip-kilns, mill-room, damping-houses, press-shops, encaustic rooms, drying-stove, seggar-house, firing and glaze-kilns, sorting-house, warehouses, packing-room, and finally, having in the various processes gone the circuit of the manufactory, passes into the railway lurries to be conveyed to various parts of the kingdom and abroad. The fine clays of Jackfield and Broseley are largely used in the manufacture, and within the grounds of the works there is a pit in which, from a depth of thirty-five yards, is brought up by steam-power a beautiful red clay, of very fine tone of colour. The firm justly pride themselves on the colour and quality of their plain tiles; and the hardness of their buff tiles—a point much desired by the trade—is very noticeable. The colour and hardness of body of their dove tiles are also very apparent. In encaustic tiles many beautiful designs by Waterhouse,[307] Goldie, Gibbs, Bentley, and other architects are produced. At the instance of one of the firm, Mr. A. H. Brown, M.P. for Wenlock, a noticeable arrangement has been made in the interest of the work-people. Any profit made after ten per cent. paid to the proprietors is equally divided between them and the work-people, and the latter have thus a direct interest to do their work in the best manner, so as to add to the reputation of the firm. Glazed tiles for hearths, of great variety and beauty of pattern, are made here, and also glazed wall tiles in white, cream, celadon, and other tones. The company also produce majolica tiles of the richest class, with an endless variety of printed, painted, and art tiles for decorative purposes. The quality of the tiles is remarkably good; the colours are pure and clear, the body hard and durable, and the glaze firm. Many of the patterns are of extreme beauty and excellence. The marks adopted, impressed on the back of the tiles, are—

Benthall Works.—The manufactory of encaustic tiles, mosaics, and majolica, which has for the last twenty-two years been carried on by Messrs. Maw, at the Benthall works, near Broseley, was initiated at Worcester (as named in my account of the works of Mr. St. John in that city) in the year 1850, where Messrs. Maw commenced experimenting on the processes of manufacture on the premises formerly occupied by the Worcester Porcelain Manufactory, when under the hands of Messrs. Flight and Barr, and afterwards used for the production of encaustic tiles by my late friend Mr. Fleming St. John and his partners, by whom the moulds, &c., which had been used by them in the manufacture of encaustic tiles were sold to Messrs. Maw. These gentlemen at once saw that a much wider field was open to them in the production of tiles than had previously been attempted at Worcester. In 1852, Messrs. Maw, feeling the necessity for carrying on the manufacture[309] in a neighbourhood which would produce both the coal and the clay, abandoned the works at Worcester, and removed their moulds, plant, &c., to the Benthall works, near Broseley, where another seven years was spent by them in a series of costly experiments with no immediate profit except the experience gained by which they have subsequently built up the business. Their first effort was to thoroughly investigate and experiment upon the clays of the Shropshire coal-field, as well as the plastic materials found throughout the kingdom, many of which no one had before attempted to turn to economic account.

The results of these experiments have been illustrated in an extensive series of specimens of the clays or plastic slates of Great Britain presented by Mr. Geo. Maw, F.S.A., to the Government Museum of Practical Geology, in Jermyn Street, and printed in the supplement to the catalogue by Sir H. De La Beche and Mr. Trenham Reeks. In 1857, after all these years of patient labours, the manufacture was commenced on a commercial scale, which for several years barely paid its expenses; but from that time to the present continual additions have been made to the works to meet the increasing demand for their productions. In 1871 supplementary works were commenced at the Tuckies, about two miles from the Benthall works, celebrated as the spot where the late Lord Dundonald carried on his experiments in the manufacture of coal-gas.

Messrs. Maw have from the first laid themselves out for applying the very highest art and architectural talents to their manufactures, and, in 1856, commissioned Mr. M. D. Wyatt to design a series of patterns of geometrical mosaic, which were issued as a small lithographed volume of fourteen pages. This little book, which first established their reputation as art manufacturers, was subsequently superseded by a much larger volume, published in 1867, including the designs of Digby Wyatt, George[310] Goldie, J. P. Seddon, George E. Street, J. Burgess, and others, as well as the reproduction of all the best obtainable examples of ancient tiles, geometrical, and Roman mosaic, majolica, &c.

In 1851 Messrs. Maw began the manufacture of plain tiles, geometrical mosaic, and the ordinary encaustic tiles of two colours, to which their productions were for several years limited: but since 1857 their progress has been marked by the continual grafting on of specialities, the yearly production of new colours, and new phases of ceramic art applied to tiles. In 1861 they commenced the manufacture of very small tesseræ for the formation of pictorial mosaics, and produced for the Exhibition of 1862 their well-known mosaic of “The Seasons,” here engraved (Fig. 695), and which is now in the South Kensington Museum, from a design expressly made for them by Digby Wyatt. The result was so successful that Mr. Wyatt commissioned Messrs. Maw to execute a mosaic frieze for the inner quadrangle of the New India Office.

The production of coloured enamels for the surface decoration of majolica tiles next occupied their attention, and after years of experimenting, all the colours employed in the ancient tiles of Spain or Italy were successfully reproduced, as well as others which were unknown to the mediæval and Moorish manufacturers.

A stone chimney-piece, enriched with tiles executed for the International Exhibition of 1862, was their first attempt in the application of enamels and majolica in architectural work. Shortly afterwards the successful decoration of ceilings was carried out in the corridors of the India Office. And now the production of majolica tiles and enamelled terra cotta for all kinds of internal and external decoration forms an important branch of Messrs. Maw’s manufacture. Among the more important of their works in enamelled terra cotta may be mentioned the beautiful staircase executed for Sir D. Majoribanks, a portion of which was exhibited in the International Exhibition of 1871, and the chimney-pieces manufactured for the board-room of the South Kensington Museum, and the Museum of Science and Art, at Edinburgh. Messrs. Maw were the first in this country to produce the transparent celeste, or turquoise blue, employed in ancient Chinese enamels, specimens of which were exhibited in the Paris Exhibition of 1867.

Among their more recent productions may be mentioned tesseræ for mosaic work, decorated with rich enamels; embossed tiles; “sgrafito,” a ware the decoration of which is produced by the cutting away of superimposed layers of different coloured clays, after the fashion of cameo carving; “slip painting,” the production of a pattern by the painting of liquid clay on a ground of another[312] colour, and the whole glazed over, after the first burning, with transparent coloured enamels; “pâte sur pâte,” tiles in which the design in high relief is superimposed on a ground of a different colour; mixed coloured glasses and enamels for the decoration of pottery, by which the most subtle and brilliant effects are produced; terra cotta and Parian plant-markers, forming an economical and indestructible substitute for the old wooden and iron name tallies. On these the names of trees and shrubs are written in a permanent black enamel and burnt in.

The special processes employed by Messrs. Maw have been made the subject of a number of patents, among which may be mentioned their mill machinery, used in the preparation of clay for the manufacture of tiles by Prosser’s process; the steam blunger, by which the rough clay is levigated, sifted, and refined ready for drying on the slip-kilns, without the intervention of manual labour; the manufacture of encaustic tiles out of pulverised nearly dry clay, and their patent press worked by steam power for the pressing of tiles, which is the only successful application of steam power to screw presses which has yet been attained.

The geometric and tesselated pavements produced by Messrs. Maw are of the most elegant, elaborate, and beautiful character, and the tesseræ and tiles of which they are composed are made with the utmost mechanical accuracy, and of the finest quality both in body, in colours, and in glaze. The patterns they have prepared are of exquisite beauty and of endless variety, and suitable for every possible purpose both for public and private buildings.

The encaustic, or figured tiles, for pavements, are also a great speciality of Messrs. Maw’s works, and are, like those of other makers, produced in immense variety and in large quantities. They are made in two, three, four, or more colours combined, the colours used being buff or yellow, red, black, blue, chocolate, white, cream, fawn, green, &c., and of various sizes, the usual dimensions being 6 and 4¼ inches square. The patterns are, in many instances, taken from the best remaining ancient examples, and in others have been specially designed for Messrs. Maw by Sir Digby Wyatt, Owen Jones, and the best authorities of the day; and many of the pavements thus produced are matchless both in design, in general effect, and in beauty and brilliancy of colour. Messrs. Maw are not content with producing simple quarries, to be arranged in the usual varieties of ways, but they have introduced[315][314] entire pavements, over which is spread one grand design covering its entire surface; many entire patterns occupying not the usual old numbers of 4, 9, 12, 16, or 24 tiles, but 144 and other numbers. These are peculiarly rich and effective, and particularly well adapted for halls, vestibules, corridors, &c.

The enamelled hearth-pavements and wall-tiles are another[316] great speciality of these works, and are of unsurpassable richness and beauty, as are also their majolica tiles and fire-place linings. These are produced in every possible variety, and are remarkable not only for the richness and delicacy of the colours which are used, and for their purely artistic and masterly combination, but for the excellence of both body and glaze, and the scrupulous accuracy of forms for fitting together. The same remark applies to the embossed and indented tiles, and also to those which are partially pierced for open work. They are all equally good, and bear evidence of that thorough appreciation of art which pervades all the productions of the Benthall works. The engravings (Figs. 702 and 703) show two of their majolica chimney-pieces. The first is of the finest majolica, with a fire-place lining of encaustic, or enamel, tiles, which would also be used for the hearth. The decorations are in high and bold relief, and being coloured with pure artistic taste, have a charming and very striking effect. It is 4 feet 8 inches in height, and 7 feet in width, and is, of course, furnished with a marble shelf at the top—which, however, is not shown in the illustration.

The next shows another of these chimney-pieces entirely complete;[317] it is, like the other, of majolica. The ornaments are in bold relief, set off with an excellent arrangement of groundwork and colour; the hearth is formed of encaustic, or enamelled, or mosaic tiles; and the fender is of majolica.

Another branch of ceramics—that of “Art Pottery”—has recently been added to Messrs. Maw’s manufactory. This is the production of vases, &c., in majolica, a branch which they are eminently qualified to bring to perfection. In this branch vases, tazzas, and other articles, more or less decorated with raised or surface ornamentation, are produced. They are of excellent design, the body light but compact, and the decorations of remarkably good and artistic character.

Broseley.

The Broseley Tileries, at Broseley, are said to be the oldest brick and tile works in the district, and they have for more than a century been in the hands of the family of the present proprietor, Mrs. Penelope Jane Thorn. They are now under the management of Mr. H. M. Bathurst. The goods produced are encaustic and geometrical glazed and unglazed tiles, ornamental ridge tiles, roofing and pavement tiles of various kinds, sanitary pipes, &c.

Benthall Potteries.—These works, carried on by the “Benthall Pottery Company,” under the management of Mr. Allen, produce the ordinary yellow and other common wares.

Coalmoor.

At Coalmoor, near Horsehay, a pottery of common coarse ware formerly existed. The hovels are still standing, but converted to other purposes.

One of the names most intimately connected with the early history of the porcelain manufactures of this kingdom is that of William Cookworthy, to whom that art is indebted for the discovery of the two most important of its ingredients, the native kaolin and the petuntse, and to whose successful experiments and labours its excellence was and is in a great measure to be attributed. At the time when he first made his experiments—although Dwight had patented his invention for making transparent porcelain, although Van Hamme and others had also secured their rights for similar purposes, although Chelsea and other places made their china (it is said) of Chinese materials, and although many experiments had been made on the nature and properties of the earths supposed to be employed for its manufacture—the art of china-making from native materials was unknown; and Cookworthy pursued his course of study unaided by the experience of others, and, though beset with difficulties at every turn, brought it to a perfectly successful and satisfactory issue. The history of these experiments, and the life of this man, are the history of the Plymouth works. The one is inseparable from the other. The history of the works is the story of the life of Cookworthy, and the story of that life is the origin, the success, and the close of those works. The narrative of William Cookworthy, then, must be the thread of my present history.

William Cookworthy was born at Kingsbridge, not many miles from Plymouth, on the 12th of April, 1705, his parents being William and Edith Cookworthy, who were Quakers. His father was a weaver, and died, leaving his family but ill provided for, in 1718. Thus young Cookworthy, at the age of thirteen, and with[319] six younger brothers and sisters—for he was the eldest of the family of seven—was left fatherless. His mother entered upon her heavy task of providing for and maintaining her large family with true courage, and appears to have succeeded in working out a good position for them all. She betook herself to dressmaking, and as her little daughters grew old enough to handle the needle, they were taught to aid her, and thus she maintained them in comparative comfort. In the following spring, at the age of fourteen, young Cookworthy was apprenticed to a chemist in London, named Bevans; but his mother’s means being too scanty to admit of his being sent to the metropolis in any other way, he was compelled to walk there on foot. This task, no light one in those days, a hundred and fifty years ago, or now, for a boy of fourteen, he successfully accomplished.

His apprenticeship he appears to have passed with extreme credit, and on its termination returned into Devonshire, not only with the good opinion, but with the co-operation of his late master, and commenced business in Nutt Street, Plymouth, as wholesale chemist and druggist, under the name of Bevans and Cookworthy. Here he gradually worked his way forward, and became one of the little knot of intelligent men who in those days met regularly together at each other’s houses, of whom Cookworthy, Dr. Huxham, Dr. Mudge, and the elder Northcote, were among the most celebrated. Here he brought his mother to live under his roof, and she became by her excellent and charitable character a general favourite among the leading people of the place, and was looked up to with[320] great respect by the lower classes whom she benefited. In 1735 Cookworthy married a young Quaker lady of Somersetshire, named Berry. This lady, to whom he seems to have been most deeply attached, lived only ten years after their marriage, and left him with five little daughters; and Cookworthy remained a widower for the remaining thirty-five years of his life.

In 1745 his attention seems first to have been seriously directed to experimenting in the manufacture of porcelain—at all events, in this year the first allusion to the matter which is made in his letters and papers occurs, and this only casually. In the following letter, written to his friend and customer, “Richard Hingston, Surgeon, in Penryn,” and dated May 5th, 1745, this allusion will be found.

The letter is addressed “For Richard Hingston, Surgeon, in Penryn,” and is followed by an invoice of goods sent by “Bevans and Cookworthy.”

At this time the business was still carried on under the style of “Bevans and Cookworthy.” The death of his wife, which took place within a few months of the writing of this letter, entirely took away his attention from business, and his researches into china clays were thrown aside. He retired into seclusion at Looe, in Cornwall, where he remained for several months, and, on his return to business, took his brother Philip, who, it appears, had lately returned from abroad, into partnership, and carried it on, with him under the style of “William Cookworthy & Co.” This arrangement enabled Cookworthy to devote his time to the scientific part of the business, and to the prosecution of his researches, while his brother took the commercial management of the concern. Left thus more to the bent of his scientific inclinations, he pursued his inquiries relative to the manufacture of porcelain, and lost no opportunity of searching into and experimenting upon the properties of the different natural productions of Cornwall; and it is related of him that, in his journeys into that county, he has passed many nights sitting up with the managers of mines, obtaining information on matters connected with mines and their products. In the course of these visits he first became acquainted with the supposed wonderful properties of the “Divining Rod,” or “Dowsing Rod,” as it was[322] called by the Cornish miners, in the discovery of ore of various kinds.

In the magic properties of this rod he was an ardent believer, and he wrote an elaborate dissertation upon its uses, which has been published. It is entitled “Observations on the Properties of the Virgula Divina,” and contains, from beginning to end, such a series of statements as would do well to go side by side with the tales of spririt-rapping in our day, and which make one wonder at the amount of credulity that a clever man may occasionally exhibit. So ardent a believer was he in the value of this rod, that he did not hesitate to uphold it in the presence of men of high scientific attainments, and to carry on experiments occasionally to prove to them its correctness. As might be expected, on most occasions these experiments failed, but the operator had always some good reason ready to be assigned for the mishap. On one occasion, after having warmly descanted on its properties to Dr. Mudge and Dr. Johnson, he agreed to try in his own garden the experiment as to whether any metal was to be found beneath its surface, affirming that if metal, whether large or small in quantity, and at whatever depth, existed, the rod would immediately indicate its whereabouts. The doctors having previously taken the precaution to have one of Cookworthy’s large iron mortars, used in his laboratory, buried in one corner of the garden, unknown to him, the examination with the rod was gravely made, and resulted in Cookworthy triumphantly affirming that no metal existed on the spot. The learned doctors then, in his presence, dug out the mortar to prove that he was wrong, and had signally failed in his trial. Cookworthy, nothing disconcerted, however, immediately exclaimed, “Ah, that’s an amalgam! my rod has no sympathy with amalgams,” and thus spoiled their joke, and kept his own position at the same time.

His journeys into Cornwall, however, were productive of much more important results than the fabulous properties of the divining rod, for it was in these journeys that he succeeded in discovering, after much anxious inquiry and research, the materials for the manufacture of genuine porcelain. The information given him by the “Quaker” in 1745 had never been lost sight of, and he prosecuted inquiries wherever he went. After many searchings and experiments, he at length discovered the two materials, first in Tregonnin Hill, in Germo parish; next in the parish of St. Stephen’s; and again at Boconnoc, the family seat of Thomas Pitt, Lord Camelford.[323] There is a kind of traditionary belief that he first found the stone he was anxious to discover in the tower of St. Columb Church, which is built of stone from St. Stephen’s, and which thus led him to the spot where it was to be procured. At this time he lodged at Carlogges, in St. Stephen’s parish, with a Mr. Yelland, and was in the habit of going about the neighbourhood with his “dowsing rod,” in search of mineral treasures. This discovery would probably be about 1754 or 1755.

Having made this important discovery, Cookworthy appears to have determined at once to carry out his intention of making porcelain, and to secure the material to himself. To this end he went to London to see the proprietors of the land, and to arrange for the royalty of the materials. In this he succeeded; and ultimately Lord Camelford joined him in the manufacture of china, and, as appears from a letter of that nobleman to Polwhele, the historian of Cornwall, the two expended about three thousand pounds in prosecuting the work. The letter of Lord Camelford, which is dated “Boconnoc, Nov. 30, 1790,” is as follows:—

It will be seen that Lord Camelford in this letter says that the discovery was made by a friend of Cookworthy’s. Whether this were so or not is matter of little consequence, but it is due to Cookworthy, who was strictly conscientious and scrupulously honest and straightforward in all his transactions, to say that he has left it on record that he himself made the discovery, as will be seen by the following highly interesting paper written by him, but unfortunately without date:—

“It is now near twenty years since I discovered that the ingredients used by the Chinese in the composition of their porcelain, were to be got, in immense quantities, in the county of Cornwall; and as I have since that time, by abundance of experiments, clearly proved this to the entire satisfaction of many ingenious men, I was willing this discovery might be preserved to posterity, if I should not live to carry it into a manufacture; and, with this view, I have thought proper to put in writing, in a summary way, all I have discovered about this matter.

[324]

“The account of the materials used by the Chinese is very justly given by the Jesuit missionaries, as well as their manner of preparing and mixing them into the China-ware paste. They observe, the Chinese have two sorts of bodies for porcelain; one prepared with Petunse and Caulin, the other with Petunse and Wha She or Soapy Rock. The Petunse they describe to be prepared from a quarry stone of a particular kind, by beating it in stamping-mills, and washing off and settling the parts which are beaten fine. This ingredient gives the ware transparency and mellowness, and is used for glazing it. The stone of this Petunse is a species of the granite, or, as we in the west call it, the moor-stone.

“I first discovered it in the parish of Germo, in a hill called Tregonnin Hill; the whole country in depth is of this stone. It reaches, east and west, from Breag to Germo, and north and south, from Tregonnin Hill to the sea. From the cliffs some of this stone hath been brought to Plymouth, where it was used in the casemates of the garrison; but I think the best quarries are in Tregonnin Hill. The stone is compounded of small pellucid gravel, and a whitish matter, which, indeed, is Caulin petrified; and as the Caulin of Tregonnin Hill hath abundance of mica in it, this stone hath them also. If the stone is taken a fathom or two from the surface, where the rock is quite solid, it is stained with abundance of greenish spots, which are very apparent when it is wetted. This is a circumstance noted by the Jesuits, who observe that the stones which have the most of this quality are the most proper for the preparation of the glaze; and I believe this remark is just, as I know that they are the most easily vitrifiable, and that a vein of this kind in Tregonnin Hill is so much so that it makes an excellent glaze without the addition of vitrescent ingredients. If a small crucible is filled up with this stone, or a piece of it put in it, and exposed to the most violent fire of a good wind furnace for an hour, the stone will be melted into a beautiful mass; all its impurities will be discharged, one part of it will be almost of a limpid transparency, and the other appear in spots as white as snow. The former is the gravel, the other the Caulin, reduced by fire to purity. If the fire is not continued long enough to effect this, the upper part and middle of the mass will be of a dirty colour, and the bottom and parts of the sides fine.

“CAULIN.

“This material, in the Chinese way of speaking, constitutes the bones, as the Petunse does the flesh, of china ware. It is a white talcy earth, found in our granite countries, both in the counties of Devon and Cornwall. It lies in different depths beneath the surface. Sometimes there shall be a fathom or more of earth above it, and at other times two or three feet. It is found on the sides of hills, and in valleys; in the sides, where, following the course of the hills, the surface sinks, or is concave, and seldom, I believe, or never where it swells, or is convex. By what I have observed, it is by no means a regular stratum, but is rather in bunches or heaps, the regular continuance of which is frequently interrupted by gravel and other matters. At times there are veins of it among the solid rocks, when it is constantly very pure from gravel. I have a piece by me of this kind, very fine.

“There are inexhaustible stores of this Caulin in the two western counties. The use it’s commonly put to is in mending the tin furnaces and the fire-places of the fire-engines, for which ’tis very proper. The sort I have chiefly tried is what is got from the side of Tregonnin Hill, where there are several pits of it. As the stone hath a pretty large quantity of Caulin in it, so the Caulin hath a large mixture of the same sort of gravel as enters into the composition of the stone. It contains, besides, mica in abundance.

“In order to prepare the Caulin for porcelain, nothing more is necessary but pouring a large quantity of water on it, so that it may not, when dissolved, be of so thick a consistence as to suspend the mica. Let it settle about ten minutes, and pour off the dissolved clay into another vessel. Let it settle, pour off the water, and dry it. I will observe here, that care ought to be taken about the water used in washing off both the Petunse and Caulin. It ought to be pure, without any metallic or calcareous mixture. Our rivers in the west afford excellent water for this purpose, as they arise, the most of them, and run through a granite country. The Caulin of Tregonnin Hill is very unvitrifiable, and exceedingly apt to take stains from the fire. I know no way to burn it clean but the following:—Form it into cakes of the thickness of two or three crown pieces, and beat some of the stone to a very coarse powder; cover the bottom of the crucible with this powder; then put in a cake of the Caulin; cover this the thickness of one-third of an inch with the powder of stone; fill the crucible in this way, ending with a layer of[325] the stone; cover the crucible, and treat it as in the process for melting the stone before described. If the stone is burned to purity, the Caulin will be as white as snow; if but partially calcined, so far as the stone is pure, the Caulin will be so; and when that is of a dirty colour, the Caulin will be of the same hue.

“I have lately discovered that, in the neighbourhood of the parish of St. Stephen’s, in Cornwall, there are immense quantities both of the Petunse stone and the Caulin, and which, I believe, may be more commodiously and advantageously wrought than those of Tregonnin Hill, as, by the experiments I have made on them, they produce a much whiter body, and do not shrink so much, by far, in baking, nor take stains so readily from the fire. Tregonnin Hill is about a mile from Godolphin House, between Helston and Penzance. St. Stephen’s lies between Truro, St. Austel, and St. Columb; and the parish of Dennis, the next to St. Stephen’s, I believe, hath both the ingredients in plenty in it. I know of two quarries of the stone—one is just above St. Stephen’s, the other is called Caluggus, somewhat more than a mile from it, and appears to be the finer stone.

“Having given this sketch of the natural history of the materials, ’tis needless to say much about the composition. Pottery being at present in great perfection in England, our potters’-mills prepare the Petunse much better than stamping mills, and excuse one from the trouble of washing it off, it being fit to be used as it comes from the mill. I would further observe that the mills should be made of the Petunse granite, it being obvious that, in grinding, some of the mill-stones must wear off and mix with the Petunse. If those stones should be of a nature disagreeable to the body, this mixture must, in some degree, be hurtful to it; whereas, whatever wears off from mill-stones of the same stone, cannot be so in the least degree. I have generally mixed about equal parts of the washed Caulin and Petunse for the composition of the body, which, when burnt, is very white, and sufficiently transparent. The Caulin of St. Stephen’s burns to a degree of transparency without the addition of Petunse. The materials from this place make a body much whiter than the Asiatic, and, I think, full as white as the ancient chinaware, or that of Dresden.

“The stones I have hitherto used for glazing are those with the green spots of Tregonnin Hill. These, barely ground fine, make a good glaze. If ’tis wanted softer, vitrescent materials must be added. The best I have tried are those said to be used by the Chinese, viz., lime and fern-ashes, prepared as follows:—The lime is to be slacked by water, and sifted. One part of this, by measure, is to be mixed with twice its quantity of fern-ashes, and calcined together in an iron pot, the fire to be raised till the matter is red hot. It should not melt, and for that reason should be kept continually stirred. When it sinks in the pot, and grows of a light ash colour, ’tis done. It then must be levigated in the potter’s mill to perfect smoothness. It may be used in proportion of one part to ten, and so on to fifteen or twenty of the stone, as shall be found necessary. We found one to fifteen of the stone a very suitable proportion. Our manner of mixing was to dilute both the stones and the ashes to a proper degree for dipping, and then to mix them as above. On mixing, the whole grows thicker. If ’tis too thick for dipping, more water must be added. Our method of dipping was just the same as is used by the delft-ware people. We first baked our ware to a soft biscuit, which would suck, then painted it with blue, and dipped them with the same ease; and the glazing grows hard and dry, as soon as it does in the delft-ware. Large vessels may be dipped raw, as the Chinese are said to do it. But the proper thickness of the glaze is not so easily distinguished this way, as when the ware is biscuited; for, the raw body being of the same colour and consistence with the glaze, when the latter is dry, ’tis hardly possible to determine the limits of either; a thing very easy to be done when the body is hardened by biscuiting. Our chinaware makers in general deny it to be possible to glaze on a raw body or soft biscuit. And so it is with their glaze; which, abounding in lead and other fluxing materials, melts soon and runs thin, and, melting before the body closes, penetrates it, and is lost in the body, whereas our stone is almost as hard to melt as the body is to close; and, not melting thin, neither runs nor penetrates the body. I insist on the truth of this observation, and ’tis necessary to be insisted on, as scarcely any of our potters, misled by too slavish dependence on their own too partial experience, will allow it. I have said above that the Jesuits observe that the Chinese paint and glaze their ware on the raw body. I know this can be done, for I have done it; and so may anyone else who pleases to try it. I have now by me the bottom of a Chinese punch-bowl, which was plainly glazed, when it was raw, or a soft biscuit; for the ware wants a great deal of being burnt, it being of the colour of coarse whited-brown paper. But the same body, when exposed[326] to a proper degree of fire, turns to a chinaware of a very good colour—a demonstration that it had not, as our ware in England hath, the great fire before the glaze was laid on. I don’t point out the advantages of painting and glazing on a soft biscuit, as they are very obvious to anyone, ever so little used to pottery.

“In regard to burning, I have to remark, that by all the experiments we have made, the north of England kilns, where the fire is applied in mouths on the outside of the kilns, and the fuel is coal, will not do for our body, at least when it is composed of the materials of Tregonnin Hill.

“In those kilns especially, when bags are used, there is no passage of air through the middle of the kiln; and a vapour, in spite of all the care that can be taken, will either transpire through the bags, or be reflected from the crown, which will smoke and spoil our ware, though it doth not appear to affect other compositions. How true this remark may be, with regard to the St. Stephen’s materials I cannot determine, as they have not yet been tried in a kiln. The only furnace or kiln which we have tried with any degree of success, is the kiln used by the potters who make brown stone. It is called the 36-hole kiln. Wood is the fuel used in it. They burn billets before and under it, where there is an oven or arch pierced by 36-holes, through which the flame ascends into the chamber which contains the ware, and goes out at as many holes of the same dimensions in the crown of the furnace. The safeguards at bottom stand on knobs of clay, which won’t melt, about two inches square, and two inches and a half or three inches high; by which means more of the holes are stopped by the bottoms of the safeguard, but the air and flame freely ascend, and play round every safeguard; by which means those tingeing vapours, which have given us so much trouble, are kept in continual motion upward, and hindered from penetrating and staining the ware.

“Experience must determine the best form and way of using this kiln. ’Tis the only desideratum wanting to the bringing of the manufacture of porcelain, equal to any in the world, to perfection in England.

“Caulin pipeclay and a coarse unvitrifiable sand make excellent safeguards.”

The experiments on the Cornish materials having been perfectly successful, Cookworthy established himself as a china manufacturer at Plymouth. The works were at Coxside, at the extreme angle which juts into the water at Sutton Pool. Some parts of the buildings still exist, and are used as a shipwright’s yard. They are still known by the name of the “China House,” and it is really pleasant to find that a memory of these once celebrated works is yet retained on the spot where they were carried on. It is strange, however, to think that the same building which was used for the fabricating of the finest and most delicate and fragile articles, should now be used for the constructing of huge seaworthy vessels, which can withstand the force of the waves, and bear heavy burthens in safety across the seas, whether in calm or storm.

In these works Cookworthy prosecuted his new art with great success, and was soon enabled to enter the market with Englishmade hard-paste china, composed of native materials alone. The early examples are, as is natural to expect, very coarse, rough, and inferior, but they evidence, nevertheless, considerable skill in mixing, though not so much, perhaps, in firing. And they are also remarkable for their clumsiness, as well as for their bad colour, their uneven[327] glazing, and their being almost invariably disfigured by fire cracks—if nowhere else, almost invariably at the bottom. On many of the pieces the colour (blue) on which the pattern was drawn, has “run” in the glazing, and thus disfigured the pieces. As examples of the early make of Plymouth, an inkstand belonging to Mrs. Lydia Prideaux, of Plymouth, is an excellent specimen. It was for many years the office inkstand of her father, who died in 1796, and was got by him from the son of a workman in the china factory. It is very clumsy in make, of coarse body, rough in the glaze, uneven in colour, and is, perhaps, one of the best and most characteristic existing specimens of the early make of Plymouth. It is circular, nearly five and a half inches in diameter; around the top is a border in blue, and round the hollowed sides are octagonal spaces with Chinese figures and landscapes, connected together by a diapered band, all in blue. The inkstand bears the usual Plymouth mark on the bottom, in blue.

Another early example worthy of note is a pounce-pot, formerly in the possession of the late Mr. James, of Bristol. Like the inkstand and other early examples, it is coarse in texture, rough on the surface, and imperfect in the glaze. It is painted with flowers in blue, and has the mark also in blue on the bottom.

As on the earliest productions of all the old china works, the decorations on the Plymouth examples are invariably blue; the blue at first being of a heavy, dull, blackish shade, but gradually improving, until, on some specimens which I have seen, it had attained a clear brilliance. Cookworthy, being a good chemist, paid considerable attention to the producing of a good blue, and was the first who succeeded in this country in manufacturing cobalt blue direct from the ore. Before this time the colour was prepared by grinding foreign imported zaffres with slab and muller; but after a series of experiments he succeeded in producing a fine and excellent blue from the cobalt ore, and prepared it by a better process. It is said that Cookworthy himself painted some of the earlier blue and white productions of his manufactory, and this is not at all improbable.

Examples of the finer and more advanced class of blue and white are, like the earlier and more primitive attempts, scarce.

The white porcelain of Plymouth is one of its notable features, for in it some remarkably fine works exist in different collections. These mostly consist of salt-cellars, pickle-cups, and toilet-pieces,[328] formed of shells and corals, beautifully, indeed exquisitely, modelled from nature. The shells and corals, and other marine objects which compose these pieces, are remarkably true to nature, and their arrangement in groups is very artistic and good. As a rule these pieces are not marked. Some of the forms of these shell groups are shown in the accompanying engravings. The accidental arrangement of the small shells, sea-weeds, and coral, are very characteristic of Plymouth manufacture, and evince a high degree of artistic excellence. The salt-cellars of this description, in the Museum of Practical Geology, are good examples, and useful for reference. In[329] white, too, Cookworthy produced figures, birds, and animals, both singly and in groups, which bore no mark. Amongst the most successful and important productions of the Plymouth works, in white, are busts, of which one or two excellent examples are in existence. The finest of these is a bust, of large size, of King George II., in possession of the late Dr. Cookworthy, of Plymouth, the great-nephew of William Cookworthy, the founder of the works, from whom it has passed in succession to its present owner, who is now the sole representative of the family. The bust, which is remarkably fine, and exquisitely modelled, evidences a very advanced state of Art, and shows great skill, both in modelling, in body, and in firing. Its height is seventeen inches, and its extreme width thirteen inches. Dr. Cookworthy also possessed some remarkably fine allegorical figures, groups for candlesticks, &c., all, although unmarked, said to be authenticated as Plymouth manufacture. An elephant said to be probably of Plymouth manufacture is in the Museum of Practical Geology, as are also Figs. 708 and 713.

The prosecution of the new works having progressed satisfactorily, Cookworthy in 1768 took out a patent for the manufacture of “a kind of porcelain newly invented by me, composed of moor-stone or growan, and growan clay.” The patent was dated the 17th of March, 1768, and contained the usual proviso that full specification should be lodged and enrolled within four months of that date. This specification was duly enrolled, and I am happy to be able to give it in extenso to my readers. It is a most interesting document, and contains a great deal of valuable information; it is as follows:—

“To all people to whom these presents shall come, I, William Cookworthy, of Plymouth, in the County of Devon, Chemist, send greeting.

“Whereas His Most Gracious Majesty King George the Third, by Letters Patent bearing date at Westminster the Seventeenth day of March now last past, did give and grant unto me, the said William Cookworthy, my executors, administrators, and assigns, his especial license, full power, sole privilege and authority, that I, the said William Cookworthy, my executors, administrators, and assigns, and every of us, by myself and themselves, and by mine and their deputy or deputys, servants or agents, or such others as I, the said William Cookworthy, my executors, administrators, or assigns, should at any time agree with, and no others, from time to time, and at all times thereafter during the term of years therein expressed, should and lawfully might make, use, exercise, and vend ‘a kind of Porcellain newly invented by me, compos’d of Moor-stone or Growan, and Growan Clay,’ within that part of His Majesty’s kingdom of Great Britain called England, his dominion of Wales, and town of[330] Berwick-upon-Tweed, in such manner as to me, the said William Cookworthy, my executors, administrators, and assigns, or any of us, should in our discretion seem meet, and that I, the said William Cookworthy, my executors, administrators, and assigns, should and lawfully might have and enjoy the whole profit, benefit, commodity, and advantage from time to time coming, growing, accruing, and arising by reason of the said invention, for and during the term of years therein mentioned, to have, hold, exercise, and enjoy the said license, powers, privileges, and advantages thereinbefore granted unto me, the said William Cookworthy, my executors, administrators, and assigns, for and during and unto the full end and term of fourteen years from the date of the said Letters Patent, next and immediately ensuing, and fully to be compleat and ended according to the statute in such case made and provided; in which said Letters Patent there is contained a provisoe as or to the effect following (viz.), that if I, the said William Cookworthy, should not particularly describe and ascertain the nature of my said invention, and in what manner the same was to be performed, by an instrument in writing under my hand and seal, and cause the same to be inrolled in His Majesty’s High Court of Chancery within four calendar months next and immediately after the date of the said Letters Patent; that then the said Letters Patent and all libertys and advantages whatsoever thereby granted should utterly cease, determine, and become void, as in and by the said Letters Patent (relation being thereunto had) more fully and at large it doth and may appear.

“Now know ye that I, the said William Cookworthy, in pursuance of the said recited provisoe, do, by this my Deed in writing, declare and make known the nature of my said invention, and the quality of the materials, and manner in which the same is performed, which is as followeth (that is to say):—

“The materials of which the body of the said porcellain is composed are a stone and earth, or clay. The stone is known in the countys of Devon and Cornwall by the names of Moor-stone and Growan, which stones are generally composed of grains of stone or gravel of a white or whitish colour, with a mixture of talky shining particles. This gravel and these talky particles are cemented together by a petrified clay into very solid rocks, and immense quantities of them are found in both the above-mentioned countys. All these stones, exposed to a violent fire, melt without the addition of fluxes into a semi-transparent glass, differing in clearness and beauty according to the purity of the stone. The earth, or clay, for the most part lies in the valleys where the stone forms the hills. This earth is very frequently very white, tho’ sometimes of a yellowish or cream colour. It generally arises with a large mixture of talky micæ, or spangles, and a semi-transparent or whitish gravel. Some sorts have little of the micæ, or spangles, but the best clay for making porcellain always abounds in micæ, or spangles. The stone is prepared by levigation in a potter’s mill, in water in the usual manner, to a very fine powder. The clay is prepared by diluting it with water untill the mixture is rendered sufficiently thin for the gravell and micæ to subside; the white water containing the clay is then poured, or left to run off from the subsided micæ and gravell into proper vessells or reservoirs; and after it has settled a day or two, the clear water above it is to be then poured or drawn off, and the clay, or earth, reduced to a proper consistence by the common methods of exposing it to the sun and air, or laying it on chalk. This earth, or clay, gives the ware its whiteness and infusibility, as the stone doth its transparency and mellowness: they are therefore to be mix’d in different proportions, as the ware is intended to be more or less transparent; and the mixture is to be performed in the method used by potters, and well known (viz., by diluting the materials in water, passing the mixture through a fine sieve, and reducing it to a paste of a proper consistence for working in the way directed for the preparation of the clay). This paste is to be form’d into vessells, and these vessells, when biscuited, are to be dipp’d in the glaze, which is prepared of the levigated stone, with the addition of lime and fern-ashes, or an earth called magnesia alba, in such quantity as may make it properly fusible and transparent when it has received a due degree of fire in the second baking.

“In witness whereof I, the said William Cookworthy, have hereunto sett my hand and seal this Eleventh day of July, in the Eighth year of the reign of our Sovereign Lord George the Third, by the grace of God of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith, and so forth, and in the year of our Lord One Thousand Seven Hundred and Sixty-eight.

“William (l. s.) Cookworthy.

“Signed, sealed, and delivered by the within-named William Cookworthy, in the presence of

“George Leach,
“J. Stove.

[331]

“And be it remembered that on aforesaid Eleventh day of July, in the year above-mentioned, the aforesaid William Cookworthy came before our said Lord the King in his Chancery, and acknowledged the Specification aforesaid, and all and everything therein contained and specified in form above written. And also the Specification aforesaid was stampt according to the tenor of the statute made in the sixth year of the reign of the late King and Queen William and Mary of England, and so forth.

“Inrolled the Fourteenth day of July, in the year above written.

“Samuel Champion, a Master Extraordinary.”

It is natural to suppose that the finest and best goods of the Plymouth Works were produced in the six years which intervened between the enrolling of this specification and the removal of the Works to Bristol, previous to their sale to Champion. The progress of the manufactory had hitherto been great and satisfactory, but continuing at the same rate of improvement, the perfection to which the best productions arrived could only have been attained a very short time before its close.

Cookworthy determined to make his porcelain equal to that of Sèvres and Dresden, both in body, which he himself mixed, and in ornamentation, for which he procured the services of such artists as were available. To this end he engaged a Mon. Saqui, or Soqui, from Sèvres, who was a man of rare talent as a painter and enameller, and to whose hands, and those of Henry Bone, a native of Plymouth, who there is reason to suppose was apprenticed to Cookworthy, and afterwards became very celebrated, the best painted specimens may be ascribed. Besides these several other artists were employed, but they were principally engaged in painting in blue, while Saqui and Bone painted the high-class birds and flowers.

In a town like Plymouth, where Art has always found a home, and whose sons have so greatly distinguished themselves, it is not to be wondered that the paintings and decorations on china should assume a high character for design and treatment. In a neighbourhood which has the honour of having given birth to Sir Joshua Reynolds, to James Northcote, to Haydon, to Sir Charles Eastlake, to Opie, to William Cooke, and to a score others, it would be strange indeed if the Art part of the manufacture had not been prominently good, and had not produced artists, like Henry Bone, of more than local excellence.

The ware made at Plymouth consisted of dinner services, tea and coffee services, mugs and jugs; vases, trinket and toilet stands, busts, single figures and groups, animals, “Madonnas,” and other[332] figures after foreign models, candlesticks with birds, flowers, &c., &c. The large mug (Fig. 712) is an excellent example of the higher, and, of course, later, productions of Cookworthy’s manufactory. It is a quart mug, remarkably well potted, clear in its colour and glaze, and exquisitely painted by Saqui on the one side with peacock and pheasant and landscapes, and on the other with a group of flowers. Mugs of this form, and different sizes, painted with birds and flowers, are to be found in different collections, and are usually marked in red or blue. The peculiarity of the specimen here engraved is, that besides being remarkably good in its painting, it is marked with the usual sign, but instead of being in colour, is incised before glazing. The bottom is also disfigured, as so frequently occurs, with a fire crack. The incised mark on this mug is engraved (Fig. 710). Some very good mugs of the form and style of this one were shown in the Exhibition of 1851, in Mr. Phillips’s case, illustrating the raw material and productions of the clay district. They were marked in red, and belonged to Mr. George Pridham, of Plymouth. On the same engraving with the mug I have given a representation of a teapot, which is beautifully painted with groups of flowers in pink. That Cookworthy endeavoured to procure good artists is evident by the following advertisement in 1770:—

Among the busts and statuettes are an admirable bust of[333] George II., after the statue by Ruysbranch, in Queen’s Square, Bristol; Woodward, the actor; Mrs. Clive; a shepherd; and shepherdess, &c., which show that excellent modellers must have been employed.

One of the finest productions of the Plymouth Works, and evidently of the latest, is a pair of splendid vases and covers, sixteen inches high, in the possession of Mr. Francis Fry, of Bristol. One of these is here engraved (Fig. 714). It is hexagonal, and is enriched with festoons of beautifully-modelled raised flowers, and with painted butterflies, leaves, borders, &c. These vases are of precisely the same general form as some unique examples of Bristol make, which I shall have to describe when writing on those works, from which, however, they differ in ornament and detail, and they are evidently the production of the same artists. They are marked with the usual sign in red.

In Lord Mount Edgcumbe’s possession, too, is a pair of vases of very similar character (but more nearly resembling Mr. Fry’s specimens of Bristol), on which the Plymouth mark has, at a later period, been added. Many good examples of Plymouth still remain in the hands of families resident in Plymouth and its neighbourhood, and in the cabinets of most collectors.

In the Museum of Practical Geology some characteristic examples of Plymouth ware may be seen. Among these are a pair of shell-salts (Fig. 708); a pair of figures, “Europe” and “Asia,” and some other figures; some remarkably good mugs, jugs, and sauce boats; one or two cups and saucers; and other pieces. There are also two plates (one of which is shown on Fig. 715), described as “in earthenware, with thick white enamel, painted,”[334] the one with flowers, and the other “in green, with flowers on the border and crest of the Parker family in the centre. Unmarked.”

The mark of the Plymouth china is usually painted in red or blue on the bottom of the pieces. No mark has yet, however, come under my notice on the white examples. On the early blue and white the mark appears invariably to be in blue, and somewhat thick and clumsy in its drawing. On the later and more advanced goods it is more neatly drawn in red or blue. It varies a little in form, according to the different “hand” by which it was affixed. The mark is the chemical sign for tin or mercury, ꝝ, and was doubtless chosen by Cookworthy, the chemist, to denote that the materials from which it was made, and which he had discovered, were procured from the stanniferous district of Cornwall. The following are varieties of the mark selected from different specimens:—

On some other examples the sign with the addition of the Bristol mark of the cross beneath it occurs; and on others a number, as if to denote the number of the pattern (or possibly of the workman), occurs. These two marks, the simple sign and the sign with the number, occur on pieces belonging to the same set.

In Mr. Skardon’s possession is a pair of small sauce boats, embossed and painted with birds and flowers in colours; they each bear the name, painted on the bottom, as here shown. In Dr. Ashford’s[335] possession is an example bearing a very similar mark, but in writing letters, thus:—

Another curious example, formerly in the possession of Mr. C. W. Reynolds, bears the word “Plymouth,” the arms of the borough, some illegible letters, and the date “March 14 1768 C F.”

However beautiful and satisfactory the productions of the Plymouth works might be as china, they were not, it would appear, remunerative commercially. The clay and the stone Cookworthy had within easy distance, but his material was difficult and expensive to make, his experiments produced frequent failures and losses, and therefore he was unable to keep pace with other manufactories, and to compete with them. Add to this that he was far from being a young man—being then in his seventieth year—it is not surprising that he should determine on giving up the works, especially when Lord Camelford, who was one of his partners, says between two and three thousand pounds had been sunk in their prosecution.

On the 6th of May, 1774, therefore, William Cookworthy (who, it would appear probable, had already removed the manufacture to Bristol), for considerations set forth in the deed of assignment, sold the business and patent-right to Richard Champion, merchant, of Bristol, who had been connected pecuniarily with the works at Plymouth, and who had previously, “under license from the patentee” (William Cookworthy), commenced the manufacture of china in Bristol, under the style of “W. Cookworthy & Co.,” and they were transferred to that city.[89] Champion appears to have been a connection of Cookworthy’s—a cousin of the latter, Phillip Debell Tuckett, marrying, in August, 1774, a sister of the former (Esther Champion), about the time when the affairs for the transfer of the works were finally completed; and the arrangements appear to have been completed entirely to Cookworthy’s satisfaction. The[336] following letter, highly characteristic of Cookworthy’s style, relates to the settlement of the transfer. Though without date, it evidently was written only a short time prior to the 6th of May, 1774. It is addressed to his cousin, Anna Cookworthy, of Plymouth:—

The works having been transferred to Bristol, were carried on by Richard Champion, who having incurred considerable expense without a proportionate return, petitioned in the same year for a further term of fourteen years patent-right to be extended to him, which was accordingly done by Act of Parliament passed in the session which commenced the 29th of November in the same year[337] (1774). This Act and others will be found noticed in my account of the Bristol china works.

Thus ended, after the brief period of nineteen or twenty years from the first discovery of the material to its close, the manufacture of porcelain in Plymouth—a manufacture which was an honour to the locality, a credit to all concerned in it, and which has given it, and Cookworthy its founder, an imperishable name in the ceramic annals of this country.

Having passed through the history of the works, so far as scantiness of material will allow, it only remains to turn back for a few minutes to the thread of the life of Cookworthy with which I started, and to follow it, so far as may be necessary, to its close.

During the time he was engaged on the manufacture of chinaware, his ever-active mind seems to have been busied with other things as well, and he appears to have been sought, and much esteemed, by the savans of the day. Smeaton, the builder of the Eddystone Lighthouse, was an inmate of his house while the lighthouse was in progress, and they were constant companions in examining the dove-tailed blocks of stone as they were prepared on the Hoe for shipping; Wolcot—“Peter Pindar”—was a frequent visitor for days together at his house; Sir Joseph Banks, Captain Cook, and Dr. Solander, were his guests just before the famous “Voyage Round the World” and on their return, when their protégé, Omai the Otaheitan, was also his guest; Earl St. Vincent, then Captain Jervis, was his attached friend, and he was looked up to by all as a man of such large understanding, such varied and extensive knowledge, and such powers of intellectual conversation, that, as Lord St. Vincent is said often to have remarked, “whoever was in Mr. Cookworthy’s company was always wiser and better for having been in it.” He carried on considerable experiments to discover a method by which sea-water might be distilled for use on board ship. He was a disciple of Swedenborg, some of whose works he translated, and was also an accomplished astronomer, and an ardent disciple of “good old Izaac Walton.” As a preacher among the Society of Friends he seems to have been most highly esteemed, and to have been a man looked up to by the whole of that body.

In 1780, Cookworthy, then seventy-five, died in the same house in Nutt Street, Plymouth, which he had occupied from the time of his first starting in life, and a touching “testimony” to his[338] character was given by the “monthly meeting.” He was interred with every mark of respect at Plymouth, and his memory is still warmly cherished in the locality.

Plymouth Earthenware.—The manufacture of chinaware having ceased in Plymouth in 1774 this useful and elegant art was lost to the town. Some years later rough common brown and yellow earthenware was made here. In addition to these, manufactories of fine “Queen’s Ware,” and painted, printed, and enamelled ware, were established in 1810.

In 1815 there were three separate manufactories in Plymouth. The proprietors of these various potteries were Mr. Fillis, Mr. Algar, and Mr. Hellyer.

Plymouth Pottery Company.—Mr. Wm. Alsop (who made coarse ware near the Gas Works) built a manufactory for fine earthenware of the ordinary commoner quality, but afterwards removed to Swansea, his works passing into the hands of Messrs. Bryant, Burnell, and James. Subsequently Mr. Alsop returned from Swansea and formed a Limited Liability Company for the carrying on of this concern, and produced large quantities of the common classes of pottery and printed goods. On the death of Mr. Alsop a Mr. Bishop, from the Staffordshire pottery district, took the management of the works, but the manufacture gradually died out, and about 1863 the plant was sold off and the place disposed of to the Gas Company. The mark used by this company was the Queen’s Arms, with the words “P.P. COY. L. (Plymouth Pottery Company Limited.) Stone China.” The quality of the ware was of the commonest description of white earthenware, blue printed in various patterns. There is at the present time a manufactory of common brown ware, carried on by Mr. Hellyer.

Watcombe.

Watcombe Pottery.—The works at Watcombe, St. Mary Church, about two miles from Torquay, in Devonshire, were established in 1869, and have made more rapid progress in the time than any other manufactory on record. Their establishment owes its origin to the discovery a few years ago, by G. T. Allen, Esq., of Watcombe House, of a bed of the finest plastic clay, of considerable extent and depth.

This discovery was made while excavating behind his residence, and Mr. Allen, who is a gentleman of great learning and of refined taste, and who is son of Dr. Allen, Bishop of Ely, and was the last Master of Dulwich College before the late changes made in that institution, took immediate steps to have its qualities for ceramic purposes tested. A company was immediately afterwards formed for the getting and sale of the terra-cotta clay to various potters; but, after experiments had been made, and its unique beauty, when worked, discovered, it was wisely resolved to erect a pottery on the spot, and to convert the clay immediately from the pits into Art-manufactures and architectural enrichments. Shortly afterwards, the company were fortunate enough to secure the services of Mr. Charles Brock, of Hanley, in Staffordshire—a gentleman of the most enlightened taste, and of the most extensive practical knowledge—to become the manager and Art-director of the concern. Mr. Brock at once turned his attention to the development of the resources of the clay thus fortunately discovered; and having brought together a number of skilled workmen and workwomen from the Staffordshire potteries, and procured the best possible models and modellers, soon produced Art-works which are quite unequalled in this country, in works of this character and material. At the present time about one hundred persons are employed at the Watcombe works, and there can be but little doubt that, as they are yet quite in their infancy, that number will be considerably increased as their resources become more developed. The Watcombe clay is remarkably fine, clean, and pure; and, with skilful manipulation, and the requisite degree of heat in firing, has a warmth, delicacy, and pureness of colour, and an evenness of tint, that is very gratifying to the eye; while the surface in the “turned” specimens is fine, smooth, and almost velvety to the touch. It is capable of being modelled into raised flowers and other ornaments,[340] and is eminently adapted for most decorative purposes. Many of the borders and pressed ornaments have almost the sharpness, as they have quite the general effect, of those made of jasper body; indeed, many of the productions bear a very strong and marked general resemblance, in appearance, to those of jasper ware; and they are superior in many respects to the much-vaunted terra cotta of France and Germany.

The Art-productions of the Watcombe pottery are extremely varied, and show how capable this local clay is of being turned to good account in a variety of ways. Among the more notable productions are statuettes and busts, for which the clay is peculiarly suitable. Of these, the difficult figure of “The Disc Thrower” is one of the most successful, both in modelling, in firing, and in all the other manipulative processes. Another artistic statuette is a sweetly pretty figure of a country girl, bare-footed and reclining. Her right hand holds up her apron filled with flowers, while in her left she holds an open book, which she is intently reading. The conception of the figure, simple and graceful in the highest degree, is remarkably good, and the execution is free and artistic. In others, a charming effect is produced by leaving the figure itself of the natural red of the body, and introducing a lighter tinted clay for the drapery in which they are partly enveloped; this, again, being lighted up and relieved here and there with a slight touch of colour. Among the busts are a pair of Byron and Scott—two of the most popular subjects that could be produced—and of full life-size, being about two feet six inches in height, and two feet in width. In modelling, these busts are among the most easy, graceful, and life-like we have ever seen, either in marble, in parian, or in any other material, while as productions in warm-tinted terra-cotta they surpass anything yet produced. They are not only life-like portraits of these two great and widely-different types of men, as regards features and figure and pose, but they convey an actual reflex of the mind of each in the expression which the modeller has caught and perpetuated. The tint of the[342] Watcombe terra-cotta is a delicate rich warm red, with what may be truly called a “bloom” overspreading its surface. It is, therefore, on that account, as well as for its matchless fineness and purity, eminently adapted for busts and statuary; and, for such large size busts as the pair we are writing about, it is infinitely superior to any other material. The vases, which are made in endless variety, are characterized by extreme chasteness and elegance of outline, and by excellent taste in decoration, whether that decoration consists in festoons of hand-modelled flowers, in pressed work, in milling, in printing, or in painting. Many of them in form and in ornamentation, although of so different a body, bear comparison with the better specimens of Wedgewood-ware, and exhibit a purity of taste which is quite refreshing. For tea or déjeuné services, the insides of the teapots and cream-ewers are simply, but judiciously glazed; while the cups are, as in some old oriental examples, lined with celeste, which colour is also occasionally introduced with good taste, on the handles and mouldings. Brackets, of charming design, candlesticks, jugs, medallions, tobacco-jars, spill-cases, flower-stands—and, indeed, all the articles produced—bear the same stamp of care and elegance. The turning is done with admirable precision; the moulding with a refreshing delicacy of finish; and the gilding and enamelling—only sparsely introduced, by the way, and then only as an accessory to the general design—executed with a pure taste and by a master mind. Besides these, it is necessary to mention that architectural decorations and enrichments, statues, garden and flower-vases, pedestals, and garden edgings, besides other articles, are made; the commoner strata of clay being remarkably well adapted, from its hardness and durability, for these purposes. Our engravings convey but a very poor idea of the beauty and elegance of form of the vases, &c., here produced; the purest taste characterizes the various articles. The works are carried on by a company, under the style of “The Watcombe Terra Cotta Clay Company,” consisting of seven proprietors. They are situate about two miles from Torquay, on the Teignmouth Road, near to the picturesque rocks and downs of Watcombe. Large show-rooms have been erected, and everything done to make the Watcombe works attractive and useful. They have been visited by, and received the patronage of, many distinguished persons. The marks used by the company are simply impressed in the body of the ware, or printed on its surface. The usual mark is simply the[343] words “Watcombe, Torquay,” or “Watcombe;” but another, and very picturesque mark has also been adopted—it is a woodpecker on a branch of a tree, with a distant landscape and ship on the sea, within a garter, on which are the words, WATCOMBE TORQUAY.

Honiton.

A manufactory of common brown and red ware existed here in the early part of the present century, but has long been discontinued. Its productions were for ordinary domestic use—the common “cloam” of the country—and consisted of pans, pitchers, pancheons, porringers, &c.

Exeter.

In Felix Farley’s Bristol Journal of December 29th, 1764, is the following:—“We hear that a few gentlemen of fortune have undertaken to set up a new manufactory of china at Exeter.” Probably rumour was all, for as yet I have found nothing to lead to the inference that the works were ever established.

Bovey Tracey.

The great source of Devonshire clay used in most of the potteries of the kingdom is the district near the estuary of the river Teign. This clay is known by various names—“Black clay,” “Ball clay,” “Devonshire clay,” “Kingsteignton clay,” or “Potter’s clay;” and is sent off in immense quantities to the various seats of earthenware manufacture. Yet in the whole of this district where the clay is raised, and one would expect to find earthenware extensively made, only one pottery exists, and that one not on a large scale. Coal, which is such an important item in the manufacture of earthenware, is wanting in the district; and it is found more economical and advantageous to take the clay to the coal, than to bring the coal to the clay. Although no true coal is found in this district (that is, coal of the Carboniferous formation), a lignite is found on Bovey Heath field. The beds of this lignite crop out in a line running east and west for about the length of half a mile in the vicinity of the present Bovey Tracey Pottery Works. In the middle of the last century these beds had been but little worked, and lignite could easily be obtained by open pits. In consequence of the sandy[344] and soft nature of the beds which alternate with the lignite, it has been found impossible to work underground on the plan adopted in ordinary coal-mines. The raising of Bovey lignite has, therefore, been almost given up—all the coal near the surface having been worked out. The existence of a cheap fuel in the proximity of the potters’ clay no doubt led to the establishment of potteries at Bovey Tracey. This lignite is a light bituminous coal which occurs in the Miocene formation, being the same geological formation in which the potters’ clay is found. This lignite is highly gaseous, but only possesses about a third of the heat-giving power of average English coal. It is the same as the Norwegian “Surturbrand,” and emits a disagreeable odour in burning. Large pieces of fir-trees are occasionally found perfect in it.

Indiho Pottery.—About 1772 a pottery was established at Indiho, or Indio, or Indeo, in the parish of Bovey Tracey, and continued to be worked until 1841, when it was superseded by the Bovey Pottery, which had been established a few years previously to that time. The Indiho Pottery was a small manufactory, and is supposed to have been commenced by one George Tufnell, and was afterwards in the hands of proprietors of the names of Inglett and Steer. About the beginning of the present century a really good earthenware was made at Indio; the printed ware was of a superior class, and some tea and coffee cups of a brown body with an interior enamelled with white slip and painted outside with small sprigs are characteristic and pretty. Nothing remains of the buildings of the manufactory at Indio—a modern house, the seat of Charles Aldenburgh Bentinck, Esq., standing on its site.

Bovey Pottery.—The first pottery at Bovey Tracey was not on the site of the present pottery known under this name, but was carried on in some houses, which are parish property, near the modern railway station. The house is at present a carpenter’s shop, and is at a corner just where the road turns off to the Bovey Heathfield. Tradition states that this pottery had mills to grind materials close to Bovey Bridge, and the remains of a mill and water-wheel existed on the left bank of the stream up to 1844. These works were carried on by a family of the name of Ellis; they were probably commenced in the earlier half of the eighteenth century and certainly were in work in 1755, and lasted for thirty years after that[345] period. Nothing certain is known of the character of the ware of this first attempt at Bovey Tracey. Clay pipes are said to have been made, and jugs of a yellow body which are attributed to this period are to be found in houses in the neighbourhood.

In 1842 the Bovey Pottery was purchased by two Devonshire gentlemen, Captain Buller and Mr. J. Divett, who enlarged the works, and obtained the lignite from underground workings. The supply of this substance, however, proving insufficient for the increased requirements of the manufacture, ordinary coal was substituted in its stead; and, after the opening of a railway to the works, Somersetshire coal has been used to the entire exclusion of the lignite. The works are still carried on by Messrs. Buller and Divett, under the style of the “Bovey Tracey Pottery Company.” In general character they are similar to those of the pottery district, and on the average five glost-ovens are fired each week. The quality of the ware is about equal to the ordinary and commoner classes of Staffordshire goods. It consists of all the ordinary services and articles in white, printed, and coloured wares, and is principally supplied to the home markets in the West of England, and to Mediterranean ports.

The Folly Pottery.—Another pottery in Bovey Tracey parish was the “Folly Pottery.” This pottery may be looked upon as the origin of the present Bovey Tracey Pottery. No doubt the site was chosen for its proximity to the main outcrop of the lignite. Considerable uncertainty exists as to the date of this manufacture. It was probably commenced in the last years of the eighteenth or the first years of the nineteenth century by a man of the name of Mead. It was then for a considerable period contemporaneous with the Indio Pottery. The earthenware, however, seems hardly, at any time, to have equalled in quality that of the last-named pottery. In 1835 the works were carried on by Messrs. John and Thomas Honeychurch. It is thus described in an advertisement of sale:—“To be sold by public auction, as directed by the assignees of John and Thomas Honeychurch, bankrupts, at the Union Inn, Bovey Tracey, on the 2nd May, 1836, the Folly Pottery, situate in the parish of Bovey Tracey, in the county of Devon. This may be designated one of the largest and most complete potteries in the West of England, 14 miles from Exeter and 28 from Plymouth; its situation being in the land of clay, from which[346] nearly all the potteries in Staffordshire draw their supply, with coal-mine and railroad, &c.” The advertisement, after giving particulars regarding the processes, &c., speaks of a glost-kiln, and a biscuit-kiln, capable of containing 1,600 saggers of ware; flint kilns; a quantity of Cornish clay and flints, copper-plates, moulds, &c. No purchaser was found until 1842, when the concern was bought by Captain Buller and Mr. J. Divett, and converted into the “Bovey Tracey Pottery Company,” as last described.

Bideford.

Pot works appear to have existed at Bideford ever since the fourteenth century, but nothing beyond the ordinary coarse earthenware has been produced. Nothing is known as to the early history of these works, but fragments of ware of mediæval character have not unfrequently been dug up. An interesting relic, a chimney-pot, is in the possession of Mr. Crocker. It is of square form, and bears the name “Bideford,” and the date “1668.”

The Bideford Old Pottery, belonging to Mr. W. H. Crocker, has been in the possession of himself and his ancestors for more than a century, but of late years its productions, under the present proprietor, have received a marked improvement. The works were almost entirely rebuilt, and much extended, in 1870.

Ornamental goods are to some extent made, and consist of garden vases, edgings, jugs, and other articles. Flower-pots, sea-kale and rhubarb pots, chimney tops, &c., are also largely made.

The great specialty, however, of the productions are the fire-clay[347] ovens, which are made in considerable numbers and of various sizes. They are of peculiar shape, and so constructed as to retain the heat for a considerable time. Their form may be said, in some measure, to approximate to the old couvre-feu, as will be seen by the engraving (Fig. 734). The bottom is flat, and the walls, which are of great strength and thickness, are arched, so that the heat is thrown upon the bread in every direction. In front is a loose fire-clay door made to fit with exactness; or, occasionally, a cast-iron door is fixed. These ovens are heated with gorse, or wood, and one bundle of either is said to be sufficient to thoroughly bake three pecks of dough. The ovens are, and for generations have been, in much repute in Devonshire and Cornwall, and in the Welsh districts, and the bread baked in them is said to have a sweeter and more wholesome flavour than when baked in ordinary ovens. They are ornamented in a primitive manner with impressed and incised lines, and the mark used is the proprietor’s name

North Devon Pottery.—This pottery was established in 1848 by a company formed for the purpose. The productions are confined to stoneware pipes, and sanitary appliances of various kinds. The goods are made from the strong clay deposits of the northern side of Dartmoor—a clay of peculiar hardness and tenacity—and the articles are therefore what may be called “real vitrified stone ware,” as distinguished from the pipes and sanitary goods made in other districts from fire-clay. The works are under the management of Mr. Henry Jones.

Fremington.

The manufacture of coarse brown ware has evidently been carried on for many generations at Fremington, near Barnstaple, for fragments of mediæval and later wares are constantly being turned up. About fifty years ago the remains of five old potteries, which could not have been worked for, at least, a century, existed near the present manufactory.

The Pottery, at Fremington, was established in the early part of the present century by Mr. George Fishley, who, in 1839, was succeeded by his son Edmund Fishley, who continued it until his[348] death in 1861, when it passed into the hands of his son, Mr. Edwin B. Fishley, the present proprietor.

The goods produced are of the ordinary glazed red ware, and consist principally of pitchers and jars; scalding-pans for milk, for producing the world-famed “Devonshire cream”; flower-pots and pans; washing pots, cauldrons, and ewe pans; baking dishes and bread pans; salting vessels and chimney pots, and many other articles. Some of the water pitchers bear the peculiar names of “Long Toms,” “Thirty Tales,” “Gullymouths,” &c. Yellow-ware jugs and other domestic vessels are also made.

In ornamental wares some good designs in jars, beer jugs, and vases are produced. These are formed of a body of red clay, with figures and flowers in white clay. They are sometimes coloured, with good effect. The beer jugs, which are a speciality of the works, are generally white with drawings in red, of the same colour as the body.

The great speciality of the Fremington Pottery, like that of Bideford, is the manufacture of fire-clay ovens. These are made of various sizes for baking from one peck up to twelve. Their general form will be best understood from Fig. 734. The material of which they are composed is remarkably firm, hard, and compact, and retains the heat for a considerable time. These ovens, which are a peculiarity of the West of England and of some of the Welsh districts, are simply enclosed in raised brickwork, leaving the mouth open to the front. They are heated in the inside with wood or gorse, and are remarkable for the small quantity of fuel that is required—two pennyworth of wood being said to be amply sufficient to bake seven or eight shillings’ worth of flour. The bread is stated to be of a peculiarly wholesome and sweet character. The mark used on the ovens, &c., is simply the proprietor’s name impressed in the clay while moist. On the ornamental ware the name is written on the bottom of the ware.

Aller.

The Aller Pottery.—These works, near Newton Abbot, were commenced for the manufacture of common brown ware in 1865, and three years later came into the hands of Messrs. John Phillips & Co., by whom they are still carried on, for the production of architectural[349] pottery. The goods manufactured consist of flooring and roofing tiles, sanitary and sewage ware, garden edgings, ornamental chimney pots, decorative bricks, flower vases, &c., and various other kinds of fire-clay goods. The markets principally supplied are those of Devonshire, Somersetshire, and Cornwall.

The mark is a horse’s head, couped, with the Greek words ΦIΛΕΩ ΙΠΠΟΝ, being a playful allusion to the name of the proprietor, “Phillips.”

Pednandrea, Redruth.

Crucible Works.—These works at Pednandrea and at Fore Street, Redruth, were established about 1760 by John Juleff, and carried on by him until his decease, when he was succeeded by his son, John Juleff, by whom they were continued until 1875. In that year he died and the works passed into the hands of his two sons, by whom they are still carried on under the style of “John and David Juleff.” The firm are the only manufacturers of the original Cornish crucibles, which have always had, and still maintain, the reputation of being the best articles made for dry assaying and for standing intense heat. They are made to a large extent and sent to most parts of the world. The firm also make mufflers, scorifiers, special bricks and covers for assay furnaces, plumbago crucibles for tin assaying, plumbago brass melting pots, &c., of various shapes and sizes. Mr. Juleff received honourable mention for his goods at the 1861 Exhibition: there being no competition in these specialities, no medal could be awarded. The goods are usually marked with the name of the firm.

Bristol.

The first record of pot-making in Bristol appears to have been in the reign of Edward I., but it seems certain that vessels were made in the neighbourhood in Saxon and Norman times, as well as in the earlier Celtic and Romano-British periods. Mediæval earthenware vessels of different periods, and probably made in the locality, have now and then been found at Bristol, and during the reign of Elizabeth, there is no doubt, a manufactory of fictile vessels was in operation.

“Six hundred years ago,” says Mr. Owen, “the art of pottery was practised in Bristol, but in what form is beyond our speculation. The record, though authentic, is too terse to give more than the bare fact, and the imagination must be fertile indeed that can supply the details. The Governor of Bristol Castle, under Edward I., in his accounts, preserved in the Pipe Roll for the twelfth year of that reign (1284), has an item—‘pro terra fodienda ad vasa fictilia facienda’—which shows that this claim for high antiquity is well founded.” Fragments of some curious pitchers and other mediæval domestic vessels are engraved by Mr. Owen, and appear to be of about the period alluded to.

The Delft Works.—At the close of the seventeenth century, Delft ware was made here, and continued to be produced until about[351] the time when porcelain began to be produced in the city. Many specimens of Bristol Delft ware have come under my notice, some of which are, fortunately, dated. The earliest dated example I have seen is a plate marked on the rim with the initials S · M · B, and the date 1703, thus—

. The ware is of a very nice quality, with a good glaze, and the blue of good colour. The next dated specimen, in chronological order, which has come under my notice is a Delft high-heeled shoe, or choppine, which is dated on the sole 1722, along with the initials M S—thus

This very good example, which is said to be of Bristol make, was in possession of the late Mr. James, of that city. It is beautifully formed, has a buckle in front, and is flowered and bordered in blue. Two of these Delft stands in the form of high-heeled shoes, formerly belonging to Queen Charlotte, were sold at the Bernal sale. They were of an earlier date, and marked M I 1705. Another example in the same possession is a plate of the year 1740, bearing on its rim the initials R · S · P, thus—

One of the latest dated examples I have seen is the plate engraved on Fig. 735, which forms part of a set belonging to a descendant of the artist who painted it, and has remained in the family from the time of its manufacture until it came into my hands. It is a plate painted in a somewhat peculiar style, in blue, with a Chinese figure, trees, cattle, and birds, and having on its under side the date 1760, and the initials M · B · E, as shown on Fig. 736. These are the initials of Michael and Betty Edkins, of Bristol, of whom I shall have more to say presently.

It may be well to remark, en passant, that this mode of placing initials, which is so usual on traders’ tokens, was the favourite[352] way of arranging the initials of husband and wife, and they were so understood without using the short &. The upper letter was the initial of the surname, and those below of the Christian names of the husband and wife. Thus

would read M & B E, and stand for Michael and Betty Edkins.

The Delft ware works were situated on “Redcliffe Backs,” near to the glass works of Messrs. Little and Longman. The names of the first potters are, as usual, lost, but in the early part of last century the works belonged to a Mr. Richard Frank, who seems to have been a man of standing in the place, and who employed, along with other workmen, a Mr. Thomas Patience, and a family of the name of Hope. Richard Frank, who had also works at Brislington, was the son of Thomas Frank, “gallipot maker,” of Bristol, who was married in 1697; he, the “gallipot maker,” is therefore the earliest recorded potter of this place. The goods produced at Richard Frank’s manufactory—who, as well as his father, is described as a “gallipot maker” in 1734–9 and 1754—were principally plates, dishes, and “Dutch tiles” for fire-places, dairies, &c. In the Museum of Practical Geology is a slab composed of twenty-four tiles, on which is painted in blue a view of St. Mary Redcliffe Church, Bristol. These were made by Richard Frank, about 1738–50, and the arms of Bishop Butler appear upon one of them. The tiles were all, of course, painted by hand, and we have it on the authority of Michael Edkins, himself the actual painter of the plate, Fig. 735, that the brushes which he and the other workmen used were made by themselves from the hairs pulled from the nostrils and eyelids of cattle. Michael Edkins, the painter of Delft ware, was, it appears, from Birmingham, where he was apprenticed to a house painter. His master dying before his term expired, he was of course left to shift for himself, and made his way to Bristol, where, becoming acquainted with Patience and Hope, he got employed at Frank’s pottery, where he became a “pot painter,” and continued in that employment till the Delft pottery declined, “when (in 1761) he became a coach and general painter and decorator, and quickly rose to eminence, was employed about most public works in the city, assisted in painting the bas-reliefs to the altar-piece of St. Mary Redcliffe, and also assisted Hogarth in fixing his celebrated pictures in that altar-piece.” He was also a successful actor at the theatre. One branch of his business that[353] he now followed was “enamelling glass ware,” which he did for Little and Longmans, and their successors, Vigor and Stevens, whose glass house adjoined the Delft pottery on Redcliffe Backs. The works stood on what is now, at the time I write, Redcliffe Wharf, occupied by Mr. Cripps, general wharfinger, on the river Avon.

A plate bearing the words “Nugent only 1754,” was in all probability made by Richard Frank, who was a supporter of Nugent at the general election of that year. Another plate, commemorating the same year’s election for Tewkesbury, is supposed to be from the same works; it bears the words “Calvert and Martin For Tukesbury 1754 Sold by Webb.” Among other dated examples of Bristol Delft are the following, which may be from Frank’s pottery. A piece bearing the words “Ye 1^st Sept^r 1761 Bowen · fecit;” a pair of plates made for a member of the family of Davis, with the letters

, and others with the following

“Hannah Hopkins Born Sep 17 New Style 1752,” occurs on a christening bowl in the Edkins collection.

A fine plate, painted by Bowen, engraved on Fig. 738, is in possession of Mr. Willet, of Brighton, who also possesses a grand tile picture, consisting of seventy-two tiles, painted with Hogarth’s “March to Finchley.” Mr. Fry has two clever tile pictures of nine[354] tiles each, one representing a cat and the other a dog. On the collar of the latter are the words “Bristol, 1752.”

Later on Richard Frank took his son Thomas into partnership, and in 1777 the works were removed to Water Lane, to the manufactory which, in 1775, had been carried on by James Alsop, a brown stoneware potter. The following advertisement, of the year 1777, refers to this change: “Richard Frank & Son, Earthen and Stone Pot Works, are removed from Redcliffe Backs to Water Lane, where they continue the same business in all its branches.”

In 1784, Joseph Ring, rectifier and vinegar maker, who had married Elizabeth, daughter of Richard Frank (and was father of Sarah, the wife of Frederick Cookworthy,[ ] nephew of William Cookworthy), purchased the business of Frank and Son for £669 1s. 3½d. Mr. Owen prints the following extracts from the valuation for this sale. It shows that Richard Frank and Son were general dealers in all kinds of ware, as well as Delft and stone ware makers. The inventory is headed, “The Stock & Utensils in Trade At the Pot House in Water Lane, Bristol, as Appraised as following.” The following are some of the items; the whole of the plant being valued at only ten pounds:—

Richard Frank died in 1785, aged about 73, and was buried in the Quaker’s ground at Redcliffe Pit. “Joseph Ring, successor to Richard Frank in the Pottery Business,” in his address stated that he “continues the manufactory of the Bristol Stone Ware, and sells all other sorts of Queen’s and other Ware wholesale and retail.” This last branch of his business he cultivated considerably, and appears to have traded with most of the manufacturers of the day. In 1786 Mr. Ring determined upon manufacturing Queen’s ware, and to that end engaged Anthony Hassel (or Hassells), a potter of Shelton, in Staffordshire, buying from him his stock and moulds, and removing them to Bristol.

In 1788 Mr. Ring took two partners, Mr. Taylor and Mr. Carter, he bringing in a capital of £3,000, and Messrs. Taylor and Carter £1,500 jointly. “The Stock and Utensils in Trade at the Pot House in Water Lane, as per Inventory taken this day,” January 9th, 1788, were sold by Mr. Ring to himself and partners, “under the firm of Ring and Taylor,” for £2038 1s. 10d. The manufacture of Delft ware then came to a close.

Another Delft ware potter was Joseph Flower, who, in 1775[356] lived at No. 2 on the Quay, and in 1777 removed to 3 Corn Street, where he put a sign-board, painted black, with “Flower, Potter,” in gold letters, for the painting of which he paid Michael Edkins 10s. 6d. Flower’s ware, says Mr. Owen, is thinner and neater in make than most British Delft; the glaze good, and the colour clear and brilliant in tone—indeed, in no respect inferior to Dutch. Fig. 739 is a plate belonging to a dinner service made by Joseph Flower, and now in the possession of his descendant Mr. J. Flower Fussel. It is painted with a Chinese pattern, and bears initial and dates varying from 1742 to 1750. The plate here engraved bears the initials (Fig. 740). In the same hands is a plate dated 1741–2, painted with a view of the river Avon and the old Hotwells House; and two dishes bearing the plan of a battle, and the words “The taking of Chagre in the West Indies by Admiral Vernon.”

Bristol China.

The first mention of the making of china in Bristol occurs in a letter of Richard Champion, dated February 26, 1766. In July, 1765, a box of “porcelain earth” “from the internal part of the Cherokee nations, 400 miles from hence (Charles Town), on mountains scarcely accessible,” was consigned to him, by his brother-in-law, to be forwarded to the Worcester china works to be used there in experiments. The letter of advice was dated Charles Town, 1765. At the same time another box of this earth was sent to Champion for the Earl of Hyndford, who desired Champion to open it and try experiments, or give it to Thomas Goldney “who is a very curious gentleman.” In the letter of February 28th Champion, writing to Lloyd, by whom it was consigned, says Mr. Goldney has declined the clay. “I therefore,” he adds, “had it tried at a manufactory set up here some time ago on the principle of the Chinese porcelain; but not being successful is given up.” “The proprietors of the work in Bristol imagined they had discovered in Cornwall all the materials similar to the Chinese; but though they burnt the body part tolerably well, yet there were impurities in the glaze or stone, which were insurmountable even in the greatest fire they could give it, and which was equal to a glass-house heat.” These works he had personally, in November, 1765, spoken of as “a new work just established,” and[357] says, “this new work is from a clay and stone discovered in Cornwall, which answers the description of the Chinese; but in burning there is a deficiency, though the body is perfectly white within but not without, which is always smoaky. This clay is very much like, but not quite so fine as the Cherokee; however there can be no chance of introducing the latter as a manufacture when it can be so easily procured from Cornwall.”[91] This “new work” which had been tried and failed was doubtless connected with Cookworthy of Plymouth. In 1764 he is spoken of as “the first inventor of the Bristol china works.” Champion, at all events, it is clear from the letters, had nothing to do with it, and probably his first idea of making china was got from the fact of the box of porcelain earth being consigned to him for the Worcester works. In March, 1768, Cookworthy, the discoverer of the material, the mainspring in all those matters, and the first to try experiments and bring to a successful issue the manufacture of porcelain from the Cornish materials he had found, took out his patent.[92] Soon after this the manufacture of china was again commenced in Bristol by Richard Champion. In 1771 a china manufactory, carried on by “William Cookworthy & Co.,” appears to have been in operation in Castle Green—the “Co.,” there can be no reasonable doubt, being Richard Champion and others. In May, 1774, William Cookworthy assigned his patent right, &c., to Champion, and the Plymouth manufactory, which had probably been previously removed to Bristol, was finally closed; in the rate-books the firm being, from 1773 to 1780, “Richard Champion & Co.,” in 1781 “Richard Champion” only; and in the following year the premises are stated to have been occupied by a pipe-maker named J. Carey.

In 1772, as Mr. Owen incontestably shows, the china works were in full operation in Bristol. On August 15th of that year the following advertisement appeared:—

In November, 1772, the following still more illustrative advertisement appeared:—

In January, 1773, as again shown by Mr. Owen, to whom the world is much indebted for many years’ laborious searchings into every available source of knowledge, and whom I have to thank for much information, another advertisement appeared as follows:—

From these it is evident the Bristol works were carried on simultaneously with those of Plymouth in the last few years of those later works, and that, like Plymouth, “vases, jars, and beakers, very elegant,” were produced, as well as the ordinary classes of useful goods. In June, 1773, his prices are advertised as “Complete Tea Sets in the Dresden taste highly ornamented £7 0s. 0d. to £12 12s. 0d. and upwards. Tea Sets, 43 pieces, of various prices as low as £2 2s. 0d. Cups and Saucers from 3s. 6d. to 5s. 6d. per half-dozen, and all other sorts of useful Ware proportionately cheap.”

Whatever may have been the position of the manufactory at Bristol, and by whomever—whether “W. Cookworthy & Co.,” “R. Champion & Co.,” or “R. Champion” alone—it was carried on previous to that date, certain it is that (as I have stated) in 1774 Cookworthy[359] sold his patent right, &c., to Champion, closed his Plymouth works, and from that time forth ceased to have any connection with china making.

In 1774, then, “Richard Champion, of Bristol, merchant,” became possessed of Cookworthy’s patent. The deed of assignment of the patent rights, &c., from Cookworthy to Champion, is dated May 6th, 1774, and among other “considerations” it was covenanted that whatever the amount of value of the raw material (the Cornish clay and stone which Cookworthy had discovered and brought into use) Champion used in the course of a year, an equal amount of money should be paid to Cookworthy. For example, if, in the course of a year, Champion paid £1000 for material in Cornwall, he would also have to pay another £1000 to Cookworthy for the privilege of using it, thus doubling the price of the material from that at which Cookworthy had himself worked it. Of this, however, more presently.

Champion was, evidently, a man before his time in Bristol, enthusiastic in everything which could tend to improve that city commercially or otherwise, and ever ready to expend his energies and his money in furtherance of useful schemes and beneficial manufactures. He was, it will have been seen, just the kind of man to enter earnestly, and even enthusiastically, into the scheme of making porcelain on a principle that should employ native materials only, and which bid fair to be a great and lasting benefit, not only to his city, but to the community at large.

I have shown, then, that Richard Champion, in 1774, by deed of assignment from Cookworthy, dated May 6th in that year, became the sole proprietor of the patent right, and everything connected with the china works, for which he covenanted, among other things, to pay to Cookworthy, his heirs, executors, &c., a profit equal to the first cost of the raw material used in his manufactory. The[360] first arrangement was that this royalty was to be perpetual, but it was afterwards restricted to ninety-nine years—the time of the lease for the raw materials. Having thus become proprietor of the concern which had at one time been carried on jointly by Cookworthy, Lord Camelford, and himself (and probably others), he, on the 22nd of the following February, 1775, presented a petition to the House of Commons, praying for the term of patent right to be enlarged for a further period of fourteen years to himself. His petition was referred to a committee, which began its sittings on the 28th of April. The following is the report of the committee of the House of Commons upon the petition:—

By this time he had prepared and produced some remarkably fine specimens of china made at his works, for examination by the committee, and it is not too much to say that at this period his productions were of the highest rank. The result of his application was the ultimate passing of an Act of Parliament, by which the patent was accordingly enlarged. This Act, which contains a vast deal of valuable and interesting information, I give in extenso, for the benefit of my readers.[93] It was passed in 1775 (15 Geo. III., cap. 52), and is entitled, “An Act for enlarging the term of Letters Patent granted by his present Majesty to William Cookworthy, of Plymouth, Chymist, for the sole use and exercise of a discovery of certain materials for making Porcelain, in order to enable Richard Champion, of Bristol, merchant (to whom the said Letters Patent have been assigned), to carry the said discovery into effectual execution for the benefit of the public.” It is as follows:—

“Whereas his present Majesty King George the Third has been graciously pleased to grant his Royal Letters Patent under the Great Seal of Great Britain unto William Cookworthy, Chymist, in the words, or to the effect, following; that is to say: George the Third by the grace of God of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith, and so forth, to all to whom these presents shall come, greeting: Whereas, William Cookworthy, of Plymouth, in the County of Devon, Chymist, has by his petition humbly represented unto us that he hath by a series of experiments discovered that materials of the same nature as those of which the Asiatic porcelain is made are to be found in immense quantities in our island of Great Britain, which ingredients are distinguished in our two counties of Devon and Cornwall by the names of moor stone, and growan, and growan clay; that the ware which he hath prepared from these materials hath all the character of the true porcelain in regard to grain, transparency, colour, and infusibility, in a degree equal to the Chinese or Dresden ware: whereas, all the manufactures of porcelain hitherto carried on in Great Britain have been only imitations of the genuine kind, wanting the beauty of colour, and the smoothness and lustre of grain, and the great characteristic of genuine porcelain sustaining the most extreme degree of fire without melting; that this discovery hath been attended with great labour and expense, and, to the best of his knowledge and belief in regard to this kingdom, is new and his own, the materials being, even at this time, applied to none of the uses of pottery but by him and those under his direction; and that he verily believes this invention will be of great advantage to the public. He, therefore, most humbly prayed us that we should be pleased to grant him our Royal Letters[362] Patent for the sole making and vending of this new invented porcelain, composed of moor stone or growan, and growan clay, within that part of our kingdom of Great Britain called England, our dominion of Wales, and the town of Berwick-upon-Tweed, for the space of fourteen years, according to the statute in that case made and provided: we, being willing to give encouragement to all arts and inventions which may be for the public good, are graciously pleased to condescend to the petitioner’s request. Know ye, therefore, that we, of our especial grace, certain knowledge, and meet motion, have given and granted, and for these presents our heirs and successors do give and grant unto the said William Cookworthy, his executors, administrators, and assigns, our special licence, full power, sole privilege and authority, that he, the said William Cookworthy, his executors, administrators, and assigns, and every of them, by himself and themselves, or by his or their deputy or deputies, servants, or agents, or such others as the said William Cookworthy, his executors, administrators, and assigns shall at any time agree with, and no others, from time to time, and at all times hereafter during the term of years herein expressed, shall, and lawfully may make, use, exercise, and vend his said invention within that part of Great Britain called England, our dominion of Wales, and the town of Berwick-upon-Tweed, and in such a manner as he, the said William Cookworthy, his executors, administrators, and assigns, or any of them, in their discretions seem meet; and that the said William Cookworthy, his executors, administrators, and assigns shall, and lawfully may, enjoy the whole profit, benefit, commodity, and advantage from time to time coming, growing, accruing, and arising by reason of the said invention for and during the term of years herein mentioned, to have, hold, exercise, and enjoy the said licence, privileges, and advantages hereinbefore granted, or mentioned to be granted, to the said William Cookworthy, his executors, administrators, and assigns, for and during and to the full end of the term of fourteen years from the date of these presents next and immediately ensuing, and fully to be completed and ended according to the statute in such case made and provided, and to the end that he, the said William Cookworthy, his executors, administrators, and assigns, and every of them, may have and enjoy the full benefit and the sole use and exercise of the said invention, according to our gracious intention hereinbefore declared; we do by these presents, for us, our heirs and successors, require and strictly command all and every person and persons, bodies politic and corporate, and all other our subjects whatsoever, of what estate, quality, degree, name, or condition soever they be, within that said part of Great Britain called England, our dominion of Wales, and our town of Berwick-upon-Tweed aforesaid, that neither they nor any of them, at any time during the continuance of the said term of fourteen years hereby granted, either directly or indirectly, do make, use, or practise the said invention or any part of the same so attained unto by the said William Cookworthy as aforesaid, nor in anywise counterfeit, imitate, or resemble the same, nor shall make, or cause to be made, any addition thereunto, or substraction from the same, whereby to pretend himself or themselves to be the inventor or inventors, deviser or devisers thereof, without the licence, consent, or agreement of the said William Cookworthy, his executors, administrators, or assigns, in writing under his or their hands and seals, first had and obtained in that behalf, upon such pains and penalties as can or may be justly inflicted on such offenders for their contempt of this our Royal command; and further, to be answerable to the said William Cookworthy, his executors, administrators, and assigns according to law for his and their damages thereby occasioned; and moreover, we do by these presents, for us, our heirs, and successors, will and command all and singular the justices of the peace, mayors, sheriffs, bailiffs, constables, head boroughs, and all other officers and ministers whatsoever, of us, our heirs, and successors for the time being, that they, or any of them, do not, nor shall at any time hereafter during the said term hereby granted the said William Cookworthy, his executors, administrators, or assigns, or any of them, or his or their deputies, servants, or agents, in anywise molest, trouble, or hinder the said William Cookworthy, his executors, administrators, and assigns, or any of them, or his or their deputies, servants, or agents, in or about the due and lawful use or exercise of the aforesaid invention or anything relating thereto: Provided always, and these our Letters Patent are and shall be upon this condition, that if at any time during the said term here granted, it shall be made to appear to us, our heirs, or successors, or any six or more of our or their Privy Council, that this our grant is contrary to law, or prejudicial or inconvenient to our subjects in general, or that if the said invention is not a new invention as to the public use and exercise thereof, in that part of our kingdom of Great Britain called England, our dominion of Wales, and town of Berwick-upon-Tweed aforesaid, or not invented or found out by the said William Cookworthy as aforesaid,[363] then, upon signification or declaration thereof, to be made by us, our heirs and successors, under our or their signet or Privy Seal, or by the lords of our or their Privy Council, or any six or more of them under their hand, these our Letters Patent shall forthwith cease, determine, and be utterly void to all intents and purposes, anything hereinbefore contained in anywise notwithstanding. Provided also, that these our Letters Patent, or anything herein contained, shall not extend to or be construed to extend to the privileges of the said William Cookworthy, his executors, administrators, or assigns, or any of them, to use or imitate any invention or work whatsoever which has heretofore been found out or invented by any other of our subjects whatsoever, or publicly used or exercised in that part of our kingdom of Great Britain called England, our dominion of Wales, and town of Berwick-upon-Tweed aforesaid, unto whom, the like Letters Patent or privileges have already been granted for the sole use, exercise, and benefit thereof, it being our will and pleasure that the said William Cookworthy, his executors, administrators, and assigns, and all and every person or persons to whom the like Letters Patent or privileges have already been granted as aforesaid, shall distinctly use and practice their several inventions by them invented and found out, according to the true intent and meaning of the said Letters Patent and of these presents. Provided, likewise, nevertheless, and these our Letters Patent are upon this express condition, that the said William Cookworthy, his executors, administrators, or assigns, or any person or persons which shall or may be at any time or times hereafter, during the continuance of this grant, have or claim any right, title, or intent, in law or equity, or of, in, or to the power, privilege, and authority of the sole use of the said benefit hereby granted, shall make any transfer or assignment, or pretended transfer or assignment, of the said liberty and privilege, or any share or shares for the benefit or profit thereof, or shall declare any trust thereof to or for any number of persons exceeding the number of five, or shall open, or cause to be opened, any book or books for public subscriptions to be made by any number of persons exceeding the number of five for such or the like intents or purposes, or shall presume to act as a corporate body, or shall divide the benefit of these our Letters Patent, or the liberty and privileges hereby by us granted, into any number of shares exceeding the number of five, or shall commit or do, or shall procure to be committed or done, any act, matter, or thing whatsoever, during the time such person or persons shall have any right or title, either in law or equity, in or to the said premises which shall be contrary to the true intent and meaning of a certain Act of Parliament, made in the sixth year of the reign of our late royal greatgrandfather King George the First, entituled, ‘An Act for the better securing certain powers and privileges, intended to be granted by his Majesty by two charters, for the Insurance of Ships and Merchandize by Sea, and for laying money out upon bottoming, and for restraining several extravagant and unwarrantable practices therein mentioned,’ or in case the said privilege or authority shall at any time hereafter become vested in, or in trust for, any number of more than five persons or their representatives (reckoning executors or administrators as for the single person whom they represent, as to such interest as they are or shall be entitled to in right of such testator or intestate), that then, and in any of the said cases, these our Letters Patent, and all liberties and advantages whatsoever hereby granted, shall utterly cease and become void, anything hereinbefore contained to the contrary thereof, anywise, notwithstanding. Provided also, if the said William Cookworthy shall not particularly describe and ascertain the nature of his invention, and in what manner the same is to be performed, by an instrument in writing, under his hand and seal, and cause the same to be enrolled in our High Court of Chancery within four calendar months next and immediately after the date of these our Letters Patent, that then these our Letters Patent, and all liberties and advantages whatsoever hereby granted, shall utterly cease, determine, and become void, anything hereinbefore contained to the contrary thereof in anywise notwithstanding. And, lastly we do by these presents, for us, our heirs and successors, grant unto the said William Cookworthy, his executors, administrators, and assigns, that these, our Letters Patent, or the enrollment of the exemplification thereof, shall be in and by all things good, firm, valid, sufficient, and effectual in the law, according to the true intent and meaning thereof, and shall be taken, construed, and adjudged in the most favourable and beneficial sense for the best advantage of the said William Cookworthy, his executors, administrators, and assigns, as well in all our Courts of Record as elsewhere, and by all and singular the officers and ministers whatsoever of us, our heirs, and successors in that part of the said kingdom of Great Britain called England, our dominion of Wales, and town of Berwick-upon-Tweed aforesaid, and amongst all and every the subjects of us, our heirs, and successors whatsoever and wheresoever, notwithstanding the not full and[364] certain describing the nature or quality of the said invention, or of the materials thereto conducing and belonging, in witness whereof we have caused these our Letters to be made patent: witness ourself, at Westminster, the seventeenth day of March, in the eighth year of our reign.

“And whereas the said William Cookworthy hath by an instrument in writing, under his hand and seal, described and ascertained the nature of the said invention,[94] and the manner in which the same is to be performed, and hath caused the same to be enrolled in His Majesty’s High Court of Chancery within the time and in the manner directed by the said Letters Patent; and whereas by a deed of assignment, bearing date the sixth day of May, One Thousand Seven Hundred and Seventy-four, the said William Cookworthy (for the consideration therein mentioned) hath assigned all his interest, benefit, and property, in the said Letters Patent and invention, unto Richard Champion, of Bristol, merchant, his executors, administrators, and assigns; and whereas the said Richard Champion hath been at very considerable expense and great pains and labour in prosecuting the said invention, and by reason of the great difficulty attending the manufacture upon a new principle, hath not been able to bring the same to perfection until within the last year, and it will require further pains, labour, and expense, to render the said invention of public utility, for all which trouble and expense the said Richard Champion will not be able to receive an adequate compensation unless the term granted by the said royal Letters Patent be prolonged. To the end therefore that the said Richard Champion may be encouraged to prosecute and complete the said invention, may it please your Majesty (at the humble petition of the said Richard Champion) that it may be enacted, and be it enacted by the King’s most excellent Majesty, by and with the consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, that all and every the powers, liberties, privileges, authorities, rights, benefits, and advantages, which in and by the said Letters Patent were originally given and granted to him the said William Cookworthy, his executors, administrators, and assigns, and no further or greater than he or the said Richard Champion would have been entitled to if this Act had not been made, shall be, and the same are hereby given and granted, to the said Richard Champion, his executors, administrators, and assigns, and shall be held, exercised, and enjoyed by him the said Richard Champion, his executors, administrators, and assigns, for and during the present term of fourteen years granted by the said Letters Patent; and from and after the end and expiration of the said term of fourteen years thereby granted, for and during the further or additional term of fourteen years, in as full, ample, and beneficial manner, in all respects, and to all intents and purposes whatsoever, as he the said Richard Champion, his executors, administrators, and assigns, could have held and enjoyed the same under and by virtue of the said Letters Patent for the term thereby granted, in case the said Letters Patent had been originally granted by his Majesty to him the said Richard Champion, his executors, administrators, and assigns.

“Provided always, and be it further granted and declared by the authority aforesaid, that if the said Richard Champion shall not cause to be enrolled in the High Court of Chancery, within four months after passing this Act, a specification of the mixture and proportions of the raw materials of which his porcelain is composed, and likewise of the mixture and proportions of the raw materials which compose the glaze of the same (which specification is now in the hands of the Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain); or if the same shall not be a true and just specification of the mixture and proportions of the said materials, then this Act shall cease, determine, and be absolutely void, anything hereinbefore contained to the contrary notwithstanding.

“Provided also that nothing in this Act contained shall be construed to hinder or prevent any Potter or Potters, or any other person or persons, from making use of any such raw materials, or any mixture or mixtures thereof (except such mixture of raw materials, and in such proportions, as are described in the specification hereinbefore directed to be enrolled), anything in this Act to the contrary notwithstanding.

“And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, that this Act shall be adjudged, deemed, and taken to be a public Act, and shall be judicially taken notice of as such by all judges, justices, and other persons whomsoever, without specially pleading the same.”

Between the time, however, of the committee’s sitting and the passing of the Act, Josiah Wedgwood, whose name is always received with reverence by all who study the history of Ceramic Art, ostensibly as the spokesman of the Staffordshire potters, but really at first alone, opposed the grant, on the ground, among others, that the use of the natural productions of the soil ought to be the right of all, and that the restrictions would be detrimental to trade and injurious to the public. In Wedgwood’s “memorial” against the petition of Champion, which he presented to parliament, “Josiah Wedgwood on behalf of himself and the manufacturers of earthenware in Staffordshire,” urges “that the manufacture of earthenware in that county has of late received many essential improvements, and is continually advancing to higher degrees of perfection; that the further improvement of the manufactory must depend upon the application and the free use of the various raw materials that are the natural products of this country; that the raw materials, now secured for a limited time to the petitioner (Champion) may, at the expiration of the patent assigned to him, be of great use to enable the potters throughout Great Britain to improve their manufactures into the finest porcelain, and thereby produce a branch of commerce of more national importance than any of this kind hitherto established;” that Mr. Champion “was not the inventor, but the purchaser only of the unexpired patent granted to another man, who does not appear to have any interest in this application; that the petitioner, therefore, not being the original discoverer, and having purchased the remaining term of the patent at a proportionate price, can have no right to expect a further extension of a monopoly injurious to the community at large, which neither the ingenious discoverer nor the purchaser, for want perhaps of skill and experience in this particular business, have been able, during the space of seven years already elapsed, to bring to any useful degree of perfection;” and that, if he has brought his discovery to perfection, as alleged, the unexpired term of seven years ought to be enough to enable him to reimburse himself. To this memorial of Josiah Wedgwood’s, Champion presented the following honourable reply:—

“When Mr. Champion presented a petition to the Honourable House of Commons, praying the aid of parliament for a prolongation of the term granted by the Patent for making porcelain, he built his hopes of success on two circumstances: the first, the apparent utility resulting from such a manufacture carried to a perfection equal to that of the Dresden and Asiatic. The second circumstance on which he grounded his expectation was the sense which[366] he hoped the House would entertain of the justice of compensating, by some reasonable privilege, the great labour, expense, and risque which had been incurred, not only in the invention of the material and composition, but in the improvement of this important manufacture. He was also almost certain that no person whatsoever in this kingdom could, on a supposition of their being prejudiced in their rights in a similar property, have had any cause of complaint, or pretence to interfere with him, or to oppose the prayer of his petition.

“Mr. Champion however finds, with some surprise, that Mr. Wedgwood, who has never hitherto undertaken any similar manufacture, conceives himself likely to be injured by the indulgence which Mr. Champion has solicited. He has accordingly printed a memorial containing his reasons against the granting the prayer of Mr. Champion’s petition, and is now actually gone in person into Staffordshire in order to solicit others to prefer a petition to Parliament against Mr. Champion’s bill.

“Before Mr. Champion replies to Mr. Wedgwood’s observations or complaints, he begs leave to remark on the time when Mr. Wedgwood introduces them. Mr. Champion presented his petition to the Honourable House of Commons on the twenty-second day of February. The committee to which that petition was referred did not sit until the twenty-eighth day of April, during which time Mr. Wedgwood neither made any public application against Mr. Champion, or gave him any sort of private information of intended opposition. Neither did any manufacturers in Staffordshire or elsewhere express any uneasiness or make any complaint of Mr. Champion’s application, though it is not improbable that Mr. Wedgwood’s journey thither may be productive of both.

“Mr. Champion forbore to bring forward his petition before the committee until he had prepared such specimens of his manufacture as might give the committee the most striking proofs of the truths of his allegations, and this could not be done sooner in a manufacture so very lately, and with such incredible difficulty, brought to its present perfection. He trusts that the specimens which he has produced in various kinds will show that he has been usefully employed, and merits the public protection.

“Mr. Wedgwood is pleased to represent his memorial on behalf of himself and the manufacturers of earthenware in Staffordshire. Mr. Champion says, as has been already hinted, that Mr. Wedgwood had not any authority from such manufacturers, or any others, to make any representations in their behalf.

“Mr. Champion most cheerfully joins in the general praise which is given to Mr. Wedgwood for the many improvements which he has made in the Staffordshire earthenware, and the great pains and assiduity with which he has pursued them. He richly deserves the large fortune he has made from these improvements. But should he not be content with the rewards he has met with, and not have the avidity to grasp at a manufacture which another has been at as great pains as Mr. Wedgwood has employed in his own to establish?—a manufacture entirely original in this kingdom, and which all nations in Europe have been desirous to obtain?

“Mr. Wedgwood says the application and free use of the various raw materials of this country will make a great improvement in the manufacture of Staffordshire earthenware. Mr. Champion has no objection to the use which the potters of Staffordshire may make of his or any other raw materials, provided earthenware only, as distinguished by that title, is made from it. He wants to interfere with no manufacture whatever, and is content to insert any clause to confine him to the invention which he possesses, and which he has improved. He is contented that Mr. Wedgwood, and every manufacturer, should reap the fruit of their labour; all he asks is, such a protection for his own as the legislature in its wisdom shall think merits.

“Mr. Wedgwood’s remark on the difference of merit betwixt Mr. Watt and Mr. Champion is ungenerous and unjust: ungenerous, as Mr. Champion has not, or does not, compare himself to Mr. Watt; he has not even mentioned his name in any of his applications. His business is not with comparative or similar merits; it is his duty to prove the merit of his own manufacture, for which he solicits the encouragement of the legislature. He hopes that the specimens which he has produced before the committee are incontrovertible evidences of it. The remark is unjust, because he has been many years concerned in this undertaking; nearly from the time the patent was granted to Mr. Cookworthy, in whose name it continued till assigned over to Mr. Champion. To deny the advantage of any part of Mr. Cookworthy’s merits to his assignee is to deny that advantage to Mr. Cookworthy himself. One part of the[367] benefit of every work, from whence profit may be derived, is the power of assignment; and if, in fact, the manufacture could not be completed, nor the inventor, of course, derive any profit from it, without the expense, care, and perseverance of the assignee and once partner, the merit of that assignee, who both completes the manufacture and rewards the discoverer, is equal in equity to that of the discoverer himself—equal in every respect, except the honour that attends original genius and power of invention.

“Mr. Champion can assert with truth that his hazard and expense was many times greater than those of the original inventor. Mr. Champion mentions this without the least disparagement to the worthy gentleman, who is his particular friend; he gives him all the merit which was due to so great a discovery; he deserved it for finding out the means of a manufacture which will, in all probability, be a very great advantage to this country; but yet Mr. Champion claims the merit of supporting the work, and, when the inventor declined the undertaking himself, with his time, his labour, and his fortune, improved it from a very imperfect to an almost perfect manufacture; and he hopes soon, with proper encouragement, to one altogether perfect.

“What regards the original discoverer is, in some measure, answered in the foregoing paragraph, but the original discoverer is not without a reward. Mr. Champion at this moment allows him, and is bound to his heirs, &c., in a profit equal to the first cost of the raw material, and, as Mr. Champion’s manufactory is encouraged, must increase to a very great degree.

“Nor is Mr. Wedgwood more excusable for his implication that a want of skill prevented the work being brought earlier to perfection; undoubtedly the difficulty arose from a want of skill in working these new materials. This is a profound as well as civil remark of Mr. Wedgwood’s; but that skill was to be acquired only by care and expense, and that care and expense are Mr. Champion’s merits. Mr. Champion pretends to no other knowledge as a potter than what he has acquired in the progress of this manufacture, his profession of a merchant not putting more in his power; but he had the experience of Mr. Cookworthy, the inventor, one of the most able chemists in this kingdom, to whom the public is indebted for many useful discoveries; he had the experience of the manager of his works, a person bred in the potteries, and thoroughly conversant in manufactures of this kind; the workmen he employed were brought up to the branch, and he has spared no expense in encouraging foreign artificers.

“But Mr. Champion, as a further answer to Mr. Wedgwood’s implication of want of skill, begs leave to observe that the Dresden manufacture (like this, a native clay), which has been established so great a number of years, was long before it attained perfection, and even now it has not that exact proportion of shape which the Chinese manufacture possesses. The Austrian manufacture (also a native clay) was twenty-five years before it attained any degree of perfection, and then only by accidental aid of the Dresden workmen who were dispersed during the late war. The work in Brandenburgh is nothing more than the Dresden materials, wrought by workmen removed hither from that city, the Brandenburgh work having no clay of its own territory. Mr. Champion is surprised that Mr. Wedgwood can find no cause but one, which he chooses to blame, why a new manufacture, upon a principle never before tried in England, should not have attained perfection in a shorter space than the very short space of seven years.

“As to Mr. Wedgwood’s calculation of the profits sufficient to recompense the ingenuity, and repay the trouble and expense of others, Mr. Champion submits it to a discerning and encouraging legislature, whether a seven years’ sale is likely to repay a seven years’ unproductive, experimental, and chargeable labour, as well as the future improvement to grow from new endeavours? Until Mr. Champion was able to make this porcelain in quantities to supply a market, it was rather an object of curiosity than a manufacture for national benefit.

“There is one branch of the manufacture, the blue and white, upon which he has just entered—this branch is likely to be the most generally useful of any: but the giving a blue colour under the glaze, on so hard a material as he uses, has been found full of difficulty. This object he has pursued at a great expense by means of a foreign artificer; and he can now venture to assert that he shall bring that to perfection which has been found so difficult in Europe in native clay.

“If the various difficulties which have attended his work from its beginning could have been foreseen, this patent ought not to have been applied for at so early a period. The time in which profit was to be expected has necessarily been laid out in experiment. It was thought that when the principle was found, the work was done; but the perfecting a chemical discovery into a merchantable commodity has been found a troublesome and a tedious work. It is therefore[368] presumed that the legislature will distinguish between the over-sanguine hopes, in point of time, of an invention which, however, has at length succeeded, and those visionary projects which deceive for ever. Upon the whole, Mr. Champion humbly rests his pretensions to the protection of the legislature upon three grounds—that he has been almost from the beginning concerned in the work which has cost so much labour and expense; that he now allows the inventor a certain and increasing recompense, though the carrying that invention to an actual merchantable manufacture was entirely his own work; that the potteries of chinaware in most other countries in Europe have been at the charge of sovereign princes. It has been immediately so in France, Austria, Dresden, and Brandenburgh; in Italy they have been under the care of great noblemen. In this original work Mr. Champion claims the principal share of supporting, improving, and carrying into execution a manufacture so much admired in China and Japan, and now first attempted in Britain, in capacity of resisting the greatest heat, equal to the Asiatic and Dresden.”

Wedgwood answered this “Reply” of Champion’s by some “Remarks,” which he issued to the members of the legislature, wherein he reminds them that he “has all his life been concerned in the manufacture and improvement of various branches of pottery and porcelain; that he has long had an ambition to carry these manufactures to the highest pitch of perfection they will admit of; and that so far from having any personal interest in opposing Mr. Champion, it would evidently have been his interest to have accepted of some of the obliging proposals that have been made to him by Mr. Champion and his friends, and to have said nothing more upon the subject; but Mr. Wedgwood is so fully convinced of the great injury that would be done to the landed, manufacturing, and commercial interests of this nation, by extending the term of Mr. Champion’s monopoly of raw materials, of which there are immense quantities in the kingdom, and confining the use of them to one or a few hands, that he thought it a duty of moral obligation to take the sense of his neighbours upon this subject, and to give up to the manufactory at large all advantages he might have secured to himself. It is upon these principles, and these alone, that he has acted in this business, and therefore he humbly presumes he does not merit the censure of avidity in grasping at other men’s manufactures, though he thinks that himself and all manufacturers should be protected in the free use of all raw materials that are not invented by men, but are the natural productions of the earth. When Mr. Wedgwood discovered the art of making Queen’s Ware, which employs ten times more people than all the china works in the kingdom, he did not ask for a patent for this important discovery. A patent would greatly have limited its public utility. Instead of one hundred manufactories of Queen’s Ware, there would have been one; and instead of an exportation[369] to all quarters of the world, a few pretty things would have been made for the amusement of the people of fashion in England. It would be the same with the use of the materials in question: if they are not only confined to the use of one person or manufactory, by patent, for fourteen years, but that patent be extended for twenty or thirty years longer, so long they may be the means of supporting one trifling manufactory; but if the materials are left free for general use, and Mr. Champion is in possession of the result of all his experiments and real discoveries with respect to the art of manufacturing these raw materials into porcelain, no essential part of which has been revealed by him to the public, either in his specifications or otherwise, then there is reason to expect a very large and extensive manufactory of porcelain will be established in various parts of this kingdom, to the great benefit of the public, without any injury to Mr. Champion.”

Wedgwood continued his “remarks” by replying that Mr. Champion’s offer of inserting a clause to allow the potters the free use of the raw material in all kinds of earthenware, restricting its use in porcelain only to himself, was a useless concession, because Champion had failed to define the difference between earthenware and porcelain, and had failed to impart the secret of his manufacture to the public, either by his specifications or otherwise. “How then,” he asked, “are the Staffordshire potters to use the growan stone and growan clay for the improvement of their finer stone and earthenwares, without producing such a manufacture as may in Westminster Hall be deemed porcelain?” He also said that, judging from Mr. Champion’s own words, Cookworthy’s patent “ought not to have been applied for at so early a period,” it was evident that the “patent was taken out for a discovery of the art of making true porcelain before it was made; and if the discovery has been since made, there can have been no specification of it; it has not been revealed to the public, it is in Mr. Champion’s own possession, and being unknown, it is presumed the right to practise it cannot be confirmed or extended by Act of Parliament, which ought to have some clear ground to go upon.” The patent, he says, has evidently been considered as a privilege to the patentee, “for the sole right of making experiments upon materials which many persons have thought would make good porcelain, and on which experiments have been prosecuted by several successive sets of operators many years before the date[370] of the patent.” He contended that it would have been an “egregious injury to the public” to continue the patent to one person who was no original discoverer, who was only just commencing the commonest and most useful part of his business with the aid of a foreign artificer, in the hope that a discovery might at some future time be made. He considered that if the raw materials were thrown open to all, “a variety of experienced hands would probably produce more advantage to the nation in a few years than they would ever do when confined to one manufactory, however skilful the director might be,” and that the extension of the patent securing the monopoly “would be a precedent of the most dangerous nature, contrary to policy, and of general inconvenience,” and therefore he “humbly hopes the legislature will not grant the prayer of Mr. Champion’s petition,”—a hope which, however earnestly expressed, and however tenaciously followed, was eventually of no avail. To this opposition, however, is doubtless to be traced the ultimate abandonment of the patent, and the manufacture of the less difficult soft paste to so great an extent in Staffordshire.

The term of the original patent, it will be remembered, was for fourteen years, of which nearly eight years remained unexpired at the time when it was assigned over by Cookworthy to Champion. The extension petitioned for would thus have given Champion nearly twenty-two years’ exclusive right to the raw materials, and it was this extended monopoly which aroused the watchfulness of Wedgwood, and made him determined to use his utmost efforts to prevent its being enacted. In this opposition—which was determined and energetic, though only partially successful—Wedgwood, besides memorialising the legislature against granting the prayer of the petition, issued a number of “Reasons why the extension of the term of Mr. Cookworthy’s patent, by authority of parliament, would be injurious to many landowners, to the manufacturers of earthenware, and to the public.” In addition to this, he made out and presented a “Case of the manufacturers of earthenware in Staffordshire,” setting forth the advantages that would be derived from throwing open the use of the raw materials, and the disadvantages which an extension of the monopoly would entail, not only on the manufacturers, but on the public at large.

These “reasons” why the extension of the term of Mr. Cookworthy’s patent, by authority of parliament, would be injurious to landowners, to the manufacturers of earthenware, and to the public[371] are so ingenious, and the “case” so carefully made out, that I here give them entire.[95]

The following is the “case” of the manufacturers of earthenware in Staffordshire, as drawn up by Wedgwood:—

“The potters, and other persons depending upon the pottery in Staffordshire, beg leave humbly to represent that Nature has provided this island with immense quantities of materials proper for the improvement of their manufactures; that such materials have been known and used twenty or thirty years ago, and that many experiments were made upon them by various operators with various degrees of success.

“That porcelain was made of these materials, and publicly sold before the year 1768.

“That in March, 1768, Mr. Cookworthy, of Plymouth, took out a patent for the sole use of the materials in question, called in the patent moor-stone or growan, and growan clay, for the making of porcelain, which is defined to have a fine colour and a lucid grain, and likewise to be as infusible as the Asiatic.

“That Mr. Cookworthy contracted, as the condition upon which he held the privilege of his[372] monopoly, that he would make a full and true specification of the art by which he converted these materials into porcelain, and that he entirely failed in fulfilling this obligation.

“For in the pretended specification which he made, he omitted to describe the principal operations in which his art or discovery consisted, having neither exhibited the proportions in which the materials were to be mixed to produce the body or the glaze, nor the art of burning the ware, which he knew to be the most difficult and important part of the discovery.

“That the company concerned in the porcelain manufactory at Plymouth, established under the authority of this patent, contracted with one gentleman, in whose lands these materials are found, that he should sell the materials only to them, and that they should purchase materials from no other person, during the term of ninety-nine years.

“That nevertheless there are great quantities of such materials in other estates in Cornwall and Devonshire, and probably in many other parts of this island.

“That in the year 1774 Mr. Cookworthy assigned over his patent right to Mr. Champion, of Bristol, who now applies to parliament for an extension of this monopoly, seven years before the expiration of the patent; which assignment was made upon condition that Mr. Cookworthy should receive for ninety-nine years from Mr. Champion as large a sum every year as should be paid to the proprietor for the raw materials, hereby laying a tax of 100 per cent. upon them.

“That Mr. Champion in his petition sets forth that he has brought this discovery to perfection; and that in a paper he has published, entitled A Reply, &c., he says that if the various difficulties which have attended this work from the beginning could have been foreseen, this patent ought not to have been applied for at so early a period; that is, in plain English, the patent was taken out for the discovery of an art before the discovery was made by the patentee. And if the discovery has been made since, there has been no specification of it; it has not been recorded for the public benefit; it is in Mr. Champion’s own possession; it is kept from the public for his own private emolument: and the nature of it being unknown, it is humbly presumed such a pretended discovery can neither entitle the patentee nor the petitioner to the extension of a monopoly injurious to many thousands of industrious manufacturers in various parts of the kingdom.

“And in the same paper in which we find the above curious confession, Mr. Champion acknowledges that even at this time he has just entered upon the commonest and most useful branch of his manufactory, which he has pursued at a great expense, by means of a foreign artificer, and can now venture to assert that he shall bring it to perfection. And in the space of seven years yet to come of his patent, and fourteen years’ further indulgence which he expects from parliament, one would hope some discovery might be made; but would it not be an egregious injury to the public, an unheard of and unprecedented discouragement to many manufacturers who have great and acknowledged merit with the public, to continue to one person who, in this instance, has no public merit, the monopoly of earth and stones that nature has furnished this country with in immense quantities, which are necessary to the support and improvement of one of the most valuable manufactures in the kingdom?

“Mr. Champion says, in the Reply referred to above, he ‘has no objection to the use which the potters of Staffordshire may make of his or any other raw materials, provided earthenware only, as distinguished by that title, is made from them. He wants to interfere with no manufactory whatsoever, and is content to insert any clause to confine him to the invention which he possesses, and which he has improved,’ &c.

“If Mr. Champion had accurately defined the nature of his own invention; if he had described the proportions of his materials necessary to make the body of his ware; if he had also specified the proportions of his materials necessary to produce his glaze, as every mechanical inventor who takes out a patent is obliged to specify the nature of the machine by which he produces his effect; if Mr. Champion could have drawn a distinct line between the various kinds of earthenware and porcelain that have been made, and are now made in this kingdom, and his porcelain, a clause might have been formed to have confined him to the invention which he says he possesses, and to have prevented him from interrupting the progress of other men’s improvements, which he may think proper to call imitations of his porcelain; but as he has not chosen to do the former, nor been able to do the latter, no manufacturer of stoneware, Queen’s ware, or porcelain, can with safety improve the present state of his manufacture.

“It is well known that manufactures of this kind can only support their credit by continual[373] improvements. It is also well known that there is a competition in these improvements through all parts of Europe. In the last century Burslem, and some other villages in Staffordshire, were famous for making milk pans and butter pots, and by a succession of improvements, the manufactory in that neighbourhood has gradually increased in the variety, the quality, and the quantity of its productions, so as to furnish, besides the home consumption, an annual export of useful and ornamental wares, nearly to the amount of two hundred thousand pounds; but during all this progress it has had the free range of the country for materials to work upon, to the great advantage of many landowners and of navigation.

“Queen’s ware has already several of the properties of porcelain, but is yet capable of receiving many essential improvements. The public have for some time required and expected them. Innumerable experiments have been made for this purpose. There are immense quantities of materials in the kingdom that would answer this end; but they are locked up by a monopoly in the bowels of the earth, useless to the landowners, useless to the manufacturers, useless to the public; and one person is petitioning the legislature, in effect, to stop all the improvements in earthenware and porcelain in this kingdom but his own.

“For the next step, and the only step the manufacturers can take to improve their wares, will be deemed an invasion of this vague and incomprehensible patent.

“The manufacturers of earthenware are justly alarmed at the prospect of extending the term of the patent, because, without improvements, the sale of their manufactures must certainly decline in favour of foreign manufacturers, who may not be deprived of the free use of the materials their countries produce; for the consideration in this case is not whether one manufacturer or manufactory shall be supported against another, but whether the earthenware and porcelain manufactories of Great Britain shall be supported in their improvements against those of every other country in the world. Upon the whole, the petitioners against the bill humbly presume this monopoly will appear to be contrary to good policy, highly injurious to the public, and generally inconvenient; that the extension of the monopoly, supposing any patent to be valid, would be greater increasing the injury; that the bill now depending is not only calculated to extend, but to confirm it, and therefore they humbly hope it will not be suffered to pass into a law.”

Despite all this factious opposition—for it was factious in the extreme—to his petition by Wedgwood, as the representative of the potters, and by the members of parliament for the county of Stafford, and others who had been moved by the exertions of Wedgwood and his friends, the bill passed the House of Commons, and was sent up to the lords without amendment. The “case” just given, along with extracts from the bill, with comments, showing, among other things, that the passing of the Act, as originally framed, conferred the full benefits of Cookworthy’s patent on Champion, without compelling him to enrol anew any specification of his process of manufacture, was printed for circulation among the members of the Upper House. With reference to this important point, it was shown that Cookworthy, having enrolled his specification, and having afterwards assigned the patent right to Champion, the bill enacted that all and every the powers, liberties, privileges, authorities, and advantages which in and by the said letters patent were originally granted to the said William Cookworthy, shall be held, exercised, and enjoyed by the said Richard Champion for the present term of fourteen years, granted by the said letters patent,[374] and after the expiration thereof, for the further term of fourteen years, in as full, ample, and beneficial a manner as the said Richard Champion could have held the same in case the said letters patent had originally been granted to him. The view of the bill is manifestly to confirm to Mr. Champion the letters patent for the present term of fourteen years, as well as to grant him fourteen years more. Had it been intended only to enlarge the term, and that the letters patent should have stood upon their own ground, such words of confirmation would not have been necessary; or if they had been thought so, they should have been succeeded by words to the effect following:—“Subject, nevertheless, to the same provisoes, conditions, limitations, and agreements, as the said William Cookworthy held and enjoyed the same before the date of the said assignment.” But these being omitted, and the bill having stated that the “said William Cookworthy had described the nature of his said invention and the manner in which the same is to be performed,” it is evident that the design of the bill is not only to confirm absolutely the letters patent, and consequently the monopoly of these materials for the present term of fourteen years, but also to grant it to him for fourteen years more; and the Act is to have this operation, even though the letters patent may be void by the discovery not being a new invention, according to the statute of James I., or by Mr. Cookworthy’s not having conformed to the terms and conditions of the letters patent, by having described and ascertained the nature of the said invention, and the manner in which the same is to be performed. That the making of porcelain is not a new invention is too evident to need any proof; that the letters patent are not within the intent of the statute is manifest by a cursory perusal of it. That Mr. Cookworthy has not described and ascertained the nature of this invention and the manner in which the same is to be performed (unless the discovery of the materials can alone be deemed so), will appear by what he has been pleased to call his specification. But it will appear in evidence that even the discovery of the materials was not, at the time of granting the letters patent to Mr. Cookworthy, “new and his own,” but that they were at that time, and had been long before, applied to the uses of pottery.

The presenting these papers to the Lords produced more effect, it would seem, than the efforts in a similar direction had apparently done in the Commons. The consequence was, that “Lord Gower and some other noble lords, having fully informed themselves of the facts upon which the merits of the case depended, and having considered the subject with a degree of attention proportioned to its importance, saw clearly the injurious nature of the bill, and were determined to oppose it.” This determination brought on a conference between the two noble lords who took the most active part for and against the bill, and the result was the introduction of two clauses, the first making it imperative on Champion to enrol anew his specification of both body and glaze within the usual period of four months; the second throwing open the use of the raw materials to potters for any purpose except the manufacture of porcelain, was as follows:—

The Act being obtained (specimens of his skill in making porcelain having been submitted to the Committee by Champion), the specification was duly prepared and enrolled according to the provisions of the Act. It is dated the 12th of September, 1775, and was duly enrolled on the 15th of the same month. The following is the specification, which will be found to contain much matter of interest; and, taken in conjunction with that of Cookworthy, given in my account of the Plymouth works, completes the important series of papers in connection with this manufactory:—

“To all to whom these presents shall come, I, Richard Champion, of Bristol, Merchant, send greeting, and so forth.

“Whereas his present Majesty, King George the Third, in the eighth year of his reign, did grant his Royal Letters Patent to William Cookworthy, of Plymouth, chymist, for the sole use and exercise of ‘A Discovery of Certain Materials for Making of Porcelain,’ which Letters Patent have been duly assigned to me the said Richard Champion; and whereas by a certain Act of Parliament (intitled an Act for enlarging the Term of Letters Patent granted by his present Majesty to William Cookworthy, of Plymouth, chymist, for the sole Use and Exercise of a Discovery of certain Materials for making Porcelain, in order to enable Richard Champion, of Bristol, Merchant—to whom the said Letters Patent have been[376] assigned—to carry the said Discovery into execution for the Benefit of the Public), all and every the powers, liberties, rights, and advantages by the said Letters Patent granted to the said William Cookworthy are granted to me, the said Richard Champion, my executors, administrators, and assigns, during the remainder of the term of the said Letters Patent, and from the expiration thereof for a further term therein mentioned, provided I, the said Richard Champion, should cause to be inrolled in the High Court of Chancery, within four months after passing the said Act, a specification of the mixture of the raw materials of which my porcelain is composed, and likewise of the mixture and proportions of the raw materials which compose the glaze of the same, which specification was in the hands of the Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain:

“Now know ye therefore, that I, the said Richard Champion, do hereby testify and declare that the specification hereinafter contained is the true and just specification of the mixture and proportions of the raw materials of which my porcelain is composed, and likewise of the mixture and proportions of the raw materials which compose the glaze of the same, and which, at the time of passing the before-mentioned Act, was in the hands of the Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain (that is to say):—

“The raw materials of the above porcelain are plastic clay, generally found mixed with mica and a coarse gravelly matter. It is known in the counties of Devon and Cornwall by the name of growan clay. The other raw material is a mixed micarious earth or stone called in the aforesaid countries moor-stone and growan. The gravel found in the growan clay is of the same nature, and is used for the same purpose in making the body of my porcelain as the moor-stone and growan. The mixture of these materials to make the body of the porcelain is according to the common potter’s method, and has no peculiar art in it. The proportions are as follow:—The largest proportion of the stone or gravel aforesaid to the clay aforesaid is four parts of stone to one of clay. The largest proportion of clay to stone is sixteen parts of clay to one part of stone mixed together. I use these and every proportion intermediate, between the foregoing proportions of the stone to the clay and the clay to the stone, and all this variation I make without taking away from the ware the distinguishing appearance and properties of Dresden and Oriental porcelains, which is the appearance and are the properties of mine. The raw materials of which the glaze is composed are, the stone or gravel aforesaid, and the clay aforesaid, magnesia, nitre, lime, gypsum, fusible spar, arsenic, lead, and tin ashes.

“The proportions of our common glaze are as follows, together with every intermediate proportion, videlicet:—

Growan gravel	128	parts	The materials ground and mixed together with water.
Growan or moor-stone	112	„
	and I vary it from 96 to 144	„
Magnesia	16	„
	and I vary it from 14 to 18	„
Gypsum	3	„
Lime	8	„

“But I also use the following materials for glaze:—

Growan clay	128	parts	The materials ground and mixed together with water.
Growan or moor-stone	112	„
	and I vary it from 84 to 140	„
Magnesia	20	„
	and I vary it from 16 to 24	„
Lime	8	„
	and I vary it from 6 to 10	„
Nitre	1	„
	and I vary it to 2	„
Fusible spar	20	„
Arsenic	20	„
Lead and tin ashes	20	„
	and I vary it from 16 to 24	„

“I have described truly and justly the raw materials, the mixture and proportions of them which are used in making my porcelain, which has the appearance and properties of Dresden or[377] Oriental porcelain, and which porcelain may be distinguished from the frit or false porcelain, and from the pottery, or earthen or stone wares, as follows:—

“The frit or false porcelain will all melt into a vitreous substance, and lose their form and original appearance in a degree of heat which my porcelain, agreeing in all properties with Asiatic and Dresden, will not only bear, but which is necessary for its perfection. My porcelain may be distinguished from all other wares which are vulgarly called earthen or stone wares, which can sustain an equal degree of heat, by the grain, the colour of the grain, and by its semi-transparency; whereas the earthenwares, such as Staffordshire white and yellow earthenwares and all other earthenwares which sustain a strong heat without being fused, are found, when subjected to the most intense heat, to appear cellular or otherwise, easily by the eye to be distinguished from the true porcelain.

“In witness whereof, I, the said Richard Champion, have hereunto set my hand and seal this twelfth day of September, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and seventy-five, and in the fifteenth year of the reign of our Sovereign Lord, George the Third, by the grace of God, of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith, and so forth.

“Rich. (S. S.) Champion.

“Sealed and delivered in the presence of us,

“Henry Sherwood,

“Of Wood Street, London.

“Robert Reynolds,

“Of Coventry.

“And be it remembered, that the twelfth day of September, in the year above written, the said Richard Champion came before our said Lord the King in his Chancery, and acknowledged the writing aforesaid, and all and everything therein contained and specified, as form above written. And also the writing aforesaid was stampt according to the tenor of the statute made in the sixth year of the reign of the King and Queen William and Mary of England, and so forth.

“Enrolled the fifteenth day of September, in the year above written.”

The works of Richard Champion were in Castle Green, Bristol, and I was enabled, in 1863, assisted by the researches of Mr. Edkins, kindly undertaken at my request, to fix the exact locality both of the works and of Champion’s residence. This he determined by the singularly fortuitous circumstance of a Directory for the city of Bristol having been published—and for that one year only—in the year in which Champion obtained his Act of Parliament, 1775. In this Directory, which is of extreme rarity, occurs the following entry:—

This occurs in the alphabetical list of “Merchants, Tradesmen, &c.,” and in another list of the “Merchants and Bankers and their residences,” is the following:—

It is perhaps worth just mentioning that this Directory, so opportunely made, is an admirable illustration of the difficulties under which compilers of those useful publications had to labour[378] in the olden times. It was compiled by a person of the name of Sketchley, and, most of the houses not being in those days numbered, he carried with him a lot of metal figures, and nailed them on to the doors as he went on, charging a shilling at each house for doing so; and it is related of him that, with a strict eye to business, he excluded the names of some persons from his list who refused to pay the impost! Fortunately for my purpose, Richard Champion had evidently paid a couple of shillings, and so ensured not only his residence at No. 17, but his works at No. 15 being duly entered. The site of the china works is now covered with small houses.

Armed with his new Act of Parliament, by which he was empowered to enjoy nearly twenty-two years’ patent right, Champion spared no pains and no expense to make the productions of his works as good as possible; and that he continued to produce a magnificent body and a remarkably fine glaze, and turned out some truly exquisite specimens of fictile art, both in design, in potting, in modelling, and in painting, is fully evident by examples still remaining in the hands of collectors.

The commoner description of goods, the blue and white ware, seems to have been, very naturally, considered by Champion to be the branch most likely to pay him, commercially, and this he at one time cultivated to a greater extent than any other branch. His acknowledged and advertised model was the Dresden, and his best efforts were turned in this direction. The patterns which he adopted, being, naturally, in many cases almost identical with those produced at Worcester and other places—which, of course, arose from the fact of the different works copying from the same models—the ware made by Champion is sometimes apt to be appropriated by collectors to that manufactory. It may, however, easily be distinguished by those who are conversant with the peculiarities of its make.

In blue and white, Champion produced dinner, tea, and coffee services, toilet pieces, jugs, mugs, and all the varieties of goods usually made at that period. The blue is usually of good colour, and the painting quite equal to that of other manufactories. Some of these pieces are embossed, and of really excellent workmanship. A good deal of the blue and white ware was marked with the usual cross, but it appears more than probable that the greatest part of this kind of goods passed out of the works unmarked.

Another characteristic class of goods made by Champion was[379] the imitation of the most common Chinese patterns, examples of which are shown in the next engraving of a saucer and a teapot.

There is a thorough Chinese style in the decoration of these pieces, and the colouring is also remarkably well reproduced. The saucer bears the usual mark of the cross, but very many examples of this class which have come under my notice are not marked at all, and pass as foreign pieces. In the same group I have given a cup of elegant form, but of different style, to show the beauty of its outline. Transfer printing was not, it would appear, practised by Champion, but some examples, Mr. Owen informs me, are known, which, although made at Bristol, were evidently printed at Worcester.

The expenses attendant on this unwarrantable opposition in Parliament drained Champion’s exchequer, and despite the energy of himself, the skill of his workmen, and the beauty of the ware produced at his manufactory, Richard Champion’s hopes of permanently establishing an art in Bristol, which should not only be an honourable and useful, but a remunerative one, proved fallacious, and in little more than five years from his obtaining of the Act of Parliament, the works which he had laboured so hard to establish, and on which he had expended so much time, money, and skill, were lost to the city of Bristol, and removed for ever from its walls, but not, fortunately, until he had proved incontestably his ability to produce a genuine porcelain of the finest texture, and of the most artistic and finished style.

In 1775 Champion advertised his works as “Patent China, at the Manufactory in Castle Green.” In 1776 he advertised it thus:—

In 1778, Josiah Wedgwood, in a letter, dated August 24th in that year, says, “Poor Champion, you may have heard is quite demolished; it was never likely to be otherwise, as he had neither professional knowledge, sufficient capital, nor scarcely any real acquaintance with the materials he was working upon. I suppose we might buy some growan stone and growan clay now upon easy terms, for they have prepared a large quantity this last year.” This curious letter, whose sympathy was certainly left-handed, did but little credit to Wedgwood—the man who of all others had worked hard to crush him, and had succeeded in so doing. His hope now that Champion was “quite demolished” was that he might be able to gain his point and get the growan stone and clay on easy terms! It is lamentable to feel that a great name could sink so low. It does not appear, however, that Champion ever became bankrupt, or even appealed to his creditors.

In his Bristol works, although only his own name appears in the various documents to which I have alluded, Champion had friends who assisted pecuniarily in his undertaking. One of these friends was Joseph Fry, the grandfather of the present Mr. Francis Fry, F.S.A., of Bristol, whose name is as well known among biblists and connoisseurs in china for his fine collection of old bibles and choice porcelain as the firm to which he belongs is to the general public for the “Fry’s Chocolate” which they manufacture to so large an extent. Mr. Joseph Fry, the friend of Champion, died in 1786, about nine years after the works had been closed on their removal into Staffordshire; and it appears that the only return he got for the capital he had sunk in the[381] concern, was the beautiful set of vases now in the possession of his grandson.

The patent right was sold by Champion, in 1781—not 1777, as stated by Shaw—to a company of Staffordshire potters, who continued the manufacture at New Hall (which see for a continuation of this narrative) for some time, when the ordinary soft-paste china was allowed to supersede it. Thus the works at Bristol were brought to a close, and the manufacture of porcelain was lost to the locality. Champion himself with his family removed for a time into Staffordshire, fixing themselves at Newcastle-under-Lyne, in November, 1781, and there remained until April, 1782, when, having been appointed a Deputy Paymaster-General of the Forces, by Edmund Burke, he left Staffordshire “at a day’s notice,” and removed to London, having apartments at Chelsea Hospital. This appointment he only held till 1784. In October of that year he sailed for Charleston, in South Carolina, and there he died, in 1791.

Bristol china (marked), every description of which, owing to the[382] short time the works were in operation, and other causes, is scarce, is particularly rare in the finer and more highly finished varieties. Fortunately, however, examples of these different varieties, of the very finest kind, are still preserved, and attest most strongly to the extreme perfection to which Champion succeeded in bringing his works. Much discrimination is, nevertheless, required in appropriating examples, and it is well to caution collectors against placing too much reliance on the sweeping way in which, by some writers, all examples are hauled into the Bristol net; and by others into those of Lowestoft and other places.

One of the choicest examples of the highest class of art in Bristol porcelain existing at the present day, is the tea-service of which the cup and saucer engraved on Fig. 749 forms a part. This splendid service, of which, through the courtesy of Miss Smith, this cup and saucer passed into my hands, possesses a double interest, first from its being made “the best that the manufactory could produce;” and, second, from the historical associations which are connected with it. This example is also highly important as showing the perfection to which the manufacture of porcelain had been brought by Champion in 1774–5. It seems that in 1774 Edmund Burke, while the contested election for Bristol was going on, remained in that city, and for a month was the guest of Mr. and Mrs. Smith, who were his warm friends and zealous supporters, and he presented this splendid set of china, made expressly, by his own order, by Mr. Champion, to Mrs. Smith, and the remains of the set are now the property of that lady’s daughter, Miss Smith, of Berkeley[383] Crescent. This set, it is fair to presume, was ordered by Burke while remaining in Bristol, or at all events about that time, which would be the very year in which the transfer of the Plymouth works to Champion of Bristol was completed. As a service of such exquisite beauty and such minute detail in painting would necessarily be a work of time, the absolute date of its completion may be set down to the beginning of the year 1775. The decorations of Burke’s service are of chaste and elaborate design and delicate workmanship. It is profusely and massively gilt in both dead and burnished gold, the wreaths of laurel, &c., being in green, which was Burke’s electioneering colour. Each piece bears the monogram of Mrs. Smith, S S conjoined, formed of wreaths of roses in pink and gold, and also the arms of Smith, sable, a fesse between three saltiers or; on an escutcheon of pretence the arms of Pope, or, two chevronels and a canton gules, the latter charged with a mullet of the first; and the crest of Smith, a saltier or. The pieces of this service are marked with the usual cross. In the Museum of Practical Geology is a cup and saucer of the same form, presented by the Duchess of Northumberland, in which the festoons and borders are of similar character, but of very inferior workmanship to those just described. Another remarkably fine and, of course, unique service was brought under the hammer in 1871, and deserves more than a passing notice. This service had been made by Champion and presented by him and his wife to Mrs. Burke. On the larger pieces were the arms of Burke impaling Nugent on a pedestal, supported, dexter, by a figure of Liberty; and, sinister, by a figure of Plenty. On the top of the pedestal is Cupid with a flaming torch, and at the base the inscription, “I. BVRKE, OPT. B. M. R. ET. I. CHAMPION. D. D.D. PIGNVS. AMICITÆ. III. NON. NOV. MDCCLXXIV.” Other decorations also are introduced. Portions of this service (which it is a pity was ever dispersed) are in possession of Mr. Callender, of Mr. Edkins, of Mr. Fry, and others. I am indebted to Mr. Owen for permission to reproduce from his admirable volume the engraving of a portion of this service (Fig. 750), and for the use of several other woodcuts.

Amongst the finest known productions of the Bristol works are the series of splendid vases in the possession of Mr. Francis Fry, F.S.A., to which I alluded in my account of Plymouth china. One of these is engraved on Fig. 754; it is 12¼ inches in height, and of hexangular form. The landscapes are exquisitely painted, and it has well modelled female busts on two of its sides, from which hang[386] festoons of raised coloured flowers. The other vases in Mr. Fry’s possession, one of which has a perforated neck, though differing in form, style, and ornamentation, exhibit the same excellence and skill in workmanship and in decoration which are so remarkable on this specimen. That these vases were painted by the same artists as the highest class of Plymouth china is very apparent to those who are conversant with their works. The birds are clearly “of the same family,” and the general style of decoration bears evident mark of coming from the same hands. They are not marked, and therefore a doubt very naturally arises as to whether they were made before the works were removed from Plymouth, and so brought as part of the “stock” to Bristol, or whether they were really made after their establishment in that city. They are, however, of a finer and higher quality than the marked Plymouth example, and therefore there can be no reasonable doubt that they are Champion’s production. Vases are distinctly spoken of in the evidence of John Britain before the House of Commons in 1774. He said “that he has great experience in several China manufactories, and has made several Trials upon all those which had been manufactured in England, and finds that all of them, except that of Bristol, were destroyed in the same Fire that brings the Bristol to Perfection. And he produced to your Committee several Samples of the said kinds of China, which shewed the effects upon china severally; and said, that they have not been able to bring the Bristol China to a marketable commodity, so as to furnish an Order, until within the last Six Months, but that sometimes they succeeded, and at other Times not, but that now they can execute any order. That they have lately made considerable improvements in the said Manufacture, and particularly are[387] endeavouring to perfect the Blue, in which they have not as yet entirely succeeded, though they have now a Gentleman who has succeeded in a small Way, in which they have been at a considerable Expense; that the witness thinks the Manufacture is capable of further improvements; that they can afford it at a price equal to Foreign China of equal Goodness, and that they have made some Specimens equal to good Dresden; that he has not seen any Dresden ornamental China equal to the Vases produced to your Committee, nor any Thing in Biscuit equal to the Biscuit in those Vases, and other Ornaments; that the Gilding stands well; that the Seve China differs from this; the Ornamental is more of a Cream colour, but the Glaze is so soft that it will not bear using; that he believed the enamel of the Bristol China is as hard as the Dresden, and harder than the Chinese,” &c. Mr. Champion also spoke very markedly upon this improvement when he wrote these words; “Mr. Champion can assert, with truth, that his hazard and expense were many times greater than those of the original inventor. Mr. Champion mentions this without the least disparagement to the worthy gentleman, Mr. Cookworthy, who is his particular friend; he gives him all the merit which is due to so great a discovery; he deserves it for finding out the means of a manufacture, which will, in all probability, be a very great advantage to this country; but yet Mr. Champion claims the merit of supporting the work, and, when the inventor declined the undertaking himself, with his time, his labour, and his fortune, improved it from a very imperfect to an almost perfect manufacture; and he hopes, soon, with proper encouragement, to one altogether perfect.”

The vases under notice fell to the lot of Mr. Fry’s grandfather at the time of the close of the works, and have never been out of the possession of the family. They are therefore attested as coming from Champion’s establishment. In Mr. Fry’s possession is also a remarkably interesting “waster” vase of the same general form and character, which has apparently been spoiled by smoke in the kiln. This vase, I believe, was purchased by its present possessor from a family in Bristol, in whose possession it was stated to have been for seventy years. Other vases of equal merit, all said to be Bristol, are in the possession of Mr. Edkins, Mr. Nightingale, and Mr. Walker. Of services, and portions of services, many fine examples exist in various private as well as in the national collections. Many of these are of extreme beauty in design and of remarkably good workmanship.

Another notable and beautiful feature of the Bristol works was the production of plaques, bouquets of flowers, wreaths, and armorial bearings, in biscuit. Of these examples are given in Figs. 755 to 758. One of these (Fig. 757), lately in the possession of Mr. Baller, but now of Mr. Nightingale, bears the arms and crest of the Eltons (who were connected with Bristol for the last two centuries as bankers, members of parliament, and mayors, and of which the present representative is Sir Arthur Hallam Elton, Bart.) impaling Tierney. The arms are paly of six, or and gules, on a bend sable, three mullets of the first, for Elton; impaling azure, between two lions combatant a sword argent, for Tierney. The shield is surrounded by a wreath of exquisitely and delicately modelled leaves and flowers. The plaque is oval, 5¼ inches in height by 4¼ inches in breadth. Another heraldic plaque is in the possession of Miss Smith, of Bristol. It is of about the same size as the one just described, and bears the arms of Smith, with escutcheon of Pope, as described as appearing on the tea-service engraved (Fig. 749). It is surrounded with a wreath of raised flowers of surpassing beauty.

This interesting and valuable piece was some years ago stolen from the late Mr. Smith, but, after about thirty years, was purchased by its former owner at a sale along with some other examples of Bristol make. In the possession of the late Mr. Edwin James, of Bristol, and in other hands, are circular and oval plaques with wreaths or bouquets of raised flowers, modelled in the same delicate and masterly manner, and undoubtedly by the same artist. Another (Fig. 755), in Mr. Fry’s collection, has the arms of France beautifully surrounded by a crowned wreath of elaborately modelled flowers—the crown, wreath, and border of which are of dead and burnished gold. Fig. 756, also in Mr. Fry’s possession, is an exquisite[390] heraldic plaque, having the arms of Harford impaling Lloyd, surrounded by a finely modelled wreath of flowers. In the Edkins collection was also a plaque with a delicate border of flowers enclosing a medallion profile of Franklin; and another, a simple group of flowers, and other examples, belong to Mr. Owen, Mr. Rawlins, Mr. Gwyn, and others. In her Majesty’s possession are two remarkably fine examples with medallion profiles of George III. and Queen Charlotte, presented to that queen by Champion himself in 1775, together with a pair of smaller flower plaques of exquisite finish and delicacy.

Figures were, to some extent, as is shown by the advertisements already quoted, made at Bristol, and in Mr. James’s possession were a pair—a man with a bird, and a woman with a barrel and a pig—bearing an incised cross on the bottom. Other figures are in the possession of Mr. Fry, Mr. Edkins, Lady Charlotte Schreiber, Mr. Castle, and others. (See Figs. 759 to 770).

Mr. Owen gives in his admirable work a fac-simile of a letter, in Champion’s own handwriting, addressed to the same modeller (whose name unfortunately does not appear) who produced the “Four Elements” for the Derby works, ordering from him a set of the same subjects, and also the “Four Seasons,” treated in a way which he fully describes. The letter is so interesting, and bears so strongly on the point of figure producing at Bristol, that I here reprint it.

These series were accordingly executed, and all bear, in the examples now remaining, the mark T o[sideways ‘o’ symbol];. It would thus appear to be the modeller’s own mark, or contraction of his name.

The most authentic and interesting figure is a memorial to[394] Richard Champion’s daughter Eliza, who died Oct. 13, 1779, aged fourteen. The figure is a monumental statuette of a mourning female figure, leaning on an urn, holding in her right hand a votive wreath and her left closed on the drapery. The urn and pedestal bear a long and very touching inscription. This interesting relic stands thirteen inches in height; it is in the possession of Mr. J. M. Desaussure, of Camden, South Carolina, who married a granddaughter of Champion. It is engraved on Fig. 759, through the courtesy of Mr. Owen. Two admirable figures (Figs. 768 and 769) of a shepherd and milkmaid, marked with the T^o marks, are in the possession of Mr. Francis Fry, and a set of the four seasons in rustic juvenile figures, bearing the same mark, were in the Edkins collection (Figs. 760 to 763). Another fine group is “Love subdued by Time,” in the Edkins collection (Fig. 770). Busts were also made; but as these and the examples made at Plymouth are not marked, and are made of the same body, and by the same workmen, it is manifestly impossible to correctly appropriate them.

A cup, part of the Harford service, bears in the bottom in the inside the +, the initials J H (of Joseph Harford), and the date 1774, and is the earliest known dated example of Bristol china. Another excellent dated example, bearing the repeated monogram[395] W C on the inside, has on the bottom the +, 1776, and figure 1. The pounce-box (Fig. 772) bears the × and figure 3.

The mark which usually denotes Bristol porcelain is a plain saltire, or cross, in blue, neutral tint, or red, sometimes with the addition of figures or other marks, but more commonly by itself. The figures probably denoted the workman, not the pattern, as on the same sets different numbers appear, which would not be the case if the design was denoted. The following are varieties of the mark, the cross being sometimes in one colour, and the figure or character in another. One, it will be seen, bears, besides the saltire, the sign for a drachm (or perhaps figure 3), and another the Greek character epsilon (ε). These marks occur the one on a teapot, the other on a saucer lately in the possession of Mr. Norman. The letter B also sometimes occurs painted in the same manner as the cross, and also in combination with figures, &c. (Figs. 783 to 786.) Other marks have been ascribed to Bristol, but many of them, I believe, wrongly. In Mr. James’s collection was a small fluted cream-boat, blue and white, with an unusual mark, the blue cross, above which is an embossed letter T, as shown on Fig. 789. The same mark occurs on a specimen in the Nightingale collection. Another mark variously ascribed to Bristol and Bow is To (Fig. 790), and one very early trial piece in the Edkins collection bears the unique mark of the word B r i s t o l l in relief. The Dresden mark of crossed daggers occasionally occurs in connection with the cross or the letter B; the latter marks being in some instance painted over the former, and in others close by (Figs. 791 to 796). Other marks said to be Bristol are shown on Figs. 799 and 800.

The ꝝ mark of Plymouth and the + of Bristol are on one or two known pieces, found in combination thus (Fig. 798), from the Schreiber collection.

Mr. Owen, to whom I have had occasion many times to refer in the course of this chapter on Bristol china, and to whom I must offer my congratulations on the successful issue of his labours and on the boon he has conferred on the literature of ceramics by his researches and by the elegant volume in which those researches are recorded, gives many interesting particulars regarding Champion’s workmen and apprentices. The following notes upon workmen may be useful for reference:—

Bristol Earthenware.

Temple Backs.—In 1786 the pottery for fine earthenware was established at No. 9, Water Lane, Temple Street, called “Temple Back,” by Joseph Ring, as I have shown in my notice of that potter and his delft-ware productions on page 354. In January, 1787, the following highly interesting advertisement appeared in the Bristol Gazette and Public Advertiser:—

In December of the same year, as is shown by an invoice of goods, the following goodly variety of articles was made: “oval dishes,” 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14 inches respectively; “table plates;” “soups;” “suppers;” “twifflers;” “tureens;” “quart jugs;” “pint jugs;” “sallad dishes;” “coffee-pots;” “sugar dishes with covers;” “coffee cups;” “bowles;” “coffee cups and saucers, paynted;” “table plates, paynted;” “twifflers paynted;” “quart[399] mugs variagated;” and “pint mugs variagated.” Mr. Ring’s friend and assistant, John Bettington, commemorated the establishment of this new manufacture by writing some songs for the Martinmas hiring festivities of the workmen. Two of these are printed by Mr. Owen. The first is entitled “The Bristol Pottery, by J. Bettington,” and is as follows:—

The second song, called “Bristol Pottery Martinmas Ditty” concludes thus:—

On the 5th of April, 1788, “Mr. Joseph Ring, potter, in Temple Street was unfortunately killed by the falling in of a warehouse. He has left a widow and nine children to lament his loss.”[98] He[400] was superintending some alterations at the time, when the roof fell in, and he was killed in the presence of his wife. The business was carried on as usual “by the widow of the late Joseph Ring, and late partners, under the firm of Ring, Taylor, and Carter.” The commemorative song of this year is curious. It is as follows:—

In 1797 these works are described as “a large pottery,” so they must at that time have been very extensive. In that year a curious reference to “two gentlemen of the name of Ring,” sons, no doubt, to Joseph Ring, occurs in the account of the death of James Doe, a potter who worked there under them, which I have given under the head of Lambeth (see page 137, ante). A mug bearing his name, “J. Doe, Sept. 1797,” is engraved in Mr. Owen’s book. In 1813 a deed of partnership between Joseph Ring (son of the late owner), Henry Carter, and John D. Pountney was drawn up, but through the death of the first-named was not executed. The business was therefore carried on by Pountney and Carter, under the style of Elizabeth Ring & Co., until 1816, when Carter retired and was succeeded by Edward Allies, the style being Pountney and Allies. In 1825–6 it was, according to Chilcott’s and Matthews’ Guides, worked by the firm of Pountney and Allies, and at that time gave employment to about two hundred persons. Mr. Allies retired in 1835, and in the following year Mr. Pountney took into partnership Mr. Gabriel[401] Goldney, who retired in 1850. Mr. Pountney died in 1852, and the works were then carried on by his widow under the style of “Pountney & Co.,” under the management of Mr. Clowes. In 1872, in which year Mrs. Pountney died, the works were purchased by Mr. Halsted Sayer Cobden, who also owns the Victoria Pottery, in Bristol, and by whom they have been much extended, and give employment to about four hundred hands. The goods produced are the ordinary classes of white and printed earthenware, principally for exportation. During Mr. Pountney’s lifetime, some parian figures, &c., were made at these works; and some exquisite examples, made by one of the workmen named Raby, who removed into Staffordshire, were in the possession of the late Mrs. Pountney, as were also some excellent imitations of the Etruscan and other styles. Examples of the early productions of these works are scarce, and it is interesting to state that the good old Bristol mark of the cross was used on some of the pieces of earthenware here made. The mark is sometimes in blue, and sometimes impressed. A name well known in connection with these works is that of William Fifield (and his son John), who was a painter of some merit. One of his plaques—a sportsman with dog, gun, and glass—is, with other examples, in my own possession. It bears on the back his initials, “W. F.,” and the words, “Here’s to my Dog and my Gun, 1855.” The view of the works, painted on four large tiles, and dated May 15th, 1820, now on the wall of the office of the Water Lane Pottery (Fig. 802), was also painted by him.

The Temple and St. Thomas’s Street Works.—The oldest stoneware pottery in Bristol is that of Mr. J. and C. Price and Brothers, in St. Thomas’s Street and Temple Street, where their famous glazed stoneware is made. It was established about 1735 or 1740, and has been continued in work by three generations of the same family until the present day. The old “Salt Glaze” was used till 1842, when great improvements having been made through the long-continued and successful experiments of Mr. Powell (as named in the notice of his works), it was at that time found practicable to dip the stoneware into liquid glaze in its green state, instead of first burning and then “smearing,” as formerly practised. Messrs. Price, having adopted the new method, continued to improve their works, and built much larger kilns than usual in potteries of the kind. The superiority of “Bristol stoneware” over others became so well established, that the metropolitan makers bought their glaze from that city until very recently, and, indeed, I believe some of them do so at the present day. The stoneware goods produced by Messrs. Price are of the highest quality, and, besides the more homely and useful articles, they have succeeded in making some excellent imitations of the antique, of very fine body, faultless glaze, and elegant form. Many of these are admirable copies from the antique, and are perfect in shape and in firing. Among the goods produced by this firm are filters of a remarkably simple but excellent construction and of elegant form; feet and carriage warmers; barrels and churns; bread, cheese, and other pans, and every other kind of domestic vessel, as well as every possible size and variety of bottles, jugs, &c. They do an immense export trade for bottles for ale, stout, &c., these being found for the purpose far superior to glass. Messrs. Price also make all the other usual varieties of stoneware goods, and all are of faultless quality both in body and glaze.

Other stoneware potters besides those already named were, in former times, John Hope,[99] in Temple Street; Thomas Patience,[100] in the same district; James Alsop, first at 9, Water Lane, and afterwards at Temple Street, and others, as well as at Baptist Mills, Easton, and Westbury.

Temple Gate Pottery.—At Temple Gate a stoneware pottery has long been established, and is still successfully carried on by Messrs. William and Septimus Powell, the sons of its founder. The goods manufactured at this establishment are what are generally termed “Bristol ware” or “Improved stone,” which was invented and perfected some forty years ago by the late Mr. Powell. “Its peculiarity consists in its being coated with a glaze which is produced simultaneously with the ware itself, so that one firing only is needed.” So great was Mr. Powell’s success in his discovery, that “shortly after its introduction at the Temple Gate Pottery almost every other manufacturer of stoneware adopted it, and it has now, in a large measure, superseded the old salt-glazed ware.” The goods principally made by the present proprietors, Messrs. W. & S. Powell, are bread-pans, filters, foot-warmers, and other domestic vessels, as well as bottles and jars of every size, shape, and use. Messrs. Powell have a registered arrangement for fitting, fastening, and keeping air-tight, by means of a three-pronged, or tripod, iron clamp furnished with an elastic washer, the lids of preserve and other jars—thus doing away with the necessity of any other covering. At these works, too, vases and bottles of classic shape are occasionally made, as are also enormous jugs—one of which, capable of holding twenty-five gallons, has been exhibited by the firm.

Wilder Street Pottery.—About 1820 a pottery on a small scale was worked in Wilder Street by a family named Macken, a descendant of the owner of the old pottery at St. Ann’s, at Brislington, where flower-pots and other coarse brown ware was made. Macken afterwards went to America.

Bristol Glass.

As the manufacture of enamelled glass in Bristol is so intimately mixed up with that of pottery and china, it may be interesting to add a few words concerning it. In 1761 there appears to have been, according to Evans, “fifteen large houses employed in that manufacture.” The main source of information concerning the manufacture is gained from the books and papers of Michael Edkins, to whom I have referred in my notice of the delft-ware pottery. For the particulars gleaned from these papers I am indebted to his descendant, Mr. William Edkins. The ledger commences in May, 1761.

The glass made at Bristol appears to have been principally white, of different shades, and was made in a great variety of articles, including teapots, jugs, cream ewers, beakers, &c. The commoner varieties of decorative glass were painted in a rapid style with varnish colour, and submitted to a gentle heat, just sufficient to fix it on the surface. This, of course, soon rubbed off in use, and on the examples which are still remaining the patterns have almost disappeared.

The highest class of goods produced by Mr. Edkins was beautifully and perfectly enamelled, the colours were remarkably good, and thoroughly incorporated into the glass. Examples of this kind are very rare, but one or two specimens still remain in the family and are highly prized.

As the prices charged by Michael Edkins for painting on glass, and for enamelling, naturally become a guide to the prices he had been paid as a painter on delft-ware, and further as a guide to the prices of painting on china at that time, I append a few extracts from his ledger, which will be read with interest by collectors. For these extracts I am indebted to Mr. William Edkins, of Bristol, grandson of the painter, who has the original book in his possession. The accounts for painting and enamelling on glass extend from April, 1762, to December, 1787. The following are a few of the items:—

Salt Glaze.

It is said that the delft-ware potteries were preceded by a maker of salt-glazed stoneware—a German named Wrede or Read—and a curious story is told in connection with him and the difficulty he had in establishing his works. It appears that the people being surprised at the glaze he produced on his ware, and at the secrecy he endeavoured to preserve regarding his pottery, and noticing the dense clouds of vapour which every now and then arose from his kiln (caused, of course, by the throwing in of the salt through the fire holes when the ware had arrived at a certain degree of heat), believed that he had called in supernatural aid, and that the fumes which ascended were caused by the visits of the devil. He was “mobbed” by the people, his place injured, and he was forced to fly the town.

Brislington.

About a century ago, I am informed, there was a pottery at St. Ann’s, in this parish, conducted by a family named Macken. The older productions are described as “a drab-coloured ware with a plum-coloured glaze; the more modern were the same ware covered with a layer resembling porcelain; white, and apparently of felspar, this kind has almost invariably a rough blue pattern.” One of the Macken family had a pottery in Bristol.

A manufactory formerly existed at this place, and the ware produced may be described as very closely approaching, in general appearance and effect, the common descriptions of Turkish pottery. The patterns were produced, in coarse and rude designs, in a kind of copper or red lustre, on the plain buff clay ground. Examples are somewhat rare. The works were carried on by Richard Frank, of Bristol, and his family, but were closed in the latter part of last century. The works, which were of course but small, still stand, but are converted into cottages. “They are situated at the bottom of St. Ann’s Wood, between St. Ann’s Vale and the river, on a line about half a mile beyond Netham Dam,” and opposite to Crewshole. Some good examples of this ware, which is remarkably clumsy and coarse, but very curious, are preserved in the Bristol Museum (Fig. 804). The circular dish is fourteen inches in diameter with a small centre of nine inches. On its back is the rude monogram (Fig. 805) of Richard Frank, its maker.

Crews-Hole.

A small stoneware pottery was established here by a clever but somewhat peripatetic potter, Anthony Amatt, originally of Derby, who was one of the workmen employed by Richard Champion at the famous Bristol china works. His works were merely a wooden shed or two, and the bulk of his productions were flower-pots. He afterwards, I believe, had a small pottery at Temple Gate, which came into the hands of Mr. Powell when Mr. Amatt entered into his employ. Previous to this it is believed a small pottery for producing the same kind of ware as that of Brislington had existed at Crewshole. In 1794–5 Amatt was living at Twerton, in Somersetshire; in those years he was extensively engaged in painting on earthenware and china for Mr. Egan, of Bath, brother-in-law of the second William Duesbury, of the Derby China Works. The original bills are in my own possession. He was afterwards a stocking weaver.

Westbury.

The Sugar House Pottery at Westbury, which had been for many years carried on by George Hart, passed, on the 8th of December, 1775, into the hands of Stephen Fricker, potter and publican, who was host of the Fountain tavern in High Street, Bristol. Besides sugar bakers’ moulds, which gave the name of “Sugar-house Pottery” to the works, the usual classes of flower-pots, chimney-tops, puncheons, pitchers, and other domestic coarse brown ware articles were made.

Easton.

A small manufactory was established here for the manufacture of various articles by a process for using the magnesian limestone of the district in its body. Many very creditable and artistic articles were produced, but the whole affair proved a failure, and the works were closed. The spill case (Fig. 806) is said to have been made here.

Weston-super-Mare.

The Royal Pottery was established in 1836 by Mr. Charles Phillips as a brick and tile manufactory. In the following year glazed ware, for domestic vessels, was introduced, as was also, to a small extent, the manufacture of flower-pots, &c. In 1840 the production of glazed ware was discontinued; and, the clay of the locality being found to be admirably adapted for horticultural vessels, vases, statuary, &c., special attention was directed to them, and with such marked effect that, at the Great Exhibition of 1851, medals and certificates of merit were awarded for them. In 1870 Mr. Phillips retired from the business, which was at that time purchased from him by the present proprietor, Mr. John Matthews, by whom it has been very considerably extended. By Mr. Matthews, too, several new branches have been added to the business, and a new and better taste has been infused into the art decorations. Notably among the new introductions are rustic-work, baskets of artificial flowers, busts, vases, suspenders, &c. Flower-pots, of which from 20,000 to 30,000 are made weekly, and of all sizes, from 1¾ inches to 30 inches in diameter, are a staple production of the “Royal Pottery,” and are supplied to her Majesty’s garden at Windsor Castle, H.M. Commissioners of Works at Kew, Hampton Court, the Parks, &c., the Royal Horticultural Society, Chiswick, &c., and to most of the principal gardens in this country, as well as being exported in large quantities to New Zealand, Port Natal, and Chili. They have the reputation of being the best, most compact, and most durable of any manufacture; and, although of such enormous size, are turned with marvellous precision, and fired without running or casting. Two great, and registered, specialities] are the “Oxford Pot” with perforated rim for training pelargoniums, azaleas, roses, &c., without the aid of sticks, and the “Alpine-plant pot”—a kind of double pot so arranged that the space between the outer one and the inner one (in which, of course, the plant is set) can be filled with water or moist moss. The more notable ornamental productions of the “Royal Pottery” are figure, shell, and other fountains, of various tiers in height; life-size figures and groups of figures; statuettes and busts; reproductions of ancient statuary; eagles, lions, and other gigantic figures on artificial rocks and pedestals; flower and other brackets in considerable variety; vases and tazzas of every conceivable form, many of which, peculiar to these works, are of remarkable elegance;[410] pedestals and garden-seats; flower-vases and flower-stands, elaborately and elegantly decorated in relief; fern-stands and flower and fern-baskets, with and without handles, charmingly decorated in relief with wicker-work, fern-leaves, and other ornamentation; cut flower-baskets and vases; crocus pots; elegant suspenders for flowers, for use in conservatories, entrance-halls, archways, &c.; orchid pots, of greatly improved form and construction; window-boxes for flowers; stump or rustic arborettes, of various sizes, for lawns, rockeries, parterres, &c., of the most striking and novel character; rockery arborettes for ferns, lychopods, &c., of various sizes, either for out or in-door use; and architectural decorations, &c. The general colour of these productions is a delicate red, which is calculated to harmonize well with surrounding foliage. The designs of the vases, &c., are remarkably good, bold, and effective; the body durable and hard; the colour pleasing, and the workmanship faultless. The greatest achievement of Art in terra-cotta which has ever been gained is the production of baskets of flowers, each individual leaf or flower modelled from nature; and vases decorated in the same manner. Those who are acquainted with the exquisite beauty of the groups of porcelain bisque flowers produced at the old Bristol and Derby works, will scarcely be prepared to believe that they are successfully vied in the coarser material by Mr. Matthews. But such is the case, and hence it is that I call attention to these new and beautiful ceramic productions. So true to nature are many of the flowers, and so delicately modelled in all their minutest details, that the most skilful botanist can scarce find a deviation from nature in leaf or flower. The basket engraved on Fig. 807 is a fair specimen of the Matthews’ reproduction of flowers; but the most exquisitely beautiful group yet produced is an example in my own possession—the chef-d’œuvre of the works. It is unsurpassed by any production in terra-cotta. These floral baskets are a speciality of the Royal Pottery, and are among the most beautiful of art productions.

The clay from which the various terra-cotta and other objects are made is the native clay of the place, and is produced in the field in which the works are situated. It is a fine plastic clay, of light colour, and admirably adapted for the various purposes to which it is being applied. The first six or eight feet in depth is this fine plastic clay, from which the vases, statuary, busts, fern-stands, flower-baskets, and other finer goods are made. Below this are several feet in depth of blue clay, from which bricks, drain-pipes, &c., are[411] made, and which lies in a bed of peat about fifteen inches in depth. Below this peat is a considerable depth of soft clay, from which the ordinary bricks are made. Roofing and flooring tiles, and garden-edgings, are also made in large quantities. The following is an analysis of the plastic clay made for the purpose of this account.

“The greater part of the lime shown above exists in the raw clay as carbonate. The high character which the clay bears as regards its suitability for ‘Terra-Cotta’ work is fully borne out by the analysis. (Signed), Edward G. Tosh, F.C.S., Chemical Laboratory, Whitehaven.”

The mark of the Royal Pottery is sometimes the Royal Arms alone, and at others the Royal Arms surmounting a tablet with the name. There are also other potteries, where coarse common ware is produced, in the same neighbourhood.

Poole, Dorset.

The Architectural Pottery Company’s works were established in 1854 by Messrs. Thomas Sanders Ball, John Ridgway (china manufacturer, of Cauldon Place, Hanley), Thomas Richard Sanders, and Frederick George Sanders. In 1857, Mr. Ridgway retired from the concern and it was carried on by the remaining partners until 1861, when Mr. Thomas Sanders Ball also retired. Since then the works have been continued by Messrs. T. R. and F. G. Sanders alone. The Company produce patent coloured and glazed bricks and mouldings, semi-perforated and pressed; patent mosaic, tessellated, encaustic, vitreous, and white, blue, and other glazed wall tiles;[412] embossed and perforated tiles; quarries and fire-clay goods, and other articles—the clays used being Purbeck clay, Cornish china clay, and Fareham clay, while those for plain quarries are from the Canford estate.

The encaustic paving tiles are of good design, many being carefully copied from mediæval examples, while others are new and of extremely good character—some being classic and others gothic. The colours used in the encaustic tiles are very varied and, in some instances, rich; red, buff, blue, chocolate, black, white, brown, green, &c., of different shades and of harmonious combinations. A speciality of these works are the tessellated tiles, under Bale’s patent process. These are literally formed of thin tesseræ of various colours, laid on and forming a part of the quarry itself. By this means all the richness and intricacy of the geometrical designs of tessellated pavements is produced, and at small trouble in laying down. Their character, as a rule, is better than the Italian tiles produced on the same general principle. These “tessellated tiles”[413] possess every quality for general adoption, and no doubt will, in time, become, so to speak, acclimatised to this country. In quality the Architectural Pottery Company’s decorated tiles are not so hard and compact in body as some others are, but doubtless this can be improved upon.

Bourne Valley Pottery.—At this pottery, worked by Messrs. Standing and Marten, who have an establishment at Bourne Valley Wharf, Nine Elms, London, glazed stoneware sewage and sanitary pipes, on Creshes’ patent, and terra-cotta vases, figures, chimney-tops, garden edgings, and architectural enrichments are made.

Branksea Pottery.—These potteries were built by Col. Waugh for the manufacture of stoneware sanitary goods and terra-cotta, in 1855, who also established alum works here. Fire-clay goods of the usual quality of the district are made, and the sanitary pipes are of a hard and durable nature. The works have the advantage of a large bed of excellent clay close at hand.

Kinson.

The works at Kinson, near Poole (with a wharf at the Albert Embankment, Lambeth), were established in the middle of the present century, and consisted of twelve kilns with boiler, engine-house, drying-sheds, stables, offices, &c. After a few years they were closed, and so remained until 1867, when the property was purchased and came into the hands of the present “Kinson Pottery Company,” who commenced making stoneware drain-pipes. Shortly afterwards the company introduced the making of terra-cotta goods,[414] in which they have been very successful, and fire-bricks, which they manufacture to a very considerable extent. The estate consists of about twenty-seven acres of freehold land, which is underlaid through its whole area with a thick compact bed of clay, in layers of various descriptions. It is (roughly speaking) of three qualities, about 40 feet thick, lying in nearly equal beds of each description. The quality is shown in the following copy of Herapath’s analysis, taken some years ago, for the original company:—

The productions of the Kinson Pottery, in stoneware, are sanitary and drain-pipes of every description, traps, syphons, and pans, and other articles; they are highly vitrified, strong, and durable, and of excellent quality. In terra-cotta, vases, rustic seats, brackets, garden edgings, chimney-pots, architectural enrichments, and other goods are produced, as are also fire-bricks, arch and wedge bricks, &c. The quality of the terra-cotta is extremely good and durable.

Nottingham.

That pottery and encaustic paving-tiles were made at Nottingham during mediæval times is abundantly proved by the discovery, in April, 1874 (when digging the foundations for the Methodist New Connection chapel), of kilns and examples of tiles and domestic vessels. Of this discovery Mr. A. J. Sully gives me the following account:—

The vessels seem to be of very much the same general character and period as those found at Burley Hill, described on pages 78 and 79. They consist principally of pitchers of almost identical form with[416] those engraved on Figs. 266 to 269 and 272 and 274. The most remarkable is the one described by Mr. Sully as bearing a mask on either side.

In 1641 there appears, from a list of trades compiled in that year and given by Dering, to have been only one master-potter at Nottingham. In 1693 “glass-pots”—i.e. crucibles for glass makers—were made of Derbyshire crouch clay. This is thus alluded to by Houghton in that year, “clay with flat or thin sand glittering with mica. Crouch white clay, Derbyshire, of which the glass pots are made at Nottingham.”

In the beginning of last century Mr. Charles Morley was a manufacturer of brown glazed earthenware in Nottingham. His works were in the lower part of Beck Street, on the way to St. Ann’s Well. Mr. Morley, who amassed a very considerable fortune by his pottery, built for himself the large house in Beck Lane, which was afterwards occupied by his son, the late Mr. Charles Lomas Morley, and still later used as the Government School of Design. In 1737 Mr. Charles Morley, the potter, was one of the Sheriffs of Nottingham. One of his principal branches of manufacture was in brown ware ale-mugs, for the ale-houses of the district, and in pitchers, and other domestic utensils. In 1739, according to a list of trades in that year, there were two master-potters in Nottingham.

Dering, who wrote his “Nottingamia vetus et nova” in 1751, says that at that time Nottingham sends down the river Trent “coals, lead, timber, corn, wool, and potter’s ware.”

In 1772–4 it is stated, in a curious and scarce little work, “A Short Tour in the Midland Counties of England,” that at Nottingham “the making of glass wares is laid aside, and that of pots become very trifling; but here are some small silk mills and also a few on the same principle for cotton, lately erected.”

In 1774 the names of thirteen “pot-makers,” one “mug maker,” and four “pipe makers” occur in “An exact List of the Burgesses and Freeholders of the town and county of Nottingham,” who voted at the election of Members of Parliament in that year, but of course these would mainly be journeymen. The names, which I here extract from a copy of this scarce book in my own possession, are as follows:—

In 1780, in “An exact list of the Burgesses of the town and county of the town of Nottingham, who polled in the election of two Burgesses to represent the said town in the Council Chamber,” the following fourteen pot and mug-makers and one pipe-maker occur:—

In 1802, in a List of the Burgesses in the Free Library[102] the following four names occur;—

In the list of those who voted at the contested election of 1803, only one pot-maker appears. In the same list the “Old Pottery” is mentioned as a place of residence of several persons, thus showing that the manufacture had then ceased at that place.

In 1815, Blackner in his history of Nottingham says, “there were likewise two potteries within the last thirty years,” “but the clay was principally brought from a considerable distance, which added so much to the cost of the pots as to prevent the proprietors maintaining a competition with the Staffordshire dealers.”

The names of “Mug-House Yard” and “Mug-House Lane” in Beck Street, take their origin from the old pot works of Mr. Morley, and show, incontestably, that those works, where “mugs” were the staple production, were known as the “Mug-house.”

The greater part of the clay was brought from out of Derbyshire, but some is said also to have been procured from Hucknall Torkard.

The earliest known dated example of Nottingham ware is the remarkably fine posset-pot (Fig. 812), in the possession of my friend, the Rev. J. S. Doxey, by whom it was thus described for my “Reliquary”:—[103]

In Mr. Briscoe’s possession is a good specimen of the brown mugs so characteristic of Nottingham ware. It is 5½ inches in height, 2⅞ inches in diameter at the bottom, and wider at the top, and will hold about half a pint. It was discovered during excavations[419] in Victoria Street, Nottingham, close to the site of the Old Ship inn, of “Gideon Giles” notoriety.

One of the finest mugs which has come under my notice—and indeed, I believe, the finest known example—is in the possession of Mr. E. M. Kidd, of Nottingham, who is also the fortunate possessor of a fine collection of English china. It is engraved on Figs. 813 and 814. In front is a full-blown rose on a stem, surmounted by a crown, and there are two other crowns, one on either side, a little lower down, between what are evidently intended for thistles; there is also a terminal rose at each end, and the remainder of the body is ornamented with their stems and foliage. At the back, by the handle, are the words

This inscription is, as usual, in ordinary writing letters, incised, or scratched, into the soft clay. On the bottom, in the same kind of incised writing letters, is the maker’s name, W^m Lockett. This is highly interesting, as he, William Lockett, is one of the makers included in the foregoing lists of voters in 1774 and 1780. The name stands thus in the 1774 list:—“Lockett William, pot-maker, New buildings” (in 1780 he was of St. Ann’s Street), and he appears to have given a plumper for the Hon. William Howe, of Epperstone. In the same list is a Henry Lockett, saddler, Smithy row, who voted in the same manner. In the same list the name of the school-master, for whom this special mug was made also occurs, but he voted for[420] Lord Edward Bentinck, and Sir Charles Sedley, of Nutthall, Bart. The name stands thus:—“Johnson John, school-master, St. Mary’s Church side.”

Thus a record occurs both of the maker and the owner of this curious mug, of which Mr. Kidd is the fortunate possessor.

A jug formerly belonging to Mr. Norman has the inscription, incised in writing letters, as follows:—

In the Museum of Practical Geology is a “christening bowl,” thirteen inches in diameter bearing the incised words, in writing letters, “Nouember 20 1726;” a punch-bowl, twenty-two inches in diameter, with the words “Old England for Ever, 1750;” and a highly interesting mug “in brown earthenware with glaze of metallic lustre, ornamented with stamped flowers laid on in relief, and incised inscription in cursive characters, round the rim, ‘Made at Nottingham ye 17th Day of August A.D. 1771.’”

Another good, dated example, brought under my notice by Mr. Briscoe, bears the names of “Thos. and Mary Brammer, May ye 21 1753.” In the collection formerly belonging to Mr. Hawkins was “a neatly formed puzzle jug, of lustrous glaze, ornamented with a vase of pinks [these flowers being most generally used in the ornamentation of the Nottingham Pottery] and scrolls around the lower part, the flowers being a dark red colour; on the front is the date 1755, underneath the bottom, the initials, ‘G. B.’” In the same collection was “a tobacco jar, in form of a bear, of bright lustrous glaze, his head being the cover, a collar round his neck, and a chain, to which is attached a large hollow ball, containing stones and holes, used as a rattle; on the ball is impressed the name “Elizabeth Clark, Dec^r ye 25^th 1769.”

One of the favourite productions of the Nottingham “Mug-house” and its predecessors, was drinking jugs in form of a bear, which were also made at Brampton in the same kind of ware, and at Fulham and other places in other wares. A strikingly good example (Fig. 815) is in my own possession. It is 9½ inches in height, and formed of the usual hard brown glazed ware of this pottery. The whole, with the exception of the neck, is powdered with small fragments of dry clay (not “potsherds” as usually, but erroneously, stated) which have been sprinkled over its surface before firing and burnt in with it. This, it may be remarked, is the usual characteristic of these vessels whenever made. The one under notice has the eyes, outlines of the ears, teeth, and claws, laid on in white “slip.” It, like many other “bears,” is made to rest as in the engraving, or to stand upright when placed on its hams; the body contains the liquor, and the head lifts off to be used as a drinking-cup, holding it by the muzzle.

Lowesby.

In 1835 Sir Frederick Gustavus Fowke, Bart., commenced some Terra Cotta Works at Lowesby, in Leicestershire, and produced vases of very good character and of remarkably hard and fine body from the clays of the neighbourhood. He had previously, about 1833, made some garden-pots for his own use, and finding the clay remarkably good and tenacious, determined upon utilising it. In colour the terra cotta was a full rich red, and in some cases the articles were decorated with Etruscan figures and ornaments in black enamel. Vases, ornamented flower-pots, butter-pots, and other articles of domestic use, were produced, and these were mostly decorated with patterns in black, or occasionally in colours, and gilt.

A shop for the sale of the Lowesby ware was opened in King William Street, London, under the management of a Mr. Purden. The ornamental vases, made of different sizes, were sent up to London as they came from the kiln, and many of the antique shapes were beautifully painted and enamelled in London under Mr. Purden’s superintendence. The manufacture was only continued for a few years and then, not being found to answer, died out. The place is now used as a brick and tile works, and flower-pots are also made.

The mark is impressed on the bottom of the ware. It is a[422] fleur-de-lis, beneath the name “LOWESBY” in a curved line (Fig. 816). Occasionally the name LOWESBY without the fleur-de-lis occurs. The arms of Sir Frederick G. Fowke, Bart., the founder of the works, are, vert, a fleur-de-lis, argent, and the seat is Lowesby Hall, so that the mark represented time armorial bearing of the family, and the name of the estate.

Coalville.

In 1859 the attention of Mr. George Smith (who has made himself a name, and earned the thanks of his country for his philanthropic exertions in improving the condition of the brick-yard children and those of the canal population) was accidentally drawn to the clays of the neighbourhood of Coalville and Whitwick, and he procured some for the purpose of experiments. These trials proving eminently satisfactory, Mr. Smith entered into an arrangement with Mr. Joseph Whetstone and others by which he undertook to establish the manufacture of terra cotta on the spot and to develop the clay resources of the place. The works were therefore established in connection with the Whitwick Colliery Company, at Coalville and Ibstock; they are now worked by the Midland Brick and Terra Cotta Company. Three kinds of terra cotta are here produced, viz., red, white or light buff, and yellow or cream colour. These varieties, each distinct from the other, are thus described for me by Mr. Smith:—

“First, the red. This is made out of the surface clay, of a greyish tint, and varies in thickness from four to thirty feet, and does not shrink much in burning; it burns a beautiful bright red colour and will stand the severest weather and keep its colour. Occasionally a little white scum may be seen on the surface: this is the result of making, drying, and burning too quickly; but this will disappear after it has been in use a winter or so. Second, the light buff or glypto terra cotta. The clay out of which this is made underlies the red terra cotta clay and varies in thickness from six to twenty feet; it is very hard and difficult to be ground to a proper fineness. This terra cotta when burnt resembles very much Bath stone in colour, and may, if it be kept dry from the time it is burnt to the time it is used, be cut and carved with much ease, and it is very suitable for head-stones, &c. But this peculiar speciality disappears after it has been exposed to the weather for a little time, when it gets hard, and turns the edge of the tools. Third, the yellow or cream-coloured[423] terra cotta. The clay for this kind of terra cotta is got out of the coal-pits in the neighbourhood, and lies at a depth of about a hundred and twenty yards from the surface. It averages about five feet in thickness, and is a kind of clay between a pot-clay and a fire-clay. It is very fine, strong, free from iron, and will stand a great heat, but shrinks a deal in burning—about one-eighth. The kind of goods this clay is most suitable for are the following:—Sewage-pipes, chimney-pots, vases, flower-boxes, tiles, and pottery. The goods produced in architectural enrichments are bases and capitals; cornices, corbels, and brackets; arch moulds, vaulting-ribs, and balustrades; diapers, finials, and ridge-tiles, and other articles. Garden and conservatory, as well as table vases—some of which, especially a tripod vase, are of excellent design—are also made of various sizes.”

Ibstock.

Polesworth.

Terra Cotta Works.—One of the manufactures of terra cotta carried on by the “Midland Brick and Terra Cotta Company” is situated at Polesworth. It was established in 1875, and the directorship placed in the hands of Mr. J. Joiner, for many years principal manager at the Stamford Terra Cotta Works. The productions consist of fountains; garden, conservatory, and other vases of various designs; architectural details and enrichments; chimney tops, chimney pieces, capitals and columns, crestings and finials, and other articles, including an admirable feature, that of tomb-stones, monuments, memorial tablets, urns, &c. Blue and brown bricks, both moulded and plain; coping, arch, and stable bricks; roofing tiles, garden edgings, drain pipes, and other useful goods are also extensively made. The terra cotta is both red and buff, and is of fine hard and durable quality, and, with a clean, good surface, unites a pleasant shade of colour.

Market Bosworth.

Terra Cotta Works, belonging to the “Midland” Company, before spoken of, have been established for the production of bricks, tiles, fire-clay, and the more ordinary terra cotta goods.

Tamworth.

The Terra Cotta Works at Tamworth were established in 1847, by the present owners, Messrs. Gibbs and Canning, and are now very extensive and important, and produce a large variety of goods of the highest class and character. The principal productions are terra-cotta for architectural, horticultural, and other useful and ornamental purposes; Della Robbia ware; sanitary and other goods; tiles, and bricks, &c. In terra cotta, for architectural purposes, trusses and cornices, bosses and pateræ, brackets and corbels, capitals and bases, balustrades and parapets, keystones and quoins, strings and mouldings, window and door heads, terminals and finials, friezes, diaper work, ashlar, and every other detail, are produced, and of a quality for sharpness, hardness, and durability scarcely to be surpassed. Among the buildings where this Tamworth terra cotta has been well introduced are the Roman Catholic church of the Holy Name at Manchester; the Royal Albert Hall, South Kensington; the Royal Horticultural Gardens; the Colston Hall, Bristol; the Natural History Museum, South Kensington; and the corridor of the New Town Hall, Manchester, &c. For ornamental purposes this firm produces fountains, vases, tazzas, pedestals, garden-seats, brackets, suspenders, figures and groups, garden-edging, and every variety of articles for the lawn, the garden, or the conservatory. Many of these are of excellent design, and the material being durable they are well suited for out-door purposes. The “Della Robbia ware”—a fine terra cotta beautifully and effectively enamelled in brilliant and flat colours on the surface—is produced in endless variety in plaques, &c., for ceilings and walls, where it takes the place of plaster or other surface-covering. Its great beauty is, however, especially apparent in the garden and flower-vases, jardinières, mignonette-boxes, tree-pots, and an endless variety of other useful articles which the firm produce. The designs are chaste and elegant, especially those in which the convolvulus is introduced, and the colouring rich and effective in the extreme. They are among the best productions of this class of goods. Another excellent production of the firm is a grey terra-cotta, which has a pleasing effect for architectural enrichments.

Wilnecote.

The Wilnecote Works, near Tamworth, which rank among the[425] more important in the kingdom, were established in 1860, when Mr. George Skey purchased the coal mines at this place, with the intention of working them. On sinking shafts for the purpose he fortunately discovered several important and valuable beds of fire-clay, and other clays well adapted for pottery purposes, and he wisely determined to at once erect suitable kilns and buildings for their full development. At great cost and under considerable disadvantages suitable workrooms were erected and fitted up with suitable machinery, steam presses, lathes, &c. Competent workmen were engaged, and the manufactory was opened in 1862. The goods produced were so well received and their quality so good, both as regard material and workmanship, as well as design, that the works had very shortly to be considerably enlarged and fresh workrooms, kilns, &c., erected. This was done, and at the present time the entire produce of the coal and clay pits (about 300 tons of coal and 300 tons of clay per week) is used up at the works, which give employment to several hundred persons. In 1864 Mr. Skey having found the concern grown to more than his own personal care could, single handed, control, formed it into a limited liability company, with a capital of £60,000, under the style of the “Wilnecote Company, Limited,” afterwards altered to the “George Skey and Company, Limited,” Mr. Skey being the managing director, and Mr. Thos. Creswell, secretary.

The goods produced are:—in terra-cotta, which is of fine and durable quality, and of excellent workmanship, fountains, vases, tazzas, brackets, pedestals, suspenders, terminals, flower-vases, mignonette-boxes, fern-stands, garden-seats, balustrades, cornices, chimney tops, and every description of architectural enrichment. Game-pie dishes, of admirable design and of perfect modelling, and other articles, are also produced in this material. The colour is a beautiful light cream colour, and the body being very fine the relief patterns “come out” very sharply and effectively. In “Rustic ware,” vases, garden-seats, flower-pots, brackets, fern-stands, and an infinite variety of beautiful articles are made. This “Rustic ware” is a fine buff coloured terra-cotta, glazed with a rich brown glaze, and sometimes heightened with a green tinge, just sufficient to give it a remarkably pleasing effect. The modelling of some of these goods is highly artistic. In stoneware, or Bristol ware, all the usual articles as made at Lambeth, at Bristol, and other places, are produced. In sanitary ware, all the usual and many additional[426] articles are made; these are of remarkably fine and good quality and excellent both in body and glaze, and in firing. In ridging and roofing-tiles, sewerage-pipes, and garden-edgings, and in moulded bricks for cornices, string courses, &c., an endless variety; and in paving-tiles, and facing-bricks of various colours, as well as fire-bricks, all the usual kinds.

Terra-cotta gas-stoves are extensively made in various designs, some of which are registered. They are chaste and even elegant in design, and admirable in construction. Some of the patterns are in high relief, and others, in addition to the relief, are perforated, and have a striking and pleasing effect. Two of the designs are shown on Figs. 817 and 818.

The mark used is the words GEORGE SKEY WILNECOTE WORKS NR TAMWORTH, in an oval, impressed in the ware.

Coventry.

At Stoke, near Coventry, and other places in the district, are old established coarse brown ware works. Mr. Robt. Wakefield is a maker of flower-pots, seakale-pots, &c., of good quality.

Nuneaton.

The works were established about 1830, by Mr. Peter Wager Williams, upon the site of what evidently had been very old pot works, but of which no record appears to exist. At first there were during Mr. P. W. Williams’s lifetime two distinct manufactories. One of these was next worked by his eldest son, Mr. John Williams, who sold it to his three brothers, Peter, Charles, and James, by whom it was carried on under the style of “Caroline Williams.” It passed by purchase into the hands of Mr. J. Rawlins, and was taken by “Messrs. Broadbent and Stanley Brothers,” by whom it was considerably extended. The other manufactory was carried on by Mr. Walter Handley, at whose death it passed to his son-in-law, Mr. David Wheway, at whose decease it was incorporated with the former one, and carried on jointly with it, by Messrs. Broadbent and Stanley Brothers. In 1871 Mr. Broadbent retired from the concern, and it is now carried on by Messrs. Stanley Brothers. The goods produced are terra-cotta vases, chimney-tops, &c.; coloured paving-tiles for geometric designs; garden-edging, ornamental ridging and all kinds of plain building and ornamental bricks; glazed sanitary and other pipes, &c. The firm has recently patented a process for the manufacture of malt kiln tiles, for which they have invented new machinery. They are made of the finest fire-clay, and are of very superior character to any others. The marls in this neighbourhood, from which these various goods are made, are varied, and on the ground worked by this firm alone about twenty different measures occur, and these are of divers colours and qualities. The works occupy nearly ten acres of ground.

Broxbourne.

In 1843, when terra-cotta was but little known, Mr. Pulham turned his attention to it, made numerous experiments in order to bring about its revival, and succeeded in making it both of a good[428] hard stone colour and of a rich pale red. Having done this, he began to produce various small objects for architectural purposes—bosses, angle quoins, brackets, balustrades, small flower-pots, and vases—which remain at the present day as sharp and good as when they left the kiln. He also, about this time, introduced what is termed granulated terra-cotta, having the appearance of stone. Latterly this imitation has fallen into disrepute, and wisely so, for although where terra-cotta is now used it is adopted instead of stone, yet it is not used to imitate stone, but passes for what it is,—bona fide terra-cotta. For architectural purposes, it is still, in some instances, granulated.

Mr. Pulham exhibited specimens of his work at the Exhibition of 1851. Notably amongst them was a handsome Gothic vase in rich pale red, highly enriched; this was placed upon a suitable pedestal of cream-colour terra-cotta. From that time down to the next Exhibition, in 1862, improvements were constantly being made, both in the manipulation, production, and style of the manufacture. Mr. Pulham aimed more at the quality than quantity made; and it is said[429] that he still carries out the rule he laid down, not to extend his business, but to keep it so that it is not too large to be under his own personal supervision. Mr. Pulham exhibited in 1862, among other things, a large Fountain for a gentleman’s grounds near Tunbridge Wells, many features of which, particularly the life-size figure of Hebe which surmounts it, and which is a perfection in burning, were very successful.

In 1871, besides other of his productions, Mr. Pulham exhibited a small fountain, which was at play during the whole time of the Exhibition; and also several new vases. The fountains (for which a prize medal was awarded) and principal exhibits were very favourably noticed. Some of these I give on Figs. 819 to 824. At the Paris Exhibition in 1867 fountains, vases, and architectural embellishments, amongst which may be named the Preston vase (a number of which were made for the People’s Park, Preston), with medallions[431] representing the staple commerce of the place; some rich columns, novel window jambs and dressings; and notably amongst the rest was the Mulready Monument, erected for the Science and Art Department, South Kensington, and at whose instigation it was sent to Paris. The design of this is a pedestal 15 ft. by 10 ft., round the sides of which are sketched in outline some of Mulready’s principal pictures. This pedestal supports a large-size effigy, 7 ft. long, on a raised bier, the whole of this bier and effigy being fired successfully, just as it left the sculptor’s and modeller’s hands, and which was highly commended and spoken of as quite a chef d’œuvre in the terra-cotta art, and obtained the silver medal. It is now in Kensal Green cemetery, where it was fixed on its return from Paris. Mr. Pulham also executed a portion of ornamental terra-cotta used in the New Science Schools at South Kensington. The quality of the terra-cotta produced at Broxbourne is very high; it is hard, firm, compact, and durable, and of a soft and pleasing colour. Besides the articles already named, Mr. Pulham produces a goodly variety of vases, tazzas, pedestals, flower-baskets, and architectural enrichments of every kind.

Stamford.

That pottery was in mediæval times made in Stamford was incontestably proved in the latter end of 1874 by the discovery of a kiln during the course of excavations in the rear of a house occupied by the Rev. E. F. Gretton, formerly Master of the Grammar School there. The kiln was thus described in “The Reliquary,”[104] by Mr. G. H. Burton:—

The very large and important works of this place owed their origin to Mr. J. M. Blashfield, by whom they were established in 1858. Previous to that time, Mr. Blashfield had been, until 1851, engaged, in Southwark Bridge Road, Albion Place, Blackfriars, and Mill Wall, in the Italian marble trade, and the manufacture of cements and scagliola, and the making and laying down of tessellated pavements, &c. In that year he commenced the manufacture of terra-cotta at Mill Wall, London, having a few years previously purchased a number of the moulds, models, &c., from Coades when that manufactory was closed. In 1858 Mr. Blashfield removed his moulds, models, plant, &c., to Stamford, where a splendid clay for his purpose exists, and where he soon became as successful as such enterprise and ability as his deserved, and where he did more for the development and improvement of the beautiful in art than could otherwise have been accomplished. In 1874 the works merged into a limited liability company, under the style of the “Stamford Terra-Cotta Company,” which failed and was wound up in 1875, when the plant and stock were sold by auction.

Mr. Blashfield’s name is very intimately connected with the subject of encaustic paving-tiles, having been associated with the late Mr. Herbert Minton in their revival. In reference to this the following extract from a paper read by him is interesting:—

The productions of this manufactory were terra-cotta as applied to every purpose, glazed or enamelled tiles and bricks for wall-facings, hard ordinary paving tiles, enamelled architectural enrichments for internal use, and red and buff moulded bricks.

In this material, statues, both single figures and groups, busts, vases, tazzas, fountains, pedestals, suspenders, chimney shafts, cornices, consoles, string courses, pateræ, medallions, panels, friezes, capitals and bases, tracery, window and door heads and jambs, balustrades, and every species of architectural decoration were produced in almost endless—and, certainly, as to design, matchless—variety. The vases and tazzæ were most carefully modelled from ancient examples taken from the British and other Museums, and from the standard works of Montfaucon, Winckelmann, Millengen, Raoul Rochette, Dubois-Maisonneuve, Baptista Passerio, D’Hancarville, Piranesi, Tatham, Moses, Sir William Hamilton, Englefield, and others; and many original designs by Mr. Blashfield and other artists were added. These were produced of various sizes, but all of equal excellence. The statues and busts, &c., are clever reproductions of ancient examples, and special works modelled for the purpose by or from Bell, Woodington, Roubilliac, Weigall, Chantrey, and other renowned modern artists.

Among the public buildings which have been enriched by the art works of Mr. Blashfield’s manufactory are the urns, antifixa, and pavements in the Royal Mausoleums, Windsor; vases and terminals, &c., at Buckingham Palace; vases, tazzas, borders, &c., at Kew and Hampton Court Gardens and Dairy Farm, Windsor; colossal statues, fountains, vases, &c., and roofs and other decorations, at the Crystal Palace; chimney shafts, &c., Sandringham; vases and pedestals, Marlborough House; the entire red, buff, grey, and black terra-cotta details and enrichments for Dulwich College; Lady Alford’s mansion, and many other places; and, indeed, for most of the public buildings and private mansions of this country and abroad. Of these, perhaps one of the most important, and which will ever remain a lasting monument of Stamford ceramic art, is the new Dulwich College, erected from designs by Mr.[437] Charles Barry, and entirely composed of terra-cotta. It is the most complete specimen of terra-cotta building in England—no stone whatever being used; the value of the material alone being, in the gross, calculated at £28,000. The whole of this was made at these works.

In colour and quality the Stamford terra-cotta is of faultless excellence. The details are sharp, and in many cases exquisitely moulded; and, the body being much finer and harder than usual, they have a finish and a “touch” about them that cannot easily be surpassed.

One of the most striking series of subjects produced in terra-cotta was the manufacturing “process panels” on the exterior of the Wedgwood Memorial Institute at Burslem. Three of these are engraved on Figs. 832 to 834. The whole series, modelled by Mr. Walter J. Morris, illustrate the various processes of the plastic art; those selected for engraving represent “Turning,” “Painting,” and “Firing.” The history of these panels is a somewhat interesting feature as connected with Stamford terra-cotta works, and is worth briefly recording. The whole of the clay for these large panels was prepared at the Stamford works by Mr. Blashfield. A large case, lined with plaster of Paris, was made for each panel; the clay was firmly and evenly pressed into it, and thus each of the twelve was transmitted to South Kensington. Mr. Morris wrought his modelling on the faces of these cases of clay, and they were returned to Stamford when ready for the later process to be accomplished. At Stamford they were cut up in suitable pieces for “firing;” made true (for they had got considerably twisted and warped during the time they were in the modeller’s hands), carefully dried, and burned; the whole series coming out from the kiln in the admirable and perfect state in which they now stand, as monuments of Mr. Blashfield’s ceramic skill, in the Wedgwood Institute. The whole of the operations in producing these panels occupied about twelve months in time, and their cost, of course, was something considerable. They were marked with Mr. Blashfield’s name.

Among the most successful vases was the “Shakspeare vase.” It is of the Medici form, but the general allegorical design and details are Mr. Blashfield’s own. The figures of the allegory, which run round the body of the vase, were modelled by the late Mr. Nixon, who executed the statue of William IV. for the City of London, in conjunction with his father, also a sculptor of eminence. It represents[438] a masque scene from Shakspeare’s Tempest—Prospero, Ferdinand and Miranda, with Juno and Ceres, in front of the vase; Iris at the back, with the reapers, dancers, &c. Caliban forms the part of one handle and Sycorax the other. The whole are moulded in a masterly manner, and the rest of the details of the vase are eminently in keeping with them.

Engravings of some of Mr. Blashfield’s vases are given on Figs. 826 to 835. Of these, Fig. 827, of novel design, bears powerful medallions of Dante and Petrarch; and Fig. 828 (a flower-pot), those of the Queen and the Prince Consort, and the Emperor and Empress of the French.

The marks used were the name, impressed, “J. M. BLASHFIELD,” or “BLASHFIELD, STAMFORD,” or “STAMFORD TERRA COTTA CO. LIMITED.”

Bolingbroke.

In the seventeenth century a pottery existed at Bolingbroke, in Lincolnshire. Houghton, writing in 1693, speaks of “the blue clay of Bolingbroke pottery, in Lincolnshire.” Nothing, however, is now known as to this manufactory.

Wisbech.

Terra-cotta of a remarkably good character, made from the clay of the district, was made here in 1859; but the works were not of long continuance.

Lowestoft and Gunton.

Lowestoft, on the very easternmost point of England, on the coast of Suffolk, is a pleasant town, with delightful sea views, a fine coast, and a picturesque neighbourhood. It is an ancient borough; is divided into three parts, respectively known as the “Old Town,” the “New Town,” and the “Lower Town;” and its principal street, from which branch off other streets to the left, and numberless “scores,” or narrow ways, leading to the Dene and the sea, is about a mile in length, and contains the principal residences, shops, and public buildings. Its chief trade, like that of Yarmouth, is the herring fishery; and many curious traditions of conflicts between the men of the two rival “bloater towns” are still extant among the inhabitants. The principal interest of the place, however, centres in the fact, that here, on one of the easternmost points of the East Angles, a manufactory of fine porcelain existed in the latter half of last century, and that genuine productions of those works are now much sought for by collectors. In 1863 I visited Lowestoft for the special purpose of seeking information regarding the works, about which at that time literally nothing was known, and after a vast deal of research, both in the town and out of it, I succeeded in obtaining the information which is embodied in this chapter, and which, with the exception of its being now revised and here and there amended, I contributed to the Art-Journal of July in that year.

It seems somewhat strange that the absolute “land’s end” on the eastern coast of England should have been chosen as the spot on which porcelain should be made, when the clay for the purpose had to be procured from the western “Land’s End,” Cornwall, and the coal from the extreme northern coast of Northumberland and Durham. It is not improbable, however, that the same cause which conduced to the establishment of the Chelsea works had much to do with the formation of those at Lowestoft. Certain it is that an extensive trade was in the early and middle part of last century carried on, as it is at the present day, with Holland; and certain it is, that at that time, as now, the town was the constant resort of Dutch fishermen and others; and as the first productions of the Ceramic Art in this neighbourhood appear, so far as I have been able to ascertain, to have been delft-ware, it is not too much to suppose that the first potters were from Holland, and made the ware from clay found in the neighbourhood. Specimens of this fine delft-ware,[440] inscribed with names of people in the neighbourhood, and with dates, still exist, and attest pretty strongly to the correctness of this opinion.

Gillingwater, in his “History of Lowestoft,” written in 1790, says at p. 112:—

It appears from this account that the first pottery was established at Gunton, near Lowestoft, in 1756; but I am inclined to think that pot making had been carried on some years before this date. Marryat describes two plates in his possession, of coarse paste, with blue borders, which bear, respectively, the words—

which he considers may have been ante-dated; but the probability is that they are not, but that they were painted at Gunton or Lowestoft at the period whose date they bear. A remarkably fine[441] blue and white delft plate, or dish, which belonged to the late Mr. James Mills, of Norwich, and traditionally said to be painted at Lowestoft, has a bold border of blue colour round the rim, and the centre bears a heart-shaped tablet (Fig. 836) with a Cupid at either side bearing a pendent bunch of flowers. Above the tablet is a coronet, and below it a knot and tassel. The tablet bears the words—Robart & Ann Parrish in Norwich 1756. Other examples of this kind of ware, bearing names of individuals and places in the neighbourhood, have also come under my notice, and tend to strengthen my opinion that they must have been made somewhat prior to the year 1756.

It is a matter of extreme importance, and very noteworthy, that of the dated examples of wares known or recorded, those of 1752, 1756, 1759, and 1760, are not china but delft ware; and that those from 1762 forward to 1789 are china. The inference is that the manufacture of delft ware at Gunton or Lowestoft continued till about 1760, and that about that time the manufacture of porcelain was gradually making its way.

The proprietors of the porcelain works in 1757 are stated by Gillingwater to be Messrs. Walker, Brown, Aldred, and Rickman. Of some of these proprietors particulars will be found interwoven in my present article, but of the others very little is known. By 1770 the manufacture had advanced very considerably, so much so that in that year, as appears by the following advertisement, a warehouse for its sale was established in London:—“Clark Durnford, Lowestoft China Warehouse, No. 4, Great St. Thomas the Apostle, Queen Street, Cheapside, London, where merchants and shopkeepers may be supplied with any quantity of the said ware at the usual prices. N.B. Allowance of Twenty per cent. for Ready Money.”

The firm was carried on (as is proved by the address furnished to Mr. Duesbury, of the Derby China factory) under the style of[442] “Robert Browne & Co.”; the address is “Mr. Robt. Browne & Co., China Manufactory, Lowestoff, Suffolk.”

One of the partners of the early firm, and the manager of the works, was Robert Browne, who died in 1771, when the management fell to his son, also Robert Browne, who, being an excellent practical chemist, made great improvements in the ware. He was constantly experimenting on “bodies,” and succeeded in bringing the art of making porcelain nearer to the Oriental original than had been at that time attained by any other individual. Of the first of these Robert Brownes an interesting relic remains in the possession of his great-grandson at the present day. It is a small inkstand, white, with blue ornaments. It is of nine-sided form, and has Chinese figures on seven of its sides, the other two being taken up with the pattern here engraved, the initials “R. B., 1762,” being those of Robert Browne just alluded to.

The manufacture of porcelain under the management of the second Robert Browne must have attained some great degree of excellence in 1775, for in that year I find that a man named David Rhodes, who was apparently employed by his master, Josiah Wedgwood, to collect together for him examples of the productions of the different manufactories of this country, enters in his account of expenses the purchase of a Lowestoft slop basin, for which he gave ninepence. The account, which is in the possession of Mr. Mayer, of Liverpool, is curious, as the following items will show:—

Prices at which collectors nowadays would be only too glad to purchase specimens. Fancy a quart Bristol mug, and a teapot-stand of the same, for half-a-crown! and a Chelsea leaf, a Plymouth teapot, and two Liverpool coffee-cups for sixpence!

The works must at this time have become noted, or they would not have attracted the attention of Josiah Wedgwood, and made him[443] desirous of examining the “body,” and comparing it with other wares made in this country. That the china produced at and before this time was good there can be no doubt, and the purchase of a “slop-basin” shows that tea-services must, prior to that time, have been made. It would be interesting to find that this identical slop-basin was still preserved at Etruria, as, possibly, it may be, although I have failed to recognise it.

A curious circumstance connected with the first Robert Browne, the memory of which has been preserved in his family, is worth relating, as showing the schemes and the underhand practices which were resorted to by manufacturers in those days (as, alas! now), to worm out and steal the secrets of others. The workmen who had been engaged from London having been, as alluded to by Gillingwater, shamefully tampered with, and bribed to injure the work at Lowestoft, probably induced Mr. Browne to retaliate in the manner I am about to describe. Being desirous, soon after the commencement of the works, to ascertain how the glaze was prepared, some of the colours mixed, and other particulars concerning the ingredients used, he went to London, and under the disguise of a workman, engaged himself at one of the china manufactories—of course either Chelsea or Bow. Here, after a short time, he bribed the warehouseman to assist him in his design, and soon accomplished his purpose. The warehouseman locked him up secretly in that part of the factory where the principal was in the habit of mixing the ingredients after the workmen had left the premises. Browne was placed under an empty hogshead close to the counter or table on which the principal operated, and could thus see through an opening all that was going on. From his hiding-place he watched all the processes, saw the proportions of the different ingredients used, and gained the secret he had so long coveted. Having thus remained a willing prisoner for some hours, he was at last released when the principal left the place, and shortly afterwards returned to Lowestoft, after an absence of only two or three weeks, in full possession of the, till then, secret information possessed by the famed works of Chelsea or Bow.

It may be well to note that the Brownes, I am informed, were engaged in the staple trade of the place—that of the herring fishery as well as in that of the manufacture of porcelain. The firm also were shipowners, and kept vessels constantly running “to the Isle of Wight for a peculiar sand, which, with pulverised glass and pipeclay,[444] formed principally the ingredients of the groundwork of the ware,” and to Newcastle for coals.

Lowestoft is, fortunately, particularly rich in dated examples of its productions; but it is worthy of remark, that the whole of these examples, with names and dates, which have come under my notice, are white and blue; showing that, during the period through which these dates run, that was the character of the china made at these works, and that the finer body and the elaborate colouring which distinguish so much of the Lowestoft porcelain, were of later date. But of this presently.

The earliest dated example of Lowestoft china ware I have yet seen is the inkstand just described, which bears the initials “R. B.,” and the date “1762.” In Mr. Norman’s collection was a bowl with the name “Abrm. Moore, 1765,” and a basin, said to have been made for Sarah Crisp, has her initials “S. C., 1765.” The next is a fine bowl, with a large group of Chinese figures—emperor, mandarins, &c.—painted in blue, and inscribed on the bottom with the name of an eccentric old maid, well known in the town, and whose gravestone lies in the churchyard:—

This bowl and other pieces of a service (notably a basin and cream jug, painted with shepherd and shepherdess) made for her, were painted by her nephew, a man named Robert Allen, who, as a boy, was one of the first employed when the manufactory was established and remained there until its close. The bowl is in the possession of his aged daughter, Mrs. Johnson. This Robert Allen may well be classed amongst the “worthies” of Lowestoft. Working at the china manufactory from the first, he became foreman, and was entrusted with the mixing of the colours and the ingredients of the material itself, and remained so till the close of the factory in 1803. As a painter he appears to have been chiefly employed on blue; at all events the only authenticated specimens of his work which I have seen are of that colour. He also employed himself in staining glass, and numerous pieces of his work are still preserved by families in the town. His principal work was the painting in the east window of the parish church, which he completed in the year 1819, being then in his seventy-fourth year, and presented it to the town. In acknowledgment of this service a silver cup, now in possession of[445] his daughter, and bearing the following inscription, was presented to him:—“A token of respect to Mr. Robert Allen, from his fellow-townsmen at Lowestoft, for having, at the advanced age of Seventy-four, gratuitously and elegantly ornamented the East Window of their Parish Church Anno. Dom. 1819.”

After the closing of the Lowestoft works, Allen, who dealt in china, &c., put up a small kiln at his own house, where he carried on operations on a limited scale, buying the unfinished ware from the Rockingham works and painting and finishing it himself for sale. Mr. Brameld, of the Rockingham works, who was an excellent painter on china, occasionally visited Lowestoft, and became attached to Allen, to whom he presented a set of five vases, beautifully painted from nature with flowers copied from specimens he had gathered on the Dene. He also presented him with a snuff-box, painted by himself.

Of the same year as the bowl above described (1768) a dated example in the possession of Mr. Seago, the town clerk of Lowestoft, is a bowl, with the words—

Of this latter year another dated example is shown on the engraving (Fig. 838); it has the words—“James & Mary Curtis, Lowestoft, 1771.” This mug was painted by Thomas Curtis, son of the pair named in the inscription. He was for some time, it is said, employed at Dresden, and became a “silent partner” in the Lowestoft works, and in his will is described as a “porcelain painter.” Part of a set of china, painted by this same Thomas Curtis on Oriental body, in 1775, and intended as a wedding present for his son James, is still preserved in the family.

The next dated example of blue and white was in the museum of the late Mr. Mills, of Norwich. It[446] is a mug, and bears the inscription—“ROBT. HAWARD 1781.” The same gentleman had also other initialed specimens, made originally for members of his family. In Mr. Seago’s collection is an inkstand marked S. A. Sept. 26 1782, being the initials of Samuel Aldred; and Mr. Norman possessed a similar inkstand inscribed “A present from Lowestoft,” but not dated. In Norwich a later example, with the initials and date—

is also preserved. A beautiful example, the latest known dated specimen of Lowestoft china, is in the possession of Mr. J. Williams, of Islington. It is a mug, three and a half inches high, painted in blue with borders and flowers, and has on the front the initials and name[105]

These will be sufficient to show the range of years over which the Lowestoft blue and white porcelain was manufactured. That it was made to the close of the works there is every probability; but that it gradually gave way to a finer and higher class of goods is certain. Earthenware, too, of a fine kind, appears to have been made at Lowestoft, of which I have seen some interesting examples, so called, in various collections.

In the possession of Mr. Andreas A. Cockayne is a pair of remarkably good salt-cellars of undoubted Lowestoft make. The inside is painted with roses and other flowers, and the outside has festoons of roses and foliage, and on either side of each is a shield bearing gules, on a bend, argent, three leopards’ heads, caboshed, of the field; over all an escutcheon of pretence with the arms of Cockayne, argent, three cocks, gules. Crest, a leopard’s head, caboshed, gules.

Before speaking of the later and higher class of goods made, or painted, at Lowestoft, it is quite necessary to put collectors on their guard against giving implicit credence to all they hear in the[447] locality as to the kinds of ware made at these works. I have seen undoubted specimens of early Worcester, of Caughley, of Bristol, and of several other localities, gravely asserted to be Lowestoft, and even attempted to be proved to be such by the very marks they bear. As a proof of this I may just mention that it is said the company did a large trade with Turkey, and the ware prepared for that market “had on it no representation of man or beast (so as not to offend Mahometan law), and at the bottom of each piece the Crescent was painted!” It is perhaps unnecessary to say that the pieces marked with the “Turkish Crescent” are the ordinary blue and white with the Worcester and Caughley marks, and that some of the pieces are the well-known “cabbage-leaf” and other forms of those makes.

The great characteristic of the latter and more advanced porcelain made at Lowestoft, is its extreme minuteness and intricacy of pattern and beauty of finish. Indeed the decorations on many of the specimens which I have examined, are of a character far superior, both in design and in the exquisite and almost microscopic nicety of the pencilling and finish, to those mostly produced at other English manufactories. The borders are frequently very minute and elaborate, and the wreaths, festoons, or groups of flowers, are equally delicate in their proportions.

Some of the productions of the Lowestoft works are apparently painted on Oriental body, but there are many good examples in existence where the body is of Lowestoft make which are of very fine quality. The collector will be able to distinguish immediately between the examples painted at Lowestoft on Oriental body and those which were potted and painted there. Punch-bowls and tea and coffee services appear to have been the staple productions of these works, and, fortunately, many of the former, and several almost complete sets of the latter, are remaining in the hands of families in the neighbourhood, and in those of local collectors, who seem imbued with a truly laudable desire to keep alive the memory of what has been done for the Ceramic Art in their town. The bowls are usually of remarkably good form, and highly ornamented. They are mostly painted at Lowestoft, on Oriental body. Some of these, though not dated, nevertheless give collateral evidence of the period at which they were made, and become, therefore, historically valuable; as do also, indeed, some of the services bearing the initials, heraldic bearings, and monograms of families in the neighbourhood. A[448] punch-bowl in the possession of the town clerk of Lowestoft, which is elaborately ornamented inside and out, bears inside a well-painted representation of a fishing lugger at full sail, within a circle, beneath which is the name of the vessel, The Judas. This bowl was made for the boat Judas, and was filled with punch and drank to its success before each fishing voyage, and at carousals at their end. In the same collection is another beautiful bowl, bearing on either side, within ovals, and surrounded by ornamental ovals, &c., portraits of the notorious John Wilkes, and another, with the words “Wilkes and Liberty.” The painting of these, as of all the higher class of wares, is very beautiful and, indeed, in some parts exquisite.

When writing in 1863 upon these works (and it must be borne in mind that I was the first to write upon them) I expressed myself as above. My opinion that some of the Lowestoft productions were painted there on Oriental body,—an opinion based upon thoroughly good foundation—has been taken exception to by a later writer (who has been indebted for nearly every scrap of information he has embodied in his work to what I then wrote), in no measured terms. I was fortified in that opinion by the judgment of the late Mr. Rose, of Coalport, than whom no man living had a more thorough practical knowledge of bodies and of all the different processes and phases of Ceramic Art, and whose opinion in all technical matters was sought and relied upon by all scientific men of real intelligence; and I am far from feeling disposed to give up that opinion at the mere dictum of a dealer. I have hesitation in saying that if a tithe of the pieces exhibited as Lowestoft were painted there (which I very much doubt), they assuredly were painted on Oriental body, for much of the ware now vaunted as Lowestoft is certainly not English.[106]

The coffee-pot (Fig. 841) formerly belonging to Mr. Norman is a good specimen of Lowestoft painting. It forms part of a service, evidently a marriage-service, originally made for Captain Walsh. The initials it bears are probably those of himself and his bride. They are enclosed in an oval within a wreath of roses and palm branches, tied with a true lover’s knot. On either side is a Cupid, who supports a human heart pierced with two arrows, and this is surmounted by a coronet. On reference to the delft plate just described and engraved (Robert and Ann Parrish), it will be seen how strongly the design of that early example of Lowestoft earthenware accords with this, perhaps one of the most highly finished of its productions in porcelain.

It is unnecessary to describe other services, although many of them are of the highest beauty. One tea service, with the crest (an owl) and the monogram of W. W. conjoined, is especially deserving of notice, however, as being one of the choicest examples of porcelain painting of its kind which have come under my notice.[450] This service, until lately intact, has unfortunately been dispersed, and portions of it passed into the collections of Sir Henry Tyrwhit, Mr. Norman, Mr. Seago, and others.

It is worthy of remark that on much of the Lowestoft china the rose is plentifully introduced. The reason for this is probably two-fold: first, the arms of the borough is the Tudor (or full-blown) rose, crowned with an open arched crown; and this may probably have been the principal incentive in giving the rose so constant and so prominent a place in the ornamentation of the china. Second, during the period of the great Revolution, a French refugee of the name of Rose, one of the cleverest of the French porcelain painters, found his way to Lowestoft, and was engaged by the company. He became the principal, and by far the best, of the artists employed, and probably introduced the rose more generally, in allusion to his name, than would otherwise have been done. To him may probably be ascribed the finest and most minutely finished specimens of painting which the works produced, and it was his taste which gave that French character to the general style of ornamentation which is so discoverable on many of the services. It is well to remark that on some of the pieces painted by him he is said to have introduced a small rose under the handle as a special mark of his work. Like that of many another man of genius, the lot of this clever refugee artist was a sad one. He was an aged man when he came to Lowestoft, and he remained at the works till his eyesight failed him, and he became very poor. A subscription was entered into, and a couple of donkeys to help him to carry water in the town purchased, and thus he passed his last few years.

In the group (Fig. 842), I have shown some very characteristic examples of the higher class make of the Lowestoft works. The saucer is an excellent specimen of floral decoration, and shows better than many the rose which was so plentifully introduced in decoration. The painting, however, of these bolder groups of flowers is not so good as in the more minute ones—the artists, as I have before said, excelling in minute, careful, and elaborate pencilling rather than in breadth of style and colour. The coffee-cup is a simple but very good specimen of heraldic decoration. It is part of a set made for the celebrated writer, the Rev. Robert Potter, Prebendary of Norwich and Vicar of Lowestoft, one of the most distinguished classical scholars of his time, and chiefly known for his excellent translations of Æschylus, Euripides, and Sophocles, and for other equally learned works. The cup bears the arms or, a chevron, sable, between three mullets, gules, pierced of the first; with crest, and motto, “In Deo Potero.” The tea-cup in the same group is a good example of the not unusual French style of ornamentation, in wreaths, monograms, and initials. The shield bears the initials “M.S.J.,” and is surrounded by a remarkably elegant wreath of flowers, and surmounted by a crest. The engraving (Fig. 843) is a simple sketch from the saucer belonging to the cup just described, and is therefore not filled in with the elaborate detail of the original. The mug engraved in the group is of a form very usual in Lowestoft specimens. It is well decorated with groups and sprays of flowers, among which the rose is predominant. The borders on all these pieces are of elaborate and minutely pencilled character.

Transfer printing on china does not seem to have been practised to any extent at Lowestoft. One jug, however, which has been handed down from father to son in the family of the most active proprietor, is preserved, with a memorandum that the copper-plate from which it was printed was given to Mr. Browne by a Mr. Gamble, of Bungay, who, with his family, was in the habit of[452] visiting Lowestoft. Probably the plate was given that the family might be supplied with ware printed from it. The design is a sportsman with dog and gun, and on the spout of the jug are the letters ‘S. A.’ the initials of Samuel Aldred. I have also seen a set of beakers, &c., printed in blue, which are said to have been bought at the factory, and to be attested as Lowestoft make.

The Lowestoft works did not excel in figures, which were usually simple in design, and of small size. They are usually single rustic figures, and possess no notable features; four examples, purchased at the factory just before its close, are in the possession of Lady Smith, and are highly interesting as being well authenticated. Among the principal artists employed at the works were Rose, the refugee of whom I have just spoken, whose beautiful floral patterns decorate most of the best specimens of the ware of these works; Powles, a very clever artist, whose name is well known as the draughtsman of the plates illustrating Gillingwater’s “History of Lowestoft;” Allen, of whom I have spoken, who painted the east window of the parish church, and was the mixer of the colours at the factory; Redgate, who also was a good flower-painter; Curtis, of whose productions I have already spoken; Abel, John, and Joseph Bly; James, John, and Margaret Redgrave; and others named Stevenson, Balls, Mottershed, and Simpson. Besides these, several women were employed in painting and gilding.

The works were brought to a close in the year 1803 or 1804, and the materials and finished goods were sold by auction. The causes which led to their discontinuance were many, but principally the losses sustained by the company, and the successful competition of the Staffordshire manufacturers. One great loss was caused by the failure of their London agents; another and more serious one by the destruction of a very large quantity of Lowestoft china in Holland, with which country an extensive trade was carried on, as thus stated:—“When Napoleon crossed the river during a hard frost and captured Holland, amongst the British property destroyed was a quantity of Lowestoft china at Rotterdam, in value several thousand pounds.” The trade with Rotterdam was very large, and the ware was sent weekly in hogsheads by way of Yarmouth. These two losses, coming closely together, crippled the company; and the cost of manufacture, through having no coal nor any other requisite material in the neighbourhood, preventing them from producing ware so cheaply as could be done in Staffordshire and at Derby and[453] Worcester, the works were closed, after the proprietors had realised considerable sums; and the town thus lost a branch of manufacture which was an honour to it, and which has given it a name in the annals of the Ceramic Art of this country.

And here, before proceeding further, let me again utter a word or two of caution to collectors, against placing too implicit a reliance upon what has been written concerning Lowestoft china, and against taking for granted that all which is nowadays called Lowestoft china is really the production of that manufactory. If all that is ascribed to Lowestoft was ever made there, the works must have been about the most extensive, and—if all the varieties of wares that are now said to have been there produced were made, as is asserted, simultaneously—the most extraordinary on record. The great bulk of the specimens now unblushingly ascribed to Lowestoft I believe never were in that town, much less were ever made there. Mr. Owen, in his excellent work on Bristol china, says truly:—

The mill for grinding the materials for the manufactory “was in a ravine by the Warren House on Gunton Denes, where a fine stream of water constantly flows. This was dammed up, and when it had arrived at a certain height, was set to flow over a very large wheel (the largest of the kind at that time in the kingdom), for the purpose of grinding the materials for the china.” This water wheel is, I am informed, still in existence. The factory was situated in the town, and the premises are now occupied as a brewery. The street is still called Factory Lane. It is worthy of note that no mark was[454] used upon Lowestoft china. Marryat mentions a mark of three parallel straight blue lines; but this is evidently an error, as no such examples appear to be known.

Stowmarket.

The Tile Works at this place are of old establishment, and have always been noted for the production of celebrated “white bricks,” spoken of in the seventeenth century. They are worked by Mr. C. O. Fison, who, in addition, manufactures an improved malt-kiln tile, both square-cluster and round-cluster, for which honourable mention was made at the 1862 Exhibition. They are largely exported to various foreign countries, as well as being extensively used in this kingdom.

Ipswich.

Ransome’s Patent Stone.—The first manufacture of this important material was commenced at Ipswich in 1844; the inventor being Mr. Frederick Ransome, of the firm of Ransomes and Sims of this town. The works were removed in 1866 to East Greenwich, which see (page 162) for a farther account.

Ebbisham.

A large brick manufactory existed at Ebbisham, in Surrey, in the seventeenth century, and a long and most interesting account of it, and of the clays, as well as all the processes of manufacture, will be found in Houghton’s “Husbandry and Trade Improved,” 1693.

Wrotham.

A pottery was in existence here, in Kent, in the middle of the seventeenth century, but nothing is known as to its history. The ware was the usual coarse brown ware, of much the same character as the Toft dishes. An example, formerly belonging to Mr. C. W. Reynolds, decorated with an incised pattern and bearing the date 1668, and the initials H. I. and I. A., is traditionally said to be of this make. In the British Museum is a large brown dish with the words E. W. E., WROTHAM,[455] 1669, and in the Museum of Practical Geology is a two-handled posset-pot with raised ornaments and inscription laid on, in yellow slip, before glazing, T. E., WROTHAM, 1703. Another good example, belonging to Mr. Baldwin, is a four-handled tyg ornamented with fleur-de-lis, &c., and bearing the words

An interesting example, considered by Marryat to belong to Wrotham, is given on Fig. 844.

Yarmouth.

Although the name “Absolon, Yarmouth,” may occur on various pieces of ware in different collections, it must not, for one moment, be taken for granted that the pottery was produced there. The Absolons were china and glass dealers in Yarmouth, and one of the family appears to have erected a kiln, called the Ovens, and there to have burnt in the flowers and other designs which he employed himself in painting upon ware produced from other places. His plan appears to have been to procure the ordinary cream-coloured ware in plates, &c., and paint upon them flowers in the manner of those of Swinton, Don, &c.; and in the same manner to write their names on the back; and then to burn them in in his own “oven.” Mr. Norman possessed some plates of Absolon’s painting, which bore on the back the usual mark of his name, pencilled on and burnt in, and the name “TURNER” impressed in the ware. These pieces, there can be no reasonable doubt, were made by John Turner, of Lane End. Mr. Chaffers says that having the name of “Turner” stamped upon them, “proves that they were actually made at Caughley, and decorated at Yarmouth;” but this carries its own condemnation on the face of it, for Turner of Caughley is not known to have stamped his name on his ware, and beyond this he did not produce cream ware at his works. There is reason to believe that Absolon bought his ware from Staffordshire and Leeds. He put his name in colour on the bottom of the pieces he decorated.

Cossey.

The works at Cossey, near Norwich, which now produce many art-works of merit in the form of decorated bricks and other[456] architectural enrichments, were established about 1800, as a brick-yard, and so continued of small size, until about 1827, when Cossey, or Costessy Hall, the seat of its noble owner, Lord Stafford, was rebuilt, when they were enlarged, so as to enable a full supply for the purpose to be made. The foreman of these works was Mr. Gunton, and under his care the manufacture of ornamental bricks, for the new hall, was tried, and with marked success. On this hall,—one of the best of brick buildings, and one which may be looked upon as a gigantic example of Cossey ceramic art—are some remarkably fine Tudoresque chimney shafts, as well as excellently designed and well-executed cusped window-heads, transoms, mullions, &c.; and finials, door-jambs, cornices, panelling, and string-courses, all of equal excellence. These are all formed of moulded brick made at Cossey from native clays, and are still in remarkably good preservation. After the completion of the building of the Hall the brickworks were closed for about four years, when Mr. Gunton succeeded in renting them in the hope of fully carrying out his idea of manufacturing decorated brickwork. Unfortunately, however, he was not permitted to have the use of the moulds from which the Hall bricks had been made; but, nevertheless, he from time to time prepared new moulds for chimney shafts, window-heads, mouldings, &c., and gradually got them into notice, and architects and builders soon began to see their advantage. The works are now carried on by his son, Mr. George Gunton, whose productions are of the highest possible class of merit. Among the architectural enrichments produced at these works,—the designs being entirely supplied by architects, and of the purest style and finish—are chimney shafts, many of which are of the most elaborate style of ornamentation; window-heads, &c.; balustrades; cornices; medallions; crest-ridging; string-courses; plinths; arches and keys; pateræ; architraves; finials; capitals, bases, and shafts; and many other matters. These are produced of remarkable sharpness and of great beauty of finish—the tooth, nail-head, and other ornaments, being very pure in character. They are produced in two colours—a fine, rich, deep red, and a stone; the latter being the nearest approach of any to artificial stone, and both being extremely hard and durable.

Cadborough.

The Cadborough Pottery, near Rye, in Sussex, was first built about 1807, and carried on by Mr. James Smith, and afterwards by his son,[457] Mr. Jeremiah Smith. In 1840, the business passed into the hands of the late Mr. William Mitchell (who had had the management of it, under Mr. Smith, since 1827), who carried it on in his own name until 1859, when he took one of his sons, Mr. Frederick Mitchell, into partnership, and the firm became “Wm. Mitchell & Son,” and so continued until 1869, when the partnership was dissolved, under mutual arrangement, Mr. Mitchell, sen., continuing the Cadborough business for common earthenware, and his son, Mr. Frederick Mitchell, taking the fancy department, which was his own creation, to new premises, the Bellevue Pottery (which see). In 1870, Mr. Mitchell, sen., died, and the business at Cadborough was then taken by Mr. Henry Mitchell, who still carries it on. The goods produced are the ordinary common brown wares, glazed and unglazed, and consist of flower-pots; chimney-pots; pitchers and crocks of various kinds; tongue, ham, beef, biscuit, milk, and other pans; bottles, jugs, bowls, and other domestic vessels; sewer and drain pipes; butter-pots; and all the other usual articles made in this ware. The clay is dug on the farm of Cadborough, as is also the loam with which it is mixed, and it is of peculiarly hard and durable texture, and capable of taking a good glaze. Many of the domestic vessels are mottled or “splashed” under the glaze.

Rye.

The “Bellevue Pottery” in the Ferry Road, Rye, Sussex, was established in 1869, by its present proprietor, Mr. Frederick Mitchell, son and partner of the late Mr. William Mitchell of the Cadborough Pottery (which see). It was established entirely for the manufacture of “Sussex Rustic Ware”—an ornamental branch of the brown-ware goods invented by Mr. Frederick Mitchell while at those works. This ware is of peculiar, but highly pleasing character, and in it a large variety of fancy articles, flower-baskets, candlesticks, jugs, vases, pilgrims’ bottles, &c., are made. The clay is peculiarly light, and of tolerably close texture, and it is capable of working into any form. The glaze, which is of equal richness with that of “Rockingham” ware, is of exceedingly good quality, and it has a rich effect over the mottling or “splashing” which characterizes this ware. Many of the productions are very artistic, and evince much taste and skill in manipulation. Some of the vessels are decorated with the leaf and head of the staple product of the county[458] —the hop—or with other excellent copies of leaves and flowers, &c. The peculiarity of this “Sussex Rustic Ware” is its extreme lightness, and the richness of its mottling and glaze.

One article, worthy of especial notice, as made at these works (and formerly at Cadborough), is the “Sussex Pig” here engraved. This is a drinking vessel of the same general character as the “Bears,” which will be found described under the heads of Brampton, Nottingham, &c. The body, when filled with ale, stands on end, on its tail, and the head lifts off to be used as a drinking cup, precisely in the same manner as with the “bears.” In Sussex these “pigs” are used at weddings, when each guest is invited to “drink a hogshead of beer to the health of the bride;” and at other social and convivial meetings. On these occasions each person is expected to drink this cup—or “hog’s head”—full of liquor.

Gestingthorpe.

Pavement tiles and other articles were made at Gestingthorpe, in Essex, in the seventeenth century. Houghton, writing in 1693, says:—

Holkham.

In 1849, the Earl of Leicester, anxious to turn the clays of his[459] estate in Norfolk to good account, commenced the manufacture of red terra-cotta at Holkham, and produced some good Tudor chimney-tops and moulded bricks.

Nuneham Courtney.

Potworks existed here in the beginning of the seventeenth century, and are spoken of by Plot, in 1677 as being “now deserted; nor, indeed, was there, as I ever heard of, anything extraordinary performed during the working these earths.”

Marsh Balden.

The pottery at this place, existing in the beginning of the seventeenth century, is included in the above remark by Dr. Plot.

Horspath.

Shotover.

At Shotover, in the parish of Headington, tobacco-pipes were made prior to 1677, at which time the “place was deserted.”

York.

“Place’s Ware.”—Francis Place, who may be looked upon as one of the pioneers of modern pottery, commenced the manufacture of what, at the time, was considered “equal to true china ware,” about 1665. But little, however, is known either of the manufactory, or of the ware he produced. Francis Place was, according to Walpole, a younger son of Mr. Rowland Place, of Dimsdale, in the county of Durham, and was placed as clerk to an attorney in London until 1665. Walpole’s notice of him runs thus:

Thoresby, in his “Ducatus Leodiensis” (1714), mentions Place and his wares several times. The principal notice, when speaking of the vein of white clay in the hundred of Wortley, is as follows:—

From the examples at present in existence—and there are only two or three known—it appears that the ware was simply a tolerably fine kind of earthenware, of a greyish colour streaked with black and brown; and this is the way in which Horace Walpole describes his specimen: “I have a coffee cup of his ware; it is of grey earth, with streaks of black, and not superior to common earthenware.” This example was sold at the Strawberry Hill sale, and passed into the hands of Mr. Franks, who generously presented it to the Museum of Practical Geology. It is a cup about 2½ inches in height, and 2⅛ inches in diameter at the top. It is of thin glazed greyish ware, streaked with black and brown, and has a narrow rib, or raised band, running round it at about two-thirds of its height from the top. An old pasteboard label attached to the handle of this cup bears the words “Mr. Francis Place’s china,” probably in the handwriting of Horace Walpole.

Examples are also in the hands of some of the descendants of Mr. Place. They are of precisely the same character as the one just described. In the same hands is “a small portrait of Place, by himself, in which he has introduced one of his cups, the original of which his descendant possesses, and which is traditionally said to be one which he considered to be his masterpiece.” Mr. Place, in 1712, visited Thoresby, and in 1728 he died, leaving a widow and an only child, a daughter, married to Wadham Wyndham, Esq.

York China Manufactory.—In 1838 Mr. Haigh Hirstwood, formerly of the Rockingham china works, established a china manufactory in York, and by the succeeding spring had so far progressed that the following paragraph appeared in one of the York papers:—

The works were established in Lowther Street, Groves, and were[462] continued until about 1850, when the concern was wound up. Mr. Haigh Hirstwood was born at Royd’s Hall, near Huddersfield, in 1778; and learnt the art of china making and decorating under the Bramelds at the Rockingham works, as did also afterwards his sons and son-in-law. He continued at the Rockingham works upwards of forty years, leaving them only towards their close, when he removed to York and commenced business as a china dealer. In 1839, as I have stated, he erected kilns, &c., at York, and commenced business in the decorating and finishing departments, buying his china in the white from Sampson Bridgwood & Co. of Longton, and from others. In this business he was assisted by his son-in-law, Mr. William Leyland also from the Rockingham works, who became his managing partner. Disagreements having arisen, however, the business was broken up, Mr. Hirstwood remaining in York, where he died in 1854, and Mr. Leyland removing to London, when he took to painting and decorating lamps, where he died in 1853, leaving a widow (who soon afterwards died) and a family of two sons and four daughters, who are now of Lawrence, near Boston, Massachusetts, North America. Mr. Leyland was a clever painter, gilder, and enameller, and understood well all the practical details of the potter’s art. Mr. Hirstwood was a clever painter of flowers, &c., and was considered the best fly painter at the Rockingham works. In 1826 he copied, for use in the decoration of the Rockingham china, upwards of five hundred insects at Wentworth House, which had been arranged by Lady Milton, the daughter-in-law of Earl Fitzwilliam. He and his sons Joseph and William (who were brought up at the Rockingham works) were engaged upon the chef-d’œuvres of that manufactory, the services for King William IV. and for the Duchess of Cumberland. He was succeeded in his business in Coney Street by his son, Mr. William Hirstwood, father of the present proprietor, but the manufactory has been entirely discontinued since 1850. No mark was used.

The goods principally produced were dinner, tea, dessert, and other services, vases, figures, &c. The style of decoration was, as is natural to expect, closely assimilated to that of Rockingham china; indeed, so closely as in some instances scarcely to be distinguished from them. Some of the flowers are beautifully painted, as are also the butterflies and other natural objects, and the gilding is remarkably good. The figures are usually of good character.

Layerthorpe Pottery.

This manufactory of coarse ware—flower-pots, chimney pipes, bowls, socket pipes, &c.—was established in 1846 by its present proprietor, Mr. John Webster, who produces considerable quantities of ware.

Osmotherley.

A pottery, discontinued many years back, existed at this place. Its productions were the ordinary brown ware, in which jugs, mugs, pitchers, tobacco-boxes, &c., were produced.

Hull.

There can be no doubt but that common earthenware was made at Hull, if not earlier, at all events in the middle of the seventeenth century; but no record of such works has at present been brought to light. In June, 1875, however, some property at Sculcoates, formerly an outskirt of Hull, was brought to the hammer by Mr. Charles Johnson. It was in extent about one-third of an acre, and has always been known by the name “Pot House Yard.” Inquiries have resulted in ascertaining that this pottery at Sculcoates had not been worked in the memory of those living, but that there were pottery works there. There are still remaining three cottages fronting into the ground, of a date certainly a hundred and fifty years back, but more probably two hundred years. Part of the site has been occupied in recent years by Messrs. Stewart and Gregson, oil refiners, who have now become the purchasers of the whole of the property. Very early in the eighteenth century pipe-making was carried on here; and Gent, in his curious history, published in 1735, records, among the epitaphs in the churchyard, one to “Thomas Cook, Pipe-maker, who died the 7th of February, 1720, aged 64.” The first distinct information I have been able to gather regarding pot works at this place is that in 1802 (eighteen years earlier than the first date given by Chaffers), by a deed, dated August 10 in that year, Thomas English, of Hull, merchant, sold a plot of land on what is called the Humber Bank, in a part of what was then the outskirts of the town, and known as “Myton.” The piece of land consisted of 3,718 square yards, and was conveyed to James Smith and Jeremiah Smith, both of Hull, potters; Job Ridgway, of Shelton, Staffordshire, potter; and Josiah Hipwood, of Hull, blockmaker.[464] That part of the town has for fifty years, to the writer’s knowledge, been known as the “Pottery,” a name doubtless derived from these works. The deed of partnership between these parties was dated 23rd November, 1802.

From the fact of two of the parties, James Smith and Jeremiah Smith, being described as “of Hull, potters,” while Job Ridgway was of “Shelton, Staffordshire, potter,” the probability is that the Smiths were already in business there as pot-makers, and that Ridgway joined them for the purpose of increasing and improving their manufacture. The partnership, however, was but of short duration, for in 1804 Mr. Ridgway, being desirous of retiring, agreed to sell to the remaining partners all his fourth part of the lands, works, stock-in-trade, debts, &c., for the sum of £1,000. Hipwood left the concern in the same year, when a Mr. James Rose became a partner with the Smiths. In 1806 the proprietors assigned all their interest in the works to Messrs. Job and George Ridgway, who carried them on for some years. In 1826 they were succeeded by Mr. William Bell, who became the proprietor in that year, by deed of conveyance from the brothers Ridgway. By Mr. Bell the manufactory was very much extended, and the operations were carried on on a large scale, chiefly for export, the principal part of the trade being with Hamburg, where his brother, Mr. Edward Bell, was in business, and a large German and Dutch trade was done through his means. The works were closed in 1841, when the plant and stock were disposed of by auction, as here shown:—

At this sale Mr. Charles Johnson, of Hull, to whom I am indebted for much of this information, acted as auctioneer for Mr. Stamp, and I am informed by him that the copper-plates, the stock of which weighed about three hundredweight, and amongst which were some of the “Willow pattern,” “were sold to a pottery works at or near Rotherham,” which I presume to be either the Swinton or the Don works.

The wares produced were cream-coloured ware, green-glazed ware, the ordinary white ware, and blue printed wares; and in them the usual classes of useful goods, consisting of services of various kinds and miscellaneous articles, were made. One notable dinner-service was made to commemorate an exploit in connection with the noted pirate Paul Jones, and was, it would appear, made for the owner, or family of the owner of the “Crow Isle.” Only one plate of this service is now known to be in existence, and this is preserved at the Hull Museum, to which it was presented by the late Mr. Charles Hassell, grandson to the late Francis Hall, Esq., of Hull, who was owner of the “Crow Isle,” Baltic trader. In the centre is represented the “Crow Isle” successfully beating off Paul Jones on its homeward voyage when off the Yorkshire coast in 1779. Another example of the Belle Vue pottery is a butter-pot in form of a cow, with movable lid, in yellow ware. Mr. Johnson has also in his possession a portion of a remarkably fine green-glazed dessert service, of very artistic design, in embossed leaves, with basket-work centres to the plates, which was bought at the Hull works from Mr. Bell in 1838. It is marked with the impressed mark (Fig. 845).

The mark is the one here engraved. It is two bells, surrounded by the words “Belle Vue Pottery, Hull;” but sometimes the bells alone appear, without the lettering. In the possession of the late Mr. Bagshawe were some of the later accounts of these works, from which a good idea of the extent to which the operations were carried on may be gleaned. For instance, in 1837, four years before the close of the works, the expenses were as under:—

The works have been entirely discontinued since 1841, and the site included in the extensive engineering works of Messrs. C. D. Holmes & Co.

In 1804, Mr. William Clowes (also from the Staffordshire pottery district), one of the founders of Primitive Methodism, worked at the Hull pottery. Mr. Clowes was born at Burslem in 1780; he “came from Nottingham to Hull to establish a missionary centre, on the 15th of January, 1819;” the day after his arrival “he informs us that he visited the Pottery by the Humber Bankside, where he had worked as a potter fifteen years before, but he found the working of the pottery had been discontinued;” i.e., I presume it was then in a transition state before being transferred to Mr. Bell by the brothers Ridgway.

Stepney Lane.—At the present time a small pottery for the manufacture of the common brown ware pancheons, flower-pots, &c., is still carried on by the successors of Mr. Mayfield, of the Stepney Paper Mills, Hull.

Leeds.

There is no doubt that pottery has been made at Leeds, or in its immediate neighbourhood, from the earliest times of our British history. Celtic and Romano-British relics have, from time to time, been found in the neighbourhood, which were, without doubt, made at the place; and the village of Potters Newton evidently takes its name from a colony of potters having settled there in early times. That it was so in days of yore is evidenced by the fact of the name appearing in deeds of the thirteenth century. In later times coarse brown earthenware was made in Leeds, as were also tobacco-pipes in the reign of Charles II. These were made from clays found at Wortley—the same bed of clay which was worked for the old Leeds pottery, and is still used for making yellow ware and saggars at the present day. The manufacture of tobacco-pipes at Leeds was established in the latter part of the seventeenth century, and was carried on somewhat extensively for several years. Ralph Thoresby, in his “Ducatus Leodiensis,” published in 1714, in his account of Wortley Hundred says: “Here is a good vein of fine clay, that will retain its whiteness after it is burnt (when others turn red), and therefore used for the making of tobacco-pipes, a manufacture but lately begun at Leeds.” Probably to the existence of this bed of fine clay is to be[467] attributed the establishment of the pot works at Leeds, to which I am now about to direct attention.

Of the date of the first establishment of the Leeds pot works nothing definite is known. It is, however, certain that they were in existence about the middle of last century, and that they were then producing wares of no ordinary degree of excellence. Before this time a kind of delft-ware was made, and I have seen some very creditable copies of Oriental patterns, with salt glaze, also produced at these works. Delft-ware, however, was only made to a small extent, and was soon succeeded by the manufacture of that fine cream-coloured earthenware which made the works so famous, and enabled them in that particular branch to compete successfully with Wedgwood and other makers. As early as 1770 considerable progress had been made in the ornamental productions, and I have seen dated examples of open and embossed basket-work ware of a few years later (1777 and 1779), which are as fine as anything produced at the time.

The first proprietors of whom there appears to be any record were two brothers named Green, in 1760; and it is believed their earliest productions were in black ware, in which the firm afterwards excelled. It was then carried on by Humble, Green, & Co. “Mr. Wilson has found the draft of an agreement, dated November 11, 1775, whereby ‘Joshua Green, of Middleton, gent., John Green, of Hunslet, potter, with divers others, under the firm of Humble, Green & Co.,’ agree with Messrs. Hutchinson and Evers to erect and maintain in repair at their mill a water-wheel, with all necessary machinery for grinding flints. For thirteen years the wheel was to be used exclusively by the Greens, who were to supply burnt flints and to pay 10s. for every 100 pecks of well ground and levigated flints, the workmen’s wages being first deducted.” In 1783 the firm was Hartley, Greens, & Company, and they had so far advanced in their work, and were so firmly established and well known by that year as to justify them in issuing a book of “designs” of some of the articles they were then producing. A copy of this rare volume, in my own possession, contains all three of the lists—English, French, and German. The English title is “Designs of sundry Articles of Queen’s, or Cream-colour’d Earthen-Ware, manufactured by Hartley, Greens, & Co., at Leeds-Pottery: with A Great Variety of other Articles. The same Enamel’d, Printed or Ornamented with Gold to any Pattern; also with Coats of Arms, Cyphers, Landscapes,[468] &c., &c. Leeds, 1783.” The list and title-page occupy eight pages, as do also each of the two others—translated into German and French—which accompany it, and which bear the following titles:—“Abrisse von verschiedenen Artickeln vom Königinnen oder gelben Stein-Gute, welches Hartley, Greens, & Comp. In ihrer Fabrick in Leeds verfertigen; Nebst vielen andern Artickeln; Auch dieselben gemahlt, gedruckt oder mit Gold gezieret zu jedem Muster, ebenfalls mit Wapen, eingegrabene Namen, Landschaften, &c., &c., &c. Leeds, 1783.” “Desseins de divers Articles de Poteries de la Reine en Couleur de Creme, Fabriqués à la Poterie de Hartley, Greens, & Co. à Leeds: Avec une Quantité d’autres Articles; Les mêmes émaillés, imprimés ou ornés d’Or à chaque Patron, aussi avec des Armes, des Chiffres, des Paisages, &c. &c. Leeds, 1783.”[107] This catalogue, with some variations, continued to be issued till a much later period. A copy presented by myself in 1865 to the Jermyn Street Museum supplies the plates missing in the former copy. It has no title-page, but is printed on paper bearing a water-mark of 1814. The words “Leeds Pottery” are engraved on each plate of the book. The plates, forty-four in number, are very effectively engraved on copper, and exhibit a wonderful, and certainly exquisite, variety of designs for almost all articles in use, both plain, ornamented, perforated, and basket-work, including services, vases, candlesticks, flower-stands, inkstands, baskets, spoons, &c., &c.[108]

The partners at this time (1783–4) composing the firm of Hartley, Greens, & Co. were William Hartley, Joshua Green, John Green, Henry Ackroyd,[109] John Barwick, Samuel Wainwright, Thomas Wainwright, George Hanson, and Saville Green. The business was, it appears, divided into six shares, of which William Hartley, Joshua and John Green, and Henry Ackroyd, had each one; John Barwick and the two Wainwrights half of one each; and George Hanson and Saville Green a quarter share each, the latter acting as “bookkeeper” to the firm. The proprietors were extremely systematic and particular in their mode of keeping accounts and in their dealings with each other. They held regular meetings, and appointed independent and disinterested persons as valuers in each department; for instance, one to value the stock of finished goods in the ware rooms, another the unfinished ware, another the copper plates, another the buildings, others the moulds and models, the windmill, the horses, the waggons and carts, the raw materials, the woodwork, and every imaginable thing. The reports of these various valuers, whose names and awards for many years I have carefully examined, were submitted to a meeting of the partners, when a balance was struck, to which the names of each one were attached.

In 1785, and again in 1786, fresh editions of the catalogue and book of plates were issued, without change either in the number of articles enumerated or in their variety or form. The works at this time had been considerably increased in size, and the wares made were exported in large quantities to Germany, Holland, France, Spain, and Russia. So great had the concern become five years later (1791), that the yearly balance then struck amounted to over[470] £51,500; and it is worth recording that in that year the value of the copper-plates from which the transfer printing was effected was £204, while at the present time they represent about £1,000. These copper-plates consisted of teapot borders, landscapes, Nankin borders, and others. The general stock in this year (1791) was valued at about £6,000, and the windmill at about £1,200. The house of the partners, entered as “Hartley, Green, & Co.’s House,” was at Thorpe Arch, near Tadcaster and Wetherby.[110] At Thorpe Arch, too, were the grinding mills. These mills were ten miles from the works at Leeds, and a team of four horses was kept constantly at work carrying the ground flint and stone. They, with the men who worked them, stayed six days, going and coming, between the two places, and then six at Thorpe Arch, alternately. The raw material was taken from Leeds to the mills at Thorpe Arch, when the horses who had brought it worked the mill to grind it, and returned with it, when prepared, to Leeds for use. This continued until 1814, when the windmill on the Leeds premises, which had been used as a corn mill, was converted into a flint mill, and an engine, made by the builders of the first successful locomotive, Fenton, Murray, & Co., put up. This mill is still used for the same purpose.

In 1794 another edition of the catalogue and pattern-book was issued. It was precisely the same in contents as the previous editions, both in the plates and letter-press; and contained the catalogue, or list, in English, French, and German. Fresh designs appear to have been continually added, and, the connections of the company increasing, a translation of the catalogue into the Spanish language was in a few years issued. This interesting work, of which a copy is in the possession of Mr. E. Hailstone, F.S.A., and which also contains the English catalogue, without date, bears the following title:—“Dibuxos de varios Renglones de Loza Inglesa de Regna, de Color de Crema, Fabricados en la Manufactura y Lozeria Hartley, Greens, y Comp^a. en Leeds: en este mismo ramo fabriam de dicha loza, hay piezas esmaltadas, impresas y adornadas con oro; como tambien hermoseadas con escudos, armas, cifras, payses, &c. &c. Leeds.” Instead of 152 general articles, as enumerated in the previous editions, 221 appear in this; and instead of 32 in tea-ware, 48 appear. In 1814, too, another edition was issued, a copy of which is in my own possession; it contains 71 plates of patterns, exhibiting[471] 221 general articles, and 48 patterns of tea, coffee, and chocolate services. In this edition the whole of the plates, both those from the other copies and those newly engraved, have the words “Leeds Pottery” engraved upon them.

In the middle of the last century an important event in connection with the Leeds pottery took place. This was the establishment of the tramway from the collieries of Mr. Charles Brandling, at Middleton, to the town of Leeds. This tramway passed through the Leeds pot works, to the proprietors of which a nominal rental of £7 a year was paid, and to whom, as a further consideration for the right of passage, an advantage in the price of coals was allowed.[111] While speaking of the formation of this early line, it is interesting to note that upon it was set to work the first locomotive commercially successful on any railway. Mr. John Blenkinsop, who was manager of the Middleton Collieries, took out a patent, in 1811, for a locomotive steam engine, and placed his designs for execution in the hands of Messrs. Fenton, Murray & Co., at that time eminent engineers of Leeds. This was the first locomotive engine in which two cylinders were employed, and in that respect was a great improvement upon those of Trevithick and others. The cylinders were placed vertically, and were immersed for more than half their length in the steam space of the boiler. The progress was effected by a cog wheel working into a rack on the side of one of the rails. Mr. Blenkinsop’s engine began running on the railway extending from the Middleton Collieries to the town of Leeds, a distance of about three miles and a half, on the 12th of August, 1812, two years before George Stephenson started his first locomotive. Mr. Blenkinsop was for many years principal agent to the Brandling family, and his invention was, as is seen, first brought to bear in bringing coals from those pits to Leeds—a matter of immense importance to the town and its manufactures.

In 1796, as named in Hutchins’ “History of Dorset,” much of the Poole clay in that county was sent “to Selby for the use of the Leeds potteries.”

In the year 1800 two fresh partners, Ebenezer Green and E. Parsons, had joined the concern, the firm at this time consisting of William Hartley, Joshua Green, John Green, Ebenezer Green, E. Parsons, Mrs. Ackroyd and her daughter Mary (widow and daughter of Henry Ackroyd, deceased), John Barwick, Thomas Wainwright, George Hanson, Saville Green, and Samuel Wainwright. On the death of Mr. Hartley the business was carried on—still under the title of Hartley, Greens & Co.—by the remaining partners; and a Mr. Ruperti, a Russian, became, I believe, a partner in the firm. The trade at this time was, as I have already stated, principally with Russia, and with Norway, Spain and Portugal, and hence, I presume, Mr. Ruperti’s connection with it. The agent in Russia at one time was Mr. Barwick, and afterwards his nephew, Mr. Jubb. Other changes in the proprietary followed in succession, one of which was that a minister, the Rev. W. Parsons, married Miss Ackroyd, and thus became a partner; and for a time the style of the firm was changed from “Hartley, Greens, & Co.,” to “Greens, Hartley, & Co.” These repeated changes, and the unpleasantness and disputes that arose in consequence appear to have been detrimental to the concern, which was ultimately thrown into Chancery, and a large portion of the stock sold off. Some idea of the extent of the business done about this time may be formed from the fact, which I have gathered from a personal reference to the accounts, that the annual sales amounted, in round numbers, to about £30,000; that about £8,000 was paid in wages, and more than £2,000 for coals, even with the decided advantage of reduction in price by the arrangement spoken of.

In 1825, by an advantageous arrangement effected through the good offices of his friend Mr. Hardy, the then Recorder of Leeds, I am informed, the affair was got out of Chancery, and passed, by purchase, into the hands of Mr. Samuel Wainwright, one of the partners. The concern was at this time, I believe, carried on in the name of “Samuel Wainwright and Company,” and was conducted with great spirit. Mr. Wainwright engaged as his confidential cashier Stephen Chappell, who up to that time was employed as a bookkeeper in one of the Leeds cloth manufactories.[112] At Wainwright’s[473] death (of cholera) in 1832, the trustees carried on the business under the style of the “Leeds Pottery Company,” and employed Stephen Chappell as their sole manager. This arrangement continued until the year 1840, when the trustees transferred the whole concern to Chappell, who took it at his own valuation. Shortly after this time his brother James became a partner in the concern, the firm then consisting simply of “Stephen and James Chappell,” who continued the works until 1847, when they became bankrupt. The pottery was then carried on for about three years, for the benefit of the creditors, by the assignees, under the management of Mr. Richard Britton, who had for some time held a confidential position with Mr. Chappell. In 1850 the concern passed, by purchase, into the hands of Mr. Samuel Warburton and this same Mr. Richard Britton, and was by them carried on under the style of “Warburton and Britton,” until 1863, when, on the death of Mr. Warburton, Mr. Richard Britton became sole proprietor of the works. On July 1st, 1872, he was joined in partnership by his two eldest sons, John Broadbent Britton and Alfred Britton, the firm at the present time being “Richard Britton & Sons.”

The Leeds Pot Works are situated in Jack Lane, and occupy an area of considerably more than seven acres of ground, and at the present time give employment to about two hundred and fifty persons. The premises are intersected for a considerable portion of their length by the Brandling’s Railway, and are also crossed in a cutting[474] by the main line of the Midland Railway. The works are very extensive, and, with but some trifling alterations, now stand as they did in the time of Hartley, Greens, & Co. Closely adjoining them is the Leathley Lane Pottery.

The wares manufactured at different periods at these interesting works consist of the coarse brown earthenwares, made on its first establishment; delft-ware, produced only in small quantities, and for a short period; hard and highly vitrified stone ware, with a strong salt glaze; cream-coloured, or Queen’s ware; Egyptian black ware; Rockingham ware; white earthenware; yellow ware, &c., &c. The great speciality of the works was the perforated “Queen’s or cream-coloured earthenware,” for which they became universally famed, and successfully competed with Wedgwood. It is this kind of ware which among collectors has acquired the name of “Leeds Ware.” To this it will be necessary to direct careful attention, and to point out both the peculiarities of pattern and of ornamentation which they exhibit.

In colour the old Leeds ware—i.e., the cream-coloured earthenware—is of a particularly clear rich tint, usually rather deeper in tone than Wedgwood’s Queen’s ware, and of a slightly yellowish cast. The body is particularly fine and hard, and the glaze of extremely good quality. This glaze was produced with arsenic, and its use was so deleterious to the workmen, that they usually became hopelessly crippled after four or five years’ exposure to its effects. It is not now used.

The perforated pieces, as well as those of open basket-work,[475] exhibit an unusual degree of skill and an elaborateness of design that is quite unequalled. The example (Fig. 848), is a chestnut basket and stand, of the finest and most elaborate description. In form it is faultless, as it is also in moulding, and there is considerable elegance in the general outline. The upper part of the cover, and the lower portion of the bowl are fluted, and the handles, which are double twisted, terminate in flowers and foliage. Both bowl and cover are elaborately perforated; and here it may be well to note, for the information of collectors, that the perforations of this description were produced by punches, by which the soft clay was pierced by hand. I name this more particularly because I have heard an opinion expressed, by those not conversant with the matter, that this description of open-work was produced in the mould. The fact of each of the perforations being produced separately by the hands of the workman, adds materially to the interest attached to the piece, and to its value. It may also be remarked that the wholesale price of this piece (eleven inches in diameter), the pattern for which was probably produced about 1782–83, was, in 1794, 8s. 6d.—a price which collectors at the present time would gladly triple and even quadruple.

Fig. 849 is an oval butter-tub and stand, of peculiarly elegant design, belonging to Mr. Manning. It is well covered with embossed work, and has both cover and stand very nicely perforated, the perforations being produced in the same manner as the one just described, by punches. The handles are ribbed and double twisted, with foliated terminations. The next illustration shows one of the “pierced fruit baskets” for which these works were very famous, and I have chosen it because it shows the combination of the pierced work with painting. These, and the asparagus shell (Fig. 850), engraved to show how the peculiar art of these works was applied to[476] the simplest things, will be sufficient to illustrate this variety of pottery.

The next variety is that of twig baskets, of which Fig. 852 is a good and characteristic example. In these pieces, which were produced in different varieties of wicker-work, the “twigs,” or “withies,” are really composed of clay in long or short “strips,” as occasion required, and then twisted and formed into shape. The process was one which required considerable care and nicety in manipulation, and was well calculated to exhibit the skill of the workman. Baskets of this kind were made by various makers, as well as at Leeds, and all on much the same model, so that without an intimate knowledge of the body and glaze of the Leeds ware, it is difficult to distinguish them from others. One of these baskets on its oval stand or dish (the wholesale price in 1794 ranging from 1s. 4d. to 3s. 6d., according to size) is engraved in the book of patterns of which I have spoken, and those who are fortunate enough to possess, or to be able to refer to that extremely scarce work, “Wedgwood’s Engraved Pattern Book” (18 plates, 4to.), will there find one engraved on Plate 13, Fig. 851. The same baskets were produced at Castleford and Don, and by Staffordshire houses.

Another characteristic variety of Leeds work was the combination in basket-work, &c., of embossed patterns with perforations. Of these I give an excellent example on the accompanying engraving, in which the rim of the dish is embossed and pierced in basket-work. The way in which this was produced was this. The plate, dish, basket, or other piece, was formed in the mould so that the pattern stood out in relief above the parts intended to be incised. These were then cut out by hand, with a penknife, leaving the pattern entirely in open-work. The dish here engraved is one of the simplest kind, but is an extremely early specimen, having probably been made about 1779, and is therefore a good illustration of this class of work. It is marked in small capital letters LEEDS POTTERY.

In this same ware—the Queen’s or cream-coloured earthenware—the[477] Leeds works produced services of various kinds, as well as the usual vessels for domestic use, and works of Art in the shape of vases, candelabra, centres, &c. &c. Of the services, which, as a rule, were of remarkably elegant forms, and produced with extreme skill in workmanship, it will not be necessary to give illustrations. Of the more decorative pieces, however, I give Figs. 854 to 856, engravings, because it is well to show collectors to what degree of perfection in design these almost forgotten works had arrived. The first example which I engrave is a magnificent centre, or “grand platt menage,” of four tiers. It is composed of five separate pieces. The base is rock, and each tier is composed of shells after the fashion of the Plymouth designs. The shells are supported on elegant brackets, and the whole piece is surmounted by a well-modelled female figure.

Fig. 855 shows a jardinière of very elegant and effective design, of cornucopia form, with a head of Flora, crowned with flowers, in front, and festoons above held by a ram’s and an eagle’s head; and Fig. 856 exhibits a “grand platt menage,” similar to that engraved on Plate 26 (Fig. 106) of the “Book of Patterns.”

In the plate to which I have referred this elegant piece has a base for cruets added, and is somewhat different in some of its details, but it is much the same in general design. Around the centre of the base, it will be noticed, is a series of rams’ heads with large bent horns, hooked at the end, and the foliage beneath the pine-apple at the top is also deeply bent downwards, and the point of each leaf hooked up at the end. On these—the horns and leaves—it was intended to hang small earthenware wicker-work baskets, and on the engraving to which I have alluded, these are all shown in situ. It is interesting to note that in Mr. Hailstone’s collection is a precisely similar piece, but with the addition of a circular base, which is of Wedgwood’s Queen’s ware, and is marked WEDGWOOD in the usual manner. This circumstance shows that the design was common to both manufactories, and the natural inference to be drawn is that Messrs. Hartley, Greens, & Co., in this instance, as in others, copied and reproduced Wedgwood’s designs; while in other instances it is equally possible Wedgwood copied from them. It is curious in going through the pattern-books of Hartley, Greens, & Co. of 1783, and downwards to 1814, Wedgwood’s of 1815, and the “Don,” to note the similarity of designs exhibited, some of which are so nearly identical, as to appear almost to have been produced from the same moulds.

A teapot, dated 1777, has been ascribed to the Leeds works; but I am doubtful as to the correctness of the appropriation. It bears on one side the words:—

The vases, scent jars, cockle pots, and potpourri produced at Leeds, were many of them of very elaborate and elegant designs, and of large size, and were decorated with raised figures, medallions, flowers, festoons, shells, &c., and with perforated work. They were also frequently painted, or enamelled, in various colours, blue, green, and red being the prevailing ones. One “cockle pot,” 22 inches in height, has a square stand, highly decorated with shells, &c., in relief, and with perforations, standing on four feet. At each corner is a raised seated figure. From the centre rises the stem, supporting a solid globe, on which rests the bowl, supported by mermaids. The bowl is decorated with festoons of shells, flowers, and sea-weeds in high relief. The cover is also ornamented with raised groups of shells and seaweed, and is perforated in an elaborate and somewhat intricate pattern. It is surmounted by a spirited figure of Neptune with his trident and horses.

Candlesticks were made in great variety, and were highly decorated. Some were in the form of vases, and in this variety vases were produced in the same manner as Wedgwood’s jasper ware, with reversible tops, so as to serve either as ornaments only, or as candlesticks. Others have dolphins; others again Corinthian and other pillars; others have massive bases perforated and embossed, while the candlestick itself rose from griffins; and others again are vases with branches for two or more candles springing out from their tops. These are now of great rarity, as, indeed, are many of the productions of the Leeds works.

Single figures, and groups of figures, were also produced, principally in the plain cream-coloured ware, but sometimes painted. It is also said that some minute works of Art, small cameos, were made at Leeds. A pair of these, said to be authenticated as Leeds manufacture, are in the possession of Mr. Ferns, who is also the owner of many excellent specimens of perforated ware.

In Mr. Hailstone’s possession is a remarkably fine fountain of large size. It has a dolphin spout, shell terminations, mermaids and shells for handles, and has figures and ornaments in relief in front.

In tea, coffee, and chocolate services, a large variety of patterns were produced; both plain, engined, fluted, pierced, and otherwise decorated. Many of these are of similar form to Wedgwood’s, to whom their manipulation would, indeed, have been no discredit. The great peculiarity of the tea and coffee pots, &c., is their double twisted handles, with flowers and leaves for terminations. Many of[480] these are extremely beautiful, both in design and in execution. These services were made either in plain cream-colour, or painted with borders and sprigs of flowers in various colours. The chocolate cups are usually two-handled, or without handles. The stands are, in many instances, highly ornamented with perforations, or take the form of melon or other leaves, and have ornamental sockets for the cups attached. Several patterns appear in the engravings of which I have spoken. Tea-kettles and milk-pails with covers were also made, and in the possession of the late Mr. Lucas was a fine example of a tea-kettle with double twisted handle, with foliated terminations.

In the early part of the present century, white earthenware was made at these works. It was a fine, hard, compact body, and had, like the cream-coloured, a remarkably good glaze. In this ware services, especially dinner and tea, were produced, and were decorated with transfer printing, painting, lustre, and tinsel. “Tinselling,” it must be understood, is the peculiar process by which a part of the pattern is made to assume a metallic appearance by being washed here and there over the transfer or drawing. Examples of these, consisting of plates, and a cup and saucer, belonging to Mr. Manning and Mr. Davis, are marked with the curved mark to be hereafter described.

The plates also bear a small blue-pencilled letter C, and impressed flower of seven lobes, and kind of cross pattée; these are, of course, workmen’s marks. The cup and saucer in Mr. Davis’s possession have flowers and rude landscape in colours and copper-coloured “tinsel.”

An excellent example of the white earthenware of Leeds is the puzzle jug in the possession of Mr. Alfred Britton, here engraved (Fig. 857). This is one of the most elaborate in design, and careful in execution, which has come under my notice. The upper part is ornamented with “punched” perforations, and the centre of the jug is open throughout, having an open flower on either side, between which is a swan standing clear in the inside. The jug is painted with borders and sprigs of flowers, and is marked[481] with the usual impressed mark of LEEDS POTTERY. A curious example of the white earthenware is in the possession of Mr. Hailstone. It is a large jug, having on one side a spirited engraving of “the Vicar and Moses” in black transfer printing, and coloured, and on the other side the old ballad of “the Vicar and Moses,” engraved in two columns, and surrounded by a border. In front of the jug, pendent from the spout, is painted the arms of the borough of Leeds, the golden fleece, commonly called the “tup in trouble.” On each side of this are the initials J. B. and S. B., and beneath are the words—“Success to Leeds Manufactory.”

Transfer printing was introduced at Leeds, probably, about 1780, but this is very uncertain. In the title-page of the “Book of Patterns in 1783,” it is said, “the same enamel’d, Printed or Ornamented with Gold to any pattern; also with Coats of Arms, Cyphers, Landscapes, &c.;” and in 1791, the copper-plates then in use were valued at £204. The patterns were principally willow pattern, Nankin pattern, borders, groups of flowers, landscapes, and ruins. I may mention that several of the original pattern-books of drawings of the articles themselves, and of borders and other decorations, of the early Leeds productions are in my own possession.

Lustre, both gold and silver, was used occasionally in the decorations at Leeds, and excellent examples of “lustre ware” were also produced. These, like the other early productions of the works, are scarce.

About the year 1800, black ware was introduced at Leeds. This was of the same character as the Egyptian black, then so largely made in Staffordshire by Wedgwood, by Mayer, by Neale, and others. The body is extremely compact, firm, and hard, but had a more decided bluish cast than is usual in other makes. In this ware, tea and coffee pots, the latter both with spouts and with snips, cream ewers, and other articles were made. I believe there are but few collectors cognizant of the fact that this Egyptian black ware was made at Leeds at all; but I have been fortunate enough, by careful examination, to ascertain that up to 1812–13, probably from ninety to a hundred distinct patterns and sizes of teapots alone were produced in black at these works. This is an interesting fact to note, and is one which will call attention for the first time to this particular branch of Leeds manufacture. The patterns of the teapots were very varied, both in form, in style of ornamentation, and in[482] size. In form were round, oval, octagonal, and other shapes, including some of twelve sides. In ornamentation some were engine-turned in a variety of patterns, while others were chequered or fluted. Others again were formed in moulds elaborately ornamented in relief with flowers, fruits, borders, festoons, &c., &c.; while others still had groups of figures, trophies, and medallions in relief on their sides. The “knobs” of the lids were seated figures, lions, swans, flowers, &c., &c. The lids were made of every variety, both inward and outward fitting, sliding, and attached with hinges. In speaking of engine-turning, it may be well to note that “engined” mugs, jugs, &c., were made at these works as early as 1782, if not at an earlier date. And here, in connection with the black ware, let me note too, that pot-works were established at Swinton, by some of the family of the Greens, of Leeds (see Swinton); and that here, too, black ware teapots were made, which were known as “Swinton pattern.” Of these I shall have more to say in my account of the Swinton works.

The marks used at Leeds are not numerous, and are easily distinguished. Collectors, however, need to be told that very few indeed of the productions of this manufactory were marked. The great bulk of the pottery, whether in Queen’s ware or otherwise, was made for foreign markets—Russia, Holland, Spain, Germany, Portugal, France, &c.—and as a rule the goods were sent off unmarked. It is worthy of note, too, that the finest examples of Leeds make, both in the perforated and other varieties, now known, have been recovered from the Continent. To illustrate this remark, it will be only necessary to point to the chestnut basket just described and engraved, which was purchased and brought from Holland a few years ago. The marks, so far as I have been able to ascertain, which were used at the Leeds works, and of each of which examples are in my own collection, are the following—

in large capitals, with a terminal asterisk impressed. This mark occurs on a large-sized “Melon Terine” same as the one engraved in the pattern-book of 1783, figure 68, plate 16. On the same piece are a large capital letter S impressed, and the number 12 incised. These are of course workmen’s or pattern marks.

Many good examples of Leeds wares are preserved in the Museum of Practical Geology. Among these one is marked with the impressed Leeds mark twice in form of a saltire (Fig. 860).

The marks usually ascribed to Leeds are the following:—but there is no proof that any of these were ever used at the works. In my own possession is a dessert service with

the “sponged” border (which was used at Leeds), and a series of extremely fine and thoroughly artistic figures, cupids, &c., engraved in stipple, and printed in a warm pinkish brown colour, which bears the first of these three marks; but although it is ascribed to Leeds, I have grave doubts as to the correctness of the appropriation.

Mr. Chaffers, in his first edition, says: “The mark of C. G. has been attributed to Charles Green, of Leeds; that in the margin is on a cup and saucer of white English china, with paintings of landscapes and the raised wicker border, common to this manufactory.”

I quote this for the purpose of showing how little reliance can be placed on the information hitherto given with respect to these works. So far as my researches go, I do not find there was a Charles Green connected with the Leeds works; and that china was never made there I am fully convinced. This mark of

does occur upon a china cup and saucer which has come under my notice: but it has not any connection with the Leeds works.

The Leeds Pottery at the present time produces the ordinary descriptions of earthenware for domestic use, consisting of dinner ware in great variety, tea and coffee, toilet, and other services, jugs[484] and mugs, screw jugs, bowls and basins, and, indeed, all articles in general use. In dinner ware upwards of ten standard patterns are made for the London market, which market takes nearly one-half of the whole productions of the works in general goods. The white earthenware is of the same quality as the ordinary run of Staffordshire ware, and has a good glaze. It is produced in the usual styles of blue printing, painting and edging. Pearl white of good quality, both plain and decorated, is also manufactured. This pearl body is got up in toilet ware, varying in patterns, printed lines, and fancy stamped; jugs embossed and plain; tea and breakfast services, &c. It is also being introduced for washing-machines, substituting earthenware bottoms for wood; also for patented machines for cloth manufacturers. These were first shown at the Leeds Exhibition of 1875. Scent-jars, leech-jars, &c., &c., are also largely made.

In Rockingham ware, tea and coffee pots and other articles are still made in considerable quantities; as are also Egyptian black glazed wares and yellow earthenware, which is made from native clays procured from Wortley. Thus it will be seen that the Leeds potteries of the present day—of the very existence of which but few persons are aware—are of considerable size and importance, and are doing a large business—a business which, unlike that of the olden times, is principally confined to the supplying of the home markets, where, not being marked, the ware usually passes for that of Staffordshire.

The marks used at the present day are, an old English letter L

within a gothic quatrefoil in a circle, impressed in the body of the ware; or the name of the pattern within an ornamental circle, and, below it, the initials of the firm, R. B. & S., printed on the surface.

Leathley Lane Pottery.

Closely adjoining the works I have been noticing is another small pottery, of whose history a few words may be said. They were established in the early part of the present century, by, I believe, a Mr. North, for the manufacture of black ware, but were afterwards used by the same person for the making of the ordinary white earthenware. From Mr. North the works passed into the hands of a Mr. Hepworth, who made the ordinary brown salt-glazed ware. It was next worked by Mr. Dawson, one of the trustees of[485] the Leeds pottery, who took into partnership Mr. Chappell, of whom I have spoken as, for a period, proprietor of the Leeds pottery; and it was for some time carried on by Dawson and Chappell, afterwards by Chappell alone, and then by Shackleton, Taylor and Co. This partnership was dissolved in 1851, and the works were then continued by two of the former proprietors, Messrs. Taylor and Gibson. Since 1859, the factory has been continued to the present time by Messrs. Gibson & Co. The premises are small, and produce only the commoner and inferior kinds of earthenware for domestic purposes. These are white ware of the commonest kind, yellow ware made from the Wortley clays, and Rockingham ware.

Castleford.

Castleford, which has its stations on the “North-Eastern” and on the “Lancashire and Yorkshire,” and is in direct communication with the Midland and Great Northern Railways, lies about twelve miles from Leeds. It is, in great measure, supported by its glasshouses, its chemical works, and its potteries, which are still in full operation. Common brown ware had, I believe, been made for a considerable period, on the spot, the goods produced, of course, being pancheons and the ordinary classes of coarse vessels. The Castleford Pottery was established, towards the close of the last century, by David Dunderdale, for the manufacture of the finer kinds of earthenware, more especially Queen’s or cream-coloured ware, which was then being made so largely at Leeds and other places, as well as in Staffordshire. Mr. Dunderdale took into partnership a Mr. Plowes, and in 1803, the firm of D. Dunderdale & Co., which appears stamped on the goods, consisted of these two persons. The partnership was not of long duration, and after considerable dissension, was dissolved, Mr. Plowes removing to Ferrybridge, where he joined the proprietors of the pot-works there, his son removing to London, and Mr. Dunderdale continuing the Castleford Works alone. The next partner was Mr. Thomas Edward Upton, a relative of Mr. Dunderdale’s, and these two shortly afterwards took into partnership John Bramley (or Bramler) and Thomas Russell, who was not a practical potter, but was an hotel proprietor at Harrogate. At this time the proprietary was thus divided:—Dunderdale one half of the concern, Russell a fourth, and Upton and Bramley an eighth each. Considerable additions were made to the works at this time, and the[486] change in the proprietary was commemorated by a grand feast, and by bonfires, and all kinds of extravagant rejoicings.

In 1820 the manufactory was closed, and in 1821 a part of the works was taken by some of the workmen—George Asquith, William and Daniel Byford, Richard Gill, James Sharp, and David Hingham. They were succeeded by Taylor, Harrison, & Co., Harrison having been an apprentice of David Dunderdale’s; and the place was for several years carried on by the latter and the son of the former, under the style of Taylor and Harrison. It is now closed as an earthenware manufactory (Messrs. Taylor and Harrison having given up the trade), and is carried on for stoneware alone. At these works, an offshoot, as I have shown, of the old pottery, the commoner descriptions of goods only are made.

At the close of the year 1825, I believe, the old works were taken by Asquith, Wood, & Co. They were joined in partnership by Thomas Nicholson, who had served his apprenticeship with Hartley, Greens, & Co., of the Leeds Pottery, and carried on the business as Asquith, Wood, and Nicholson, and afterwards as Wood and Nicholson alone. In 1854 another change took place, by which Mr. Nicholson, one of the old firm, retained the works, and took into partnership Thomas Hartley, the style of the firm being Thomas Nicholson & Co. A few years ago Mr. Nicholson retired from the concern, and it was then carried on by Thomas Hartley alone, and afterwards with partners, under the old name of Nicholson & Co. In December, 1871, Mr. Hartley died, and the Castleford Pottery was then, and still is, carried on by his co-partners, Hugh McDowall Clokie, and John Masterman, under the style of “Clokie and Masterman.”

The Castleford Works, under David Dunderdale & Co., did a large trade with Spain, the Baltic, and other “foreign parts,” principally in cream-coloured ware, and it is said that during the war the losses were so great, both in earthenware and in specie, as to cripple the works, and lead to their being closed. So great was the export trade of the firm, that they owned vessels of heavy burthen, which were kept trading with the Spanish and other ports. It is related that just before the peace of Amiens, one of Dunderdale’s ships was closely and hotly chased, but succeeded in outstripping her would-be captors. This was celebrated at Castleford, and the circumstance was remembered as “Dunkirk Races,” and is still talked of with pride by one or two of the old people with whom I have conversed.

As I have said, the staple production of the Castleford Pottery in Dunderdale’s time was the “Queen’s” or “cream-coloured ware,” which was made of an excellent quality, and of a good colour. In appearance it assimilated pretty closely to the cream ware made at the Herculaneum Works, and was not so fine or so perfect in glaze as that made at Leeds. In this ware dinner, dessert, and other services, as well as open-work baskets, vases, candlesticks, and a large variety of other articles, were made, both plain and painted, or enamelled, and decorated with transfer printing. In the accompanying engraving are shown some examples. Fig. 862 is one of a set of four central covered dishes painted in sepia with a border of vine leaves, grapes, and tendrils, of precisely the same design as appears on examples of Wedgwood’s make, and of Herculaneum, and other places. This set of dishes, when placed together for use, forms a circle of twenty-two inches in diameter. The sauce-boat (Fig. 863) is a part of the same service. The small oval sauce tureen (Fig. 861) and ladle show that double-twisted handles were made at Castleford as well as at Leeds, at Swinton, and other places. Open-work baskets, stands, plates, dishes, &c., were produced in great variety, and of designs in many instances closely resembling those of Leeds and other places. The accompanying engraving (Fig. 864)[488] exhibits one of these. In what would now be called Parian, the Castleford Works in their early days produced some remarkably good and effective pieces. One of these, a hot-milk jug with its cover, shown on Fig. 865 is beautifully decorated with foliated and other borders, and with groups of figures in relief. Mugs, and other articles of the same material, were also produced. Examples of this kind of ware may be seen in the Museum of Practical Geology, Jermyn Street, and in many private collections.

Black or Egyptian ware of fine quality was made at Castleford in its palmy days, and is now of some degree of rarity. In my friend C. Roach Smith’s possession is a part of a service of this material, in which the hot-milk jug is of precisely the same pattern as the one engraved above. In fine white earthenware a large variety of goods was made by Dunderdale & Co., who produced a remarkably hard and compact body, and a glaze of considerable merit. In the late Mr. Pulleine’s possession, among other examples, was an oval fruit-dish, painted inside with a broad, bold, but not elegant border in red, and in the centre, in an oval, a landscape, with water, buildings, trees, figures, &c., in the same colour on a red tinted ground.

The marks used at these works appear to have been very few, and are easily recognised. They are—

impressed in the ware. The mark of the later proprietors when trading as “T. Nicholson & Co.,” was a circular garter, surmounted by a crown, and on the ribbon the initials of the firm—“T. N. & Co.”; in the centre the name of the pattern. The mark of the present firm is their initials within a border.

At the present day the Castleford Pottery, as carried on by Clokie and Masterman, manufactures all the ordinary kinds of earthenware, including white, printed, sponged, and the very commonest kinds of painted varieties; the principal patterns of services being “Willow,” “Wild Rose,” “Albion,” “Gem,” “Eton College,” “Verona,” etc., which are produced in blue, green, brown, and other colours. The body is firm and good, and the glaze of the usual quality. The old glory of the works has, however, long departed, and nothing artistic or beautiful is now to be seen in the place[489] where once so many choice articles might be found. There is in connection with the pottery a flint mill, where flint, stone, glaze and colour are ground, and the clay is prepared by hydraulic pressure.

The Eagle Pottery was established in 1854 by a company of workmen, under the style of “John Roberts & Co.,” and afterwards taken by Messrs. Pratt & Co., who sold the concern to Mr. H. McDowall, who continued to trade under the original style. Since the death of Mr. McDowall the buildings have been converted into a glass bottle manufactory. Only the most common classes of earthenware were produced.

Pontefract.

Thoresby records that Francis Place, of the Manor House at York, spent much money upon his manufacture of “fine muggs,” and that he attempted it solely from a turn for experiments; but one Clifton, of Pontefract, took the hint from him, and made a fortune by it. The works of Mr. Clifton would probably be the forerunners of those of Ferrybridge, near the “town of liquorice.”

The Ferrybridge Pottery is situated at Ferrybridge, by Knottingley, and only a short distance from that famous seat of the growth of liquorice, Pontefract, whose “Pomfret cakes” are so well and, indeed, universally known. The pot-works at Ferrybridge are among the largest, if they are not the very largest, in Yorkshire, and have the reputation of being well arranged and convenient. They were established in 1792, by Mr. William Tomlinson, who had for partners Mr. Seaton, an eminent banker of Pontefract; Mr. Foster, a wealthy shipowner, of Selby; Mr. Timothy Smith, a coal proprietor; and Mr. Thompson, an independent gentleman, residing at Selby. The firm was styled “William Tomlinson & Co.,” until about the year 1796, when the proprietors took into partnership Ralph Wedgwood, of Burslem, when the style was changed to that of “Tomlinson, Foster, Wedgwood, & Co.”

Ralph Wedgwood was the eldest son of Thomas Wedgwood, of Etruria (the cousin and partner of Josiah Wedgwood), and was brought up at that place under his uncle and father. He was brother to John Taylor Wedgwood, the eminent line engraver, whose works are so justly in repute.

In my “Life of Josiah Wedgwood,” I gave, for the first time, as[490] the result of considerable research, a notice of this remarkable man, Ralph Wedgwood, and of his inventions, and his family[113] and connections.

Ralph Wedgwood, who was a man of extraordinary and varied ability, the originator of many important scientific inventions, and the author of the “Book of Remembrance,” published in 1814, in which the invention of the electric telegraph, under the name of the “fulguripolygraph,” is made known, and its benefits—precisely such as are now reaped by the public—are described, was born in 1766, and was brought up with his father at Etruria, where he received much valuable aid in chemistry, &c., from Josiah Wedgwood. He afterwards carried on business as a potter, under the style of “Wedgwood & Co.,” at the Hill Works, Burslem; but was ruined through losses during the war. While at the Hill, he prepared and presented to Queen Charlotte some fine examples of his manufacture, on the occasion of the restoration of health to the king, which were graciously accepted through the hands of Lord Cremorne. He then removed into Yorkshire, where, as I have stated, he entered into partnership with Messrs. Tomlinson & Co., of Ferrybridge, and thus again commenced business. This engagement, however, was not of long duration, his partners being dissatisfied at the large amount of breakage caused by his experiments and peculiar mode of firing, and the partnership being dissolved he retired from the concern, having succeeded in getting a thousand pounds awarded to him as his share of the business. He next removed to Bransford, near Worcester, where he issued prospectuses for teaching chemistry at schools, and thence to London, in 1803, travelling in a carriage of his own constructing, which he describes as “a long coach to get out behind, and on grasshopper springs, now used by all the mails.” This carriage was so extraordinary in its appearance as to be taken for a travelling show. While at Bransford he had been perfecting his inventions, among which was his celebrated manifold writer, which still maintains its high repute “against all comers.” One of his copying schemes, which he called a “Penna-polygraph,” that of writing with a number of pens attached to one handle, he found, on his arrival in London, had already been made by another person. His other plan, proving to be new, he called the “Pocket Secretary,” and afterwards the “Manifold Writer;” and on the 7th of October, 1806, after much discouragement and opposition, he took[491] out a patent for this as “an apparatus for producing duplicates of writing.” In 1808 he took out a second patent for “an apparatus for producing several original writings or drawings one and at the same time, which I shall call a Pennæpolygraph, or pen and stylographic manifold writer.” An “ærial zone” was also proposed by him, and his invention was laid before the Admiralty, but judging from the following extract from a letter now lying before me, the invention was not considered to be a very feasible one. “The ærial zone is in proper hands if it is laid before the Admiralty, for there does not seem to be any greater likelihood of its becoming an article of general use than there is of the ladies leaving off muslin because some lose their lives every year by its use.”[114]

In 1806, Ralph Wedgwood established himself at Charing Cross, and soon afterwards his whole attention began to be engrossed with his scheme of the electric telegraph, first invented by his father, Thomas Wedgwood, which, in the then unsettled state of the kingdom—in midst of war, it must be remembered—he considered would be of the utmost importance to the government. In 1814, having perfected his scheme, he submitted his proposal to Lord Castlereagh, and most anxiously awaited the result. His son Ralph having waited on his lordship for a decision as to whether government would accept the plan or not, was informed that “the war being at an end, the old system was sufficient for the country!” The plan, therefore, fell to the ground, until Professor Wheatstone, in happier and more enlightened times, again brought the subject forward with such eminent success. The plan, thus brought forward by Ralph Wedgwood in 1814 (and, as I have stated, he received the first idea from his father), was thus described by him in a pamphlet entitled, “An Address to the Public, on the advantages of a proposed introduction of the Stylographic Principle of writing into general use; and also of an improved species of Telegraphy, calculated for the use of the Public as well as for the Government.” The pamphlet is dated May 29, 1815.

Ralph Wedgwood from Charing Cross removed successively to Piccadilly, and Southampton Street, Strand, where he continued producing his “Pocket Secretary” in large numbers, and did a profitable business. The advantages he gained were, however, lost by his researches concerning the electric telegraph, and in the end his business gradually decayed. He was a man of too eccentric[492] and visionary nature for the ordinary pursuits of life, and was thus led into the speculative ideas rather than the substantialities of worldly existence. Among his schemes was one for the founding of an universal language, over which he held a lengthy and elaborate correspondence with Percy Bysshe Shelley and other men of the day. He died at Chelsea in 1837. He was three times married—first to Mary Yeomans, of Worcester, by whom he had issue Ralph Wedgwood, of Barnes and Cornhill; secondly, to Sarah Taylor; and thirdly, to Anne Copeland, by each of whom also he had issue.

After the dissolution of the partnership at Ferrybridge, which took place, I believe, about 1800 or 1801, when Wedgwood ceased to have any connection with the concern, the firm of “Tomlinson & Co.” was resumed, and so continued until 1834, when it changed to “Tomlinson, Plowes, & Co.;” Mr. Plowes, of the Castleford Works, having joined the proprietary.

In 1804, the name of the manufactory, which, up to that period, had been called the Knottingley Pottery, was changed to that of the Ferrybridge Pottery. This change was made for the convenience of foreign correspondence—a large foreign trade being carried on—Ferrybridge being at that time a post-town of some note, and the works being situated nearer to it than to Knottingley.

Mr. Tomlinson was succeeded by his son Mr. Edward Tomlinson, who continued the works under the firm of Edward Tomlinson & Co., until the year 1826, when he finally retired from the concern. A part of the premises were then worked for a short time by Messrs. Wigglesworth and Ingham; when the whole place was taken by Messrs. Reed, Taylor, and Kelsall, who continued the manufactory until the retirement of Mr. Kelsall, after which the works were continued by the surviving partners, Messrs. James Reed and Benjamin Taylor. Mr. Reed, who was father of Mr. John Reed, of the “Mexborough Pottery,” was a man of enlarged experience, of matured judgment, and of great practical skill; and in his time many improvements in the ware were made, and the manufacture of china introduced. He, in conjunction with his partner, took the Mexborough Pottery, and for some time carried on the two establishments conjointly. Ultimately Mr. Reed gave up the Ferrybridge works, and confined himself to those at Mexborough, while Mr. Taylor carried on the Ferrybridge works alone.

After Mr. Taylor gave up the works Mr. Lewis Woolf entered upon them as tenant for a few years, and in 1856 became the[493] purchaser, and commenced manufacturing in his own name, and has continued from that time until the present day. In the following year, 1857, a large additional pottery was built closely adjoining, and, indeed, connected with the “Ferrybridge Pottery,” by the sons of Mr. Lewis Woolf. This new manufactory was called the “Australian Pottery,” and is still in full work. The proprietors of the joint works, “The Ferrybridge and Australian Potteries,” as they are named, now are Lewis, Sidney, and Henry Woolf, who trade under the style of “Lewis Woolf and Sons.”

These works, besides a very large local and coasting trade, had extensive transactions with several foreign ports. From their first establishment to the time of the issuing of the famous Berlin decree by Napoleon, Messrs. Tomlinson & Co. had done a very extensive and lucrative trade with Russia, for which country the finer and more expensive kinds of earthenware, including cream-colour, Egyptian black, and other kinds of fancy bodies, were made, both pressed, printed, enamelled, and gilt. The decree cut short the trade with the Continent; but shortly after this commercial blow, which was severely felt by the Yorkshire potters, the River Plate was opened by Sir Home Popham, a circumstance which was taken immediate advantage of by the Ferrybridge firm. “One of the partners immediately proceeded there, and succeeded in establishing a good market until the royal family emigrated to Brazil, when the same partner moved up to Rio de Janeiro, to which port a large business was for many years carried on.”

The wares principally made were the following:—cream and cane-coloured ware, in which services and most articles in general use were manufactured, either plain, pressed (i.e., with raised patterns), painted, or printed. Green glazed ware, in which dessert services and other articles were made, and which were of a lighter colour than what Wedgwood produced. Egyptian black ware, of the usual quality made at the period. Fine white earthenware, in which was produced all the usual kinds of goods in enamelling, blue printing, painting, &c. Artists of considerable ability were employed at the works, and I have seen examples which are of thoroughly good character, and will vie with some of the best contemporary productions of the Staffordshire potteries.

In the time of Messrs. Reed and Taylor china of a very fine quality was made, but the manufacture was not of long duration. Tea and coffee services, dessert services, scent bottles, and a variety[494] of articles, were made of this body, and were remarkably good in form and in style of decoration. Examples of Ferrybridge china are now of extreme rarity.

Cameos, medallions, and other ornamental articles in the time of Ralph Wedgwood’s connection with the works, were made in imitation of those of Josiah Wedgwood, to which they were, however, very inferior both in body and finish.

The combined works at the present time (by which of course I mean the joint manufactory of the “Ferrybridge and Australian Potteries”) give employment to about five hundred hands, and do a large trade with Australia and other foreign markets. In white earthenware, which is the staple trade of the works, the ornamentation consists of a large variety of patterns in transfer printing, in common painting, in lustre or “tinsel,” and in sponged patterns. Enamelled and gilt goods, too, are made, and of qualities to suit the different markets for which they are intended. For the Egyptian markets, to which large quantities of goods are sent, lustred or tinselled patterns are adapted very extensively. In “jet ware,” dessert services, candlesticks, toilet trays, and other articles are made. In this ware, I believe I am right in saying that a large number of services have been made especially for the Chinese market. In Egyptian black the ordinary varieties of articles are made, as they are also in Rockingham ware. In “blue jasper” ware, i.e., a blue glazed ware, absurdly so called, many useful and ornamental articles are made, as they are also in a variety of other bodies.

The marks used at the Ferrybridge Pottery have been but few. So far as my knowledge goes, those which will be of interest to the collector are the following—

impressed on cameos, made during the time of Ralph Wedgwood’s connection with the works.

also impressed, and one variety of which mark is peculiar from having the letter D reversed thus—

A shield, with the words—OPAQUE GRANITE CHINA in three lines, supported by a lion and unicorn, and surmounted by a crown. This mark is also impressed, and occurs on green-glazed ware, as does the one just spoken of.

The mark at the present time is that of the lion and unicorn with the shield and crown, and the words, “Ferrybridge and Australian Potteries,” sometimes impressed, and at others printed on the goods, with the names of the bodies, as “granite,” “stone china,” &c., added.

Swinton-Rockingham China.

When pot-making was first practised in Swinton and its district, it is, of course, impossible to say, but I believe that as early, at all events (if not at a much earlier period), as quite the beginning of last century, a hard brown ware, of much the same quality as that made at Nottingham and Chesterfield, was produced on Swinton Common, where clays useful for various purposes were abundantly found. In 1745, it appears that a Mr. Edward Butler, seeing the advantage offered by the locality through its clays, which consisted of a “common yellow clay used for the purposes of making bricks, tiles, and coarse earthenware; a finer white clay for making pottery of a better quality; an excellent clay for making fire-bricks; and also a white clay usually called pipeclay;” established a tile-yard and pot-works for common earthenware, on a part of the estate of Charles, Marquis of Rockingham, which lay closely contiguous to Swinton Common, where these clays existed. The memory of this old potter, the founder of the works which afterwards became so[496] famous as the “Royal Rockingham China Works,” is, it is pleasant to record, at the present day preserved in the name of a field near the now ruined factory, called “Butler’s Park.” Butler at these works produced the ordinary classes of goods then in use, but principally the hard brown ware to which I have just alluded. An interesting example of this period was in the possession of the late Dr. Brameld, and is engraved on Fig. 866. It is a “posset-pot” of the usual form of those which, at that period, were in such general use in Derbyshire and Yorkshire; it bears the date of 1759. This interesting example has a fragment of a label, written at “Swinton Pottery,” which authenticates it as having been made by, or for, John Brameld.

In 1765 the works were taken by William Malpass, who held another small pot-work at Kilnhurst, in the same neighbourhood, and he continued them for some years. With him were associated in partnership, I believe, John Brameld, and subsequently his son, William Brameld, of whom I shall have more to say presently. Mr. Malpass continued to manufacture the same varieties of ware as his predecessor, and held the works, or rather was a partner in them, at all events as late as 1786.

In 1778 Mr. Thomas Bingley became a principal proprietor of the Swinton works, and had for partners, among others, John and William Brameld, and a person named Sharpe. Mr. Bingley was a member of a family of that name which had been resident at Swinton for more than four hundred years, and is now worthily represented in the person of Mr. Thomas Bingley, who still resides there. The firm at this time was carried on under the style of Thomas Bingley & Co., and, being thriving, indeed opulent, people, the works were greatly enlarged, and conducted with much spirit. An extensive trade was at this time carried on, and besides the ordinary brown and yellow wares, blue and white dinner, tea, coffee, and other services were made, as also a white earthenware of remarkably fine and compact body, and other wares of good quality.

A highly interesting example of this period, 1788, is shown on the accompanying engraving (Fig. 867), which exhibits a two-handled drinking-cup, with the name of one of the proprietors, “William Brameld,” on one side, and the date “1788” on the other. This curious cup, which is five and a quarter inches in height, is of fine white earthenware with a bluish coloured glaze. The upper part,[497] both inside and out, two narrow borders round the centre, the handles, and the base, are ornamented with blue transfer-printing. The rest of the vessel is black, the name, date, and ornaments upon it being gilt. The borders of blue printing are much the same as those around “willow pattern” plates, and from this it may be inferred that the “willow pattern” was at that period produced in Swinton.

From about the year 1787 down to 1800, the firm traded under the style of “Greens, Bingley, & Co.” This was consequent on some of the Greens of the “Leeds Pottery,” (which see)—having become partners, and taken an active part in the Swinton manufactory, with Mr. Bingley, Mr. Brameld, and those who were connected with them in those works. Mr. John Green became acting manager of the Swinton works, and afterwards, as I am informed, founded the “Don Pottery.”

I possess some original letters from John Green, dated “Leeds Pottery,” of April and June, 1788, addressed to “Mr. John Brameld, Swinton, near Rotherham,” giving directions not only concerning the works themselves, but relating to the partnership:—

In the same letter he speaks of consignments of flint by Mr. Brearey to Selby and Tadcaster. He also offers Brameld from himself and partners a commission of 5 per cent. on all “wearing apparell sould to your works.”

The partnership with John Green was carried on in the style of “Greens, Bingley, & Co., Swinton Pottery;” and the same price-lists which were printed at Leeds with the Leeds pottery heading, had that heading cut off, and that of “Greens, Bingley, & Co., Swinton Pottery,” written in its place. Later on large fresh price-lists were printed. They were headed “Greens, Hartley, & Co., Swinton Pottery, make, sell, and export wholesale all sorts of Earthenware, Cream Coloured or Queens, Nankeen Blue, Tortoise Shell, Fine Egyptian Black, Brown China, &c., &c. All the above sorts enameled, printed, or ornamented with gold or silver.” On[498] the fly-leaf was a printed circular, dated “Swinton Pottery, 1st February, 1796,” announcing an advance in prices and a revised system of counting.

The patterns used at Leeds were evidently, to some extent, adopted at Swinton; and I possess some original drawings and designs on which the numbers for each of those works are given. For instance, in teapots, Leeds No. 149 was Swinton No. 68; Leeds 133 was Swinton 69; 218 was 70; and 252 was 71, and so on.

Late in the last century, about the time of which I am now writing, a peculiar kind of ware was first made at these works, and took the name of “Brown China,” and afterwards that which it has ever since maintained where attempted to be made, of “Rockingham Ware.” This ware, which is of a fine reddish-brown, or chocolate colour, is one of the smoothest and most beautiful wares that has ever been produced at any place. The body is of fine hard and compact white earthenware, and the brown glaze, by which the peculiar shaded and streaky effect of this class of goods was produced is as fine as it is possible to conceive, and required to be “dipped” and passed through the firing no fewer than three times before it could be considered perfect. In this exquisite ware tea, coffee, and chocolate services, jugs, drinking-cups, &c., were produced, and continued to be made to the close of the works in 1842. Since that time “Rockingham ware”—in every instance falling far short of the original in beauty and in excellence—has been made by almost every manufacturer in the kingdom, and has always, especially for tea and coffee pots, met a ready and extensive sale. One special article produced in this ware was the curious coffee pot, formed on purely scientific principles, which is usually known to collectors as the “Cadogan pot.” This curious piece was formed on the model of an example of green Indian ware, said to have been brought from abroad[115] by the Marquis and Marchioness of Rockingham, or the Hon. Mrs. Cadogan, and preserved fifty or sixty years at Wentworth before it was thought of being copied. It has a small opening in the bottom to admit the coffee, but none at the top and no lid. From the hole in the bottom a tube, slightly spiral, was made to pass up inside the vessel to within half an inch of the top, so that after filling, on the “pot” being turned over into its proper position for table use, the coffee was kept in without chance of spilling or escape.

It is worthy of remark that tea and “Cadogan” coffee pots of genuine Rockingham ware, the first of which was made for the Marchioness of Rockingham, have the reputation of being by far the best of any, and are said, I know not upon what principle, to produce a better and purer flavour than any others.[116] I have been told it as a fact, that George IV., who was as great a connoisseur in tea as he was in many far less harmless matters, invariably, for a long time, used one of the then fashionable Rockingham ware pots. I have it from undeniable authority that the royal penchant for this kind of ware thus arose. When he, while Prince Regent, visited Wentworth House, the seat of Earl Fitzwilliam, these teapots were in use, and were much admired. On the return of the prince and suite to London, inquiries were made for them at John Mortlock’s, in Oxford Street, who supplied the palace. He at once saw that they would come into considerable repute, ordered largely, contracted to have his own name stamped upon them, and enjoyed the questionable reputation of being their inventor. Mr. Mortlock, I believe, ordered as much as £900 worth of this ware in one season alone.

In 1796, the firm was, as before, “Greens, Bingley, & Co.;” and from a list of prices and goods now in my possession, it appears that a large variety of articles were produced. The list is thus headed:—

Among the articles in cream ware, enumerated in this list, are all the separate items for services in Paris, Bath, concave, royal, queen’s, feather, and shell-edge patterns, which were produced “printed or enamelled with coats of arms, crests, cyphers, landscapes,[500] &c.; also blue printed Nankeen patterns;” dishes, covers, compotiers, tureens, plates, butter-tubs, baking-dishes, nappies, glass trays, fruit plates, fruit baskets pierced and plain, tea-trays, garden-pots and stands, shaving-basins, salts, castors, cruets, egg-cups, spoons plain and pierced, ice-cellars, candlesticks, inkstands, wafer and sand boxes, fountain inkstands, bidets, &c., furnished castors, tureen ladles, chocolate stands, quintal flower horns, radish dishes, crosses with holy-water cup, ice pails, broad mugs, bowls, ewers, basins, &c., milk ewers, tea and coffee pots, tea canisters, chocolate cups and saucers, &c., &c.

In 1806, the firm of “Greens, Bingley, & Co.” was dissolved. At this time, as appears from a memorandum of resolutions, passed at a meeting held on January 22nd, 1806, preparatory to the dissolution, that the partners (present) were—“William Hartley for himself and others (this was William Hartley, principal proprietor in the Leeds Pottery), Ebenezer Green for himself and others (this was another of the partners in the Leeds Pottery), George Hanson, Thomas Bingley, John Brameld, and William Brameld.” These resolutions are as follows:—

“At a meeting held at Swinton Pottery, on Wednesday, the 22nd day of January, 1806.

At the dissolution of partnership, the whole concern fell into the hands of two of the partners, Messrs. John and William Brameld, who, with other partners, continued the works with considerable spirit under the style of “Brameld & Co.” until their death. The[501] old price-lists, which I have already named, continued to be used, but had the words “Greens, Bingley” erased with the pen, and “Brameld” substituted, so that the heading commenced “Brameld & Co., Swinton Pottery.” They were later on joined in partnership by the younger branches of the family, who eventually, as I shall show, became proprietors of the manufactory. By Messrs. John and William Brameld additional buildings were erected, and great improvements made in the ware. About this time cream-coloured ware was made very extensively, and a remarkably fine white earthenware—the “chalk-body,” as it was technically called—was successfully produced, but, owing to its costliness through loss in firing, was made only to a small extent, and is now of great rarity.

About the year 1813, the sons of the old proprietors, on the death of Mr. William Brameld, succeeded to the concern. These were Thomas Brameld, George Frederick Brameld, and John Wager Brameld, and to them the great after-success of the works was due. These gentlemen considerably enlarged the manufactory, made many improvements in the wares produced, and erected a flint mill on the premises, which after the close of the china works continued to be worked by their descendants.

Mr. Thomas Brameld, the eldest of the partners, was a man of the most exquisite taste, and he laboured hard to raise the character of the productions of the Swinton Works to a high standard of excellence. In this he succeeded to an eminent degree. In 1820 he turned his attention to the production of china ware, and made many experiments in bodies and glazes. Having expended large sums of money in the production of this, his favourite project, and in making Art-advances in his manufactory, the firm became, as is too frequently the case with those who study the beautiful instead of the strictly commercial in the management of their works, slightly embarrassed. This was considerably increased by the great loss, both in earthenware and money, which the firm sustained consequent on the war. In 1825, which it will be remembered was a year of great commercial difficulties, Messrs. Brameld succumbed to the embarrassments that had for some time affected them, and a meeting of themselves, their creditors, &c., was held at Rotherham. At this meeting, Mr. Thomas Brameld produced some remarkable examples of his china ware, the result of long and patient labour on his part, and these being highly approved by all who were present, and appearing likely to succeed, Earl Fitzwilliam, the[502] owner of the property at Swinton, in the most laudable and kindly manner, agreed to assist in the prosecution of the work by the advance of capital, and by taking an active part in the scheme.

This being done, Mr. Brameld set himself to his task with renewed spirit, and with a determination to make his porcelain at least equal to any which could then be produced, and in this he certainly succeeded. The works were altered and enlarged; modellers and painters, the most skilful that could be procured, were employed; and every means taken to insure that success, artistically and manipulatively, which quickly followed. In this ware, dinner, dessert, breakfast, and tea services, vases, groups of figures and flowers, and numberless articles, both of utility and ornament, were produced, and were all characterised by pure taste, and an excellence of design and workmanship which told much for the skill and judgment of the mind that governed the whole of the manufactory.

Mr. George Frederick Brameld, the second of the partners, devoted himself to the strictly commercial part of the business on the Continent. He for some time resided at St. Petersburg, a large trade with Russia being carried on by the firm.

Mr. John Wager Brameld, like his brother, was a man of pure taste. He was an excellent artist, and some truly exquisite paintings on porcelain by him have come under my notice. He was a clever painter of flowers and of figures, and landscapes. In flowers Mr. Brameld went to Nature herself, collecting specimens wherever he went, and reproducing their beauties on the choice wares of the works. At Lowestoft I remember seeing a set of three vases painted in flowers, which, it is said, Mr. Brameld gathered on the Dene, at that place, on one of his visits, and which vases he presented to the father of their present owner.[117] In the same hands is an elegant snuff-box, bearing an exquisite painting of “The Politician,” with groups of flowers, and bearing the words, “Brameld, Rockingham Works, near Rotherham,” “The Politician, J. W. Brameld.” This being a signed piece of John Wager Brameld’s, is particularly interesting. Mr. Brameld’s time was chiefly devoted, however, to travelling for the firm in the United Kingdom, and to the management of the London house, so that his artistic productions did not make a feature in the goods generally made at the works.

Mr. Thomas Brameld, who resided at Swinton House, Swinton, a delightful residence overlooking the valley of the Don (to whose taste Swinton is deeply indebted for the preservation from destruction of two fine old Norman archways from the destroyed chapel), died in 1850. He left four sons, the Rev. John Thomas Brameld, late of Mansfield; the Rev. George William Brameld; the late Rev. Arthur James Brameld, of New Wortley, who was accidentally drowned soon after I made his acquaintance; and the late Dr. Henry E. Brameld, to each and all of whom—especially the two last named—I was indebted for much assistance in the preparation of this notice. Mr. John Wager Brameld died in 1851, leaving an only son, who was accidentally drowned while bathing near Swinton. The last of the partners, Mr. George Frederick Brameld, died unmarried in 1853.

The regulations laid down for the keeping of time by the workmen at Swinton, and for their guidance over their work, were remarkably well considered and clear; the original document of about 1829, in Mr. Brameld’s handwriting, is in my own possession, as is also another from which I learn some particulars as to the overlookers of that time. Richard Shillito was to have charge of the earthenware department as general overlooker, with ... Hulme to assist him; William Horncastle had charge of the Warehouse, &c.; Mr. Wager had charge of the men at the farm; Mr. Baguley had “charge of all the painting and gilding department in china and enamel earthenware.” John Speight, “the painting, &c., &c., in earthenware biscuit work;” George Liversedge was overlooker and manager of the printing department; Joseph Bullough was sorter of biscuit ware; William Speight had charge of the mill, and also “the care of and management of all gold, colours, and glazes, &c., he giving them out as they may be properly wanted to use.”

Earthenware of various kinds—“Brown China,” or “Rockingham ware,” green glazed ware, biscuit figures and ornaments, hard fine white stoneware, cream-coloured ware, and other varieties of goods were also still made; and the works, which, at this time—the time when china began regularly to be made (1826)—with the assistance of the Earl Fitzwilliam, assumed the name of the “Rockingham Works,” began to use the crest of the Fitzwilliam family as the mark of the firm.

In 1826 (November 17), Messrs. Brameld & Co. secured the services of an excellent painter, “Mr. John Cresswell, painter on[504] china,” and articles of agreement (in my own possession) were drawn up by which Cresswell engaged himself to them for five years at 7s. 6d. a day for the first three years; 9s. 3d. a day for the fourth year; and 10s. 6d. a day for the fifth year. In 1830 the firm received an order for a service from the Duchess of Cumberland:—

In the same year Messrs. Brameld & Co. became the purchasers from Mr. George Green of his interest in the Kilnhurst Pottery (which see). In 1840, Messrs. Brameld were in negotiation for the purchase from Mr. Dillwyn of the Glamorgan Pottery at Swansea (which see); but the purchase was not made.

In 1830, the Rockingham Works received an order for a splendid[505] dessert service for King William IV., which was executed in the highest style of the art, and gave intense satisfaction. The original sketches for this service are in my own possession, and are named “Original Designs for His Majesty’s Dessert, 12th Nov., 1830, per J. W. B.” (John Wager Brameld). They are pen-and-ink sketches by himself. Of this service I shall have yet to speak. At this time the works assumed the name of “Royal Rockingham Works,” and the proprietors called themselves China Manufacturers and Potters to the King, Queen, and Royal Family. In 1838, the manufacture of china and earthenware bed-posts, cornices, &c.—a somewhat novel feature in the art—was added to the other productions of the Rockingham Works. In that year a patent was taken out in the name of William Dale[118] for “certain improvements in constructing columns, pillars, bed-posts, and other such-like articles;” consisting of several ornamental pieces or compound parts of china or earthenware,”[506] “united, strengthened and supported by a shaft or rod passing through the whole length of the same, and furnished with screw nuts or other description of fastenings, and collars,” &c. These bed-posts and other similar things were made at the Rockingham Works, though never to any extent. They are now of very great rarity, but examples are in my own possession. The body is white, the prevailing colour being Rose-du-Barry, with yellow flowers, &c. Another of these interesting examples is white with an effective chintz pattern in colours; while others have small groups and sprigs of flowers, the outline in transfer printing, and filled in with colour. In my own possession, too, are several of the original drawings of designs for beds, window cornices, lamps, candelabra, tables, &c., which are remarkable for their elegance and beauty. An elegant work-table of this description of ware, of simple but very effective design and excellent workmanship, is in the possession of Mr. Wilson of Sheffield. It is 2 feet 6 inches high and 1 foot 6 inches in diameter at the top. Among the designs to which I have alluded is one representing a small and remarkably elegant table of somewhat similar, but much more ornate character, on which is a fish-globe stand of corresponding design.

Although the Rockingham Works were eminently successful in an artistic point of view, they were not so commercially, and in 1842 were closed, after involving not only their noble owner, but the absolute proprietors, in a loss of very many thousands of pounds. Only sixteen years had elapsed since the introduction of the china manufacture to the works, but those had been sixteen years of beauty, and of artistic and manipulative success. No man better understood his art than Mr. Thomas Brameld, no man laboured harder and more disinterestedly in the ennobling of that art than he did, and few men, either before his time or since, succeeded in accomplishing greater or more honourable things. He and his brother looked to Art instead of commerce, and the result was embarrassment and loss.

At the close of the Rockingham Works in 1842, the stock, &c., was sold off and dispersed, and the manufactory which had produced so large a quantity of elegant services, &c., was entirely discontinued. A small portion of the building was taken by an old and experienced workman, Isaac Baguley (formerly employed at the famous Derby China Works), who was one of Messrs. Brameld’s best painters and gilders. Here he commenced business in a small way on his own[507] account, and continued to do some little business until his death. Mr. Baguley did not manufacture the wares himself, but purchased what he required in the biscuit and white state, from other makers, and then painted, gilt, and otherwise ornamented them for sale. At his death, his son, Alfred Baguley, succeeded him, and, for a few years, carried on this decorative branch of the business on the old premises. Mr. Baguley decorated with commendable taste earthenware and porcelain, and produced some extremely good and effective designs in modelling, and clever patterns in decoration. One of his specialities was the old Rockingham ware, which he produced of a far purer and better quality than any other house. To this branch he paid particular attention, and produced the Rockingham chocolate or brown glaze on a china body. In this “Rockingham china,” breakfast and tea services, tea and coffee pots of the good old designs, drinking horns, jugs, &c., were made, and, being gilt in the same manner as the old Rockingham ware, have a remarkably pleasing appearance, while in touch they are all that can be desired. Mr. Baguley also made the famous old “Bishopthorpe” and “Wentworth” jugs. His mark was the same as that of the old works—the crest of Earl Fitzwilliam (Fig. 880) with the name—

In 1852, a small portion of the works was tenanted by some earthenware manufacturers, who traded as “P. Hobson & Son,” but their occupation was of only short duration, and now the whole place is closed.

The Rockingham Works—a view of which in their palmiest days is on a dish made by Twigg, in my own collection—when in full operation, gave employment to a considerable number of hands and occupied a large area of ground.[119] At the present time the place is a sad and desolate-looking wilderness. The buildings have most of them been removed, and others, at the time of my visit, were being taken down. The whole place was in ruins, and in the area, where but a few years ago all was life, activity, and bustle in the execution of a royal order, “weeds and briars grow;” while in the centre of the wreck stood a building bearing the almost defaced words, “This way[508] to the China Room,” where no china, save broken fragments scattered about on the “shard rucks,” was to be seen.

Of the “brown china” or “Rockingham ware” services, Cadogan pots, &c., I have given notices. It will be sufficient to add that although all which was made at these works were not marked, they usually bore the impressed marks of “Rockingham,” “Brameld,” or “Brameld & Co.,” or the name of “Mortlock.”

In fine hard “white stoneware,” and in fine cane-coloured ware, jugs of remarkably good design were made, and were decorated with groups in relief in the same manner; indeed, strongly resembling, both in body and in design, those of Turner, which are so well known to collectors. In Mr. Davis’s and other hands are remarkably good jugs of this kind, decorated with raised groups of figures in blue, and bearing the embossed mark to be hereafter spoken of. The handles of these jugs are formed of the leg and tail of a horse. In “green-glazed earthenware,” dessert services, flower vases, garden seats, and all the usual varieties of articles were made. The green, as a rule, was a somewhat lighter colour and not so good in quality as Wedgwood’s. The pieces were generally marked with the usual impressed mark. In fine “earthenware,” services of every kind were produced, both white, blue-printed, painted, and gilt. The glaze on the earlier pieces, it should be remarked, is of a decided blue tint, and somewhat inferior in quality. Some of the dessert-services produced in the early part of the present century are particularly interesting. On each piece is painted some flower as large as life, and coloured true to nature in every particular. The name of the plant represented is in each case pencilled at the back of the piece. The plants represented on the two examples (Fig. 870) are respectively marked as “Althea Frutex” and “Virgilia helioides.” In the late Dr. Brameld’s possession was a service of this same kind, in which the flowers were beautifully painted. The painter of these[509] pieces was Collinson, the best flower-painter employed at the Swinton Works, and they were made between the years 1810–15. The ware is particularly light, and has a remarkably pleasant feel in handling. I have been somewhat particular in speaking of this variety of goods, because similar services were produced far more extensively at the Don Works, at Swansea, and at other places.

Of works of Art, in earthenware, the Swinton Pottery produced many vases and other objects of a high degree of excellence, both in design, manipulation, and in decoration, and were, indeed, far in advance of most of their competitors. Fig. 871 represents one of a pair of remarkably fine pot-pourris, which were “thrown” at the Swinton Works by Mr. Thomas Brameld the year he was out of his apprenticeship, in 1805, and were, till his death, in the possession of his son, Dr. Brameld. They are 18 inches high, and have lions’ heads for handles, while on the top of the lid is a lion couchant, the family crest, gilt. The jars are beautifully painted in Chinese subjects. The next engraving shows one of the specialities of the Swinton pottery, a “lotus vase,” from an example in Mr. Manning’s possession. It is formed of leaves, &c., and has butterflies, &c., raised, as if resting upon the leaves. The whole is carefully enamelled, and altogether forms a flower vase of surpassing beauty.[510] It is pleasant to add that at the close of the Rockingham Works, the moulds for the production of these “lotus vases,” as well as others, including the model of the keep of Conisborough Castle,[120] which, by the way, was another of the specialities of the Swinton Works, passed into the hands of the late Mr. John Reed, of the “Mexborough Pottery,” by whose successor they continue to be made, both in the fine old green-glazed style, and enamelled.

In “Queen’s ware,” or “cream-coloured ware,” services were formerly made at Swinton. It was of a very similar quality to that made at Leeds and at Castleford, and, being unmarked, is generally ascribed to one or other of those works. In Dr. Brameld’s possession was a teapot of this material, which is said to have been made in the latter part of last century by his grandfather. It is here shown. It is of deep buff, or cream colour, with beaded edges, and bears the name and date—

In the late Mr. Reed’s possession, too, was a double-handled drinking cup of elegant form, with the name Iohn Alsebrook, and the date 1795, within an enamelled border of roses and foliage, and having on the other side a Chinese figure subject, also enamelled.

That this kind of ware was not made extensively at Swinton until after the dissolution of partnership with Hartley, Greens & Co., is perhaps to be easily accounted for in the fact that these proprietors of the Leeds Pottery, where it was manufactured so extensively and so well, being also partners here, the cream ware would be made principally at Leeds, while at the Swinton Works was produced what had not been made at the other place. From the time the works fell entirely into the hands of the Bramelds, however, this kind of ware became the staple production of the manufactory, and an immense trade was carried on in it in the Baltic and elsewhere. Not being marked, it probably often passes for Leeds ware in the eyes of collectors. In this material beautiful open-work baskets, and many other elegant articles, were made.

Transfer printing was introduced at Swinton, at all events, as early, as I have shown, as 1788, and was continued to the close of the works. In the later years, some extremely tasteful groups of flowers, butterflies, &c., were engraved and transferred in outline, and then painted in the usual manner. In dinner, tea, toilet, and other services, the designs were extremely good, and one of them, the Don Quixote pattern, became very popular.

Engine-turned tea and coffee pots, plates, &c., were also manufactured, and in manipulation were equal to any produced in ordinary earthenware. Groups of flowers, figures, trophies, borders, &c., in relief, were also introduced.

In “china” the earliest examples are two trial pieces by Mr. Thomas Brameld, which I saw in the possession of his son, the late Dr. Brameld. These are a pair of small leaves, the body of which is of good quality, painted of a salmon colour with gold veins. These are probably of the date 1820–2, and but few trials were made from that time until 1825. In 1826 china ware began to be made largely, and from that time (in this year it will be remembered the works changed their name from “Swinton” to “Rockingham”) to 1842 was one series of successes in all but profit. Tea, coffee, dinner, dessert, toilet, and other services, were made in every variety of style, from the ordinary blue printed, or white with raised blue ornaments, to the most elaborately painted and gilt varieties. Vases, and numberless ornamental articles for the drawing-room and the toilet were also made, and were generally distinguished by good taste in design, and skill in decoration. To show how Art was, by the taste of the Bramelds, made subservient to the production of things of every-day use, I give, in Figs. 874 to 876, three examples in Mr. Manning’s possession.

In vases, some of the finest which had ever been produced were made at these works. At Wentworth House, the magnificent seat of Earl Fitzwilliam, among other fine examples of Swinton Art, is one which is of surpassing beauty. It was the largest china vase produced at that time in a single piece in this country. It stands three feet nine inches in height, and is three feet one inch in circumference. The base, which is of tripod form, has a blue ground, with flowers in compartments, and is massively gilt. From it rises the vase, supported on three lions’ paws in white and gold. From between the feet on each side spring branches of oak, solidly gilt, which entwine their leaves around the paws, and form an elegant border to each of the large painted subjects on the sides. The neck of the vase is in honeycomb open-work, with raised bees upon it; and the handles are of massive coral in white and gold. On each of the three sides of the vase is a large subject from Don Quixote, exquisitely painted in enamel colours. The cover has a blue ground, on which are flowers and trophies in tablets, surrounded by oak leaves and acorns in gold. It is surmounted by a large and powerfully-modelled rhinoceros, gilt. The under side of the cover, quite out of sight except when lifted off the vase, is painted in a series of small landscapes, alternating with subjects taken from Bewick’s celebrated tail-pieces. Inside the cover is the mark of the crest, and the words “Rockingham Works, Brameld,” and the date 1826. This splendid vase was painted by John Wager Brameld. At Wentworth House, too, the Earl and Countess Fitzwilliam have, along with a large number of choice examples of Chelsea, Chelsea-Derby, and other rare makes of China (which I have examined), several other notable pieces of Rockingham china. Among these are a set of three “Canova-shape” vases, painted with groups of flowers; a dessert-service of white and gold “seaweed” pattern, each piece bearing the crest and the date 1838; three of the pattern-plates submitted to William IV. in competition for the royal service; a number of example-plates of different designs; a breakfast service painted in flowers, each flower named; an elegant tray with raised flowers and a view of Arundel Castle; a pair of “monkey” beakers, nineteen inches high; and a pair of fine biscuit scent bottles, sixteen inches high, decorated with exquisite raised flowers.

In the possession of the late Dr. Brameld, who had among other things, a remarkably beautiful ice pail and other pieces of note, was the fine vase engraved in Fig. 877, which is known as the “Dragon[513] Vase,” and occasionally by the not very euphonious name of the “Infernal Vase.” It is 3 feet 4½ inches in height, and has dragons for handles, and also a dragon on the top of the cover. Another of these “Dragon” vases is in the possession of Mr. Henry Barker. In the late Mr. Bagshawe’s collection was a set of three vases, green and gold, with swans for handles, on which are beautifully painted “named” views of “Bellagio, Lago di Come,” “Verona,” and “Isola Bella, Lago Maggiore.” Mr. Reed had pieces bearing views of Newstead Abbey, &c., and in Mr. Hobson’s possession are vases, with views of Chatsworth and other places.

The chef-d’œuvre of the Rockingham China Works was, however, the truly gorgeous dessert service made for William IV., which is now preserved with the most scrupulous care at Buckingham Palace, and is, we are credibly informed, justly prized by her Majesty as among her more precious ceramic treasures. This service, which cost no less a sum than £5,000, consists of one hundred and forty-four plates, and fifty-six large pieces, and is one of the finest produced in this or any other country. The plates have raised oak borders in dead and burnished gold running over a raised laced pattern, also in gold, and the centres are splendidly painted with the royal arms, &c. The comports, which were all designed by Mr. Thomas Brameld, are emblematical of the use to which each piece has to be put. For instance, the comports for biscuit, are supported by ears of wheat; the fruit pieces have central open-work baskets of fruit; the ice pails are supported by holly berries and leaves; and in each case the landscapes are also in unison with the uses of the pieces, which are of exquisite design, and have also oak-leaf and lace decorations, so massively gilt in dead and burnished gold as to have the appearance of ormolu laid on the porcelain, and each piece is decorated with views of different seats, the sketches for which were taken expressly for the purpose, and by groups of figures, &c. This service is, as I have said, at Buckingham Palace. In Dr. Brameld’s possession was the specimen plate which was submitted to, and approved by, the king, and some portions of the comports, &c.; and in Mrs. Barker’s hands was one of the comports (with views[514] of “Langthwait Bridge,” and “Kentmore Hall,” and a group of bird-catchers), which, for its extreme beauty and rarity, is an almost priceless treasure. She also possesses a cup and saucer of the breakfast service prepared for Her Majesty. In Mrs. Reed’s possession is an unique example, being one of the specimen plates submitted for royal approval in a competition with the principal china manufacturers of the kingdom for the royal order. In this competition, twelve plates of different patterns were specially prepared and submitted by the Rockingham Works. Of these plates, the examples in Mr. Reed’s, Dr. Brameld’s, the Earl Fitzwilliam’s, Mr. Hobson’s, and other hands, form a part. In the centre are the royal arms, and the rim is decorated with oak leaves and acorns. Another unique pattern-plate belonged to Dr. Brameld, and is of the most delicate and exquisitely beautiful character. In the centre are the royal arms, and on the rim are three compartments, two of which contain groups of flowers, and the third a view, while between these the “garter” is repeated. The cost at which in the estimate it was calculated these plates could be produced, was twelve guineas each.[121]

The dessert service made for William IV. was first used on occasion of the coronation of our beloved Queen, and has only, I am informed, been used on very special state occasions from that time to the present. Although so large a sum of money was paid for it the cost of its production was so great, that the actual outlay was, I am told by those who are in the best position to know, considerably more than was charged. This royal service had some little to do with the embarrassments that caused the final stoppage of the works.[122]

In “biscuit,” figures, busts, and groups, as well as vases, of which splendid examples belong to Earl Fitzwilliam, were produced. Among other specimens that have come under my notice are a Swiss boy and girl, a fine bust of Earl Fitzwilliam, Chantrey’s sleeping child, Chantrey’s full-length statue of Lady Russell, &c.

Among the artists employed at the Rockingham works it will only be necessary to name a few. These were Collinson, who[515] painted flowers; Llandig, who was a charming fruit and flower painter; Bailey, who was the principal butterfly painter,[123] and who also painted landscapes and crests; Speight (father and son), the latter of whom painted many of the finest subjects, both landscapes and figures, on the royal service, and who also painted the heraldic decorations on the same; Brentnall, who was a clever flower-painter; Cordon, who executed landscapes and figures; Tilbury, who painted landscapes and figures; Mansfield, who was the principal embosser and chaser in gold; Aston, who was clever as a modeller of flowers; and Cowen, who was an artist of much repute, and for many years enjoyed the patronage of the Fitzwilliam family. William Eley, too, was employed as modeller, and executed some admirable works, including a fine bust of Earl Fitzwilliam.

The Marks used at the Swinton Works are not many, but have the advantage of being particularly clear and easily recognised. They are, so far as I have been able to ascertain, the following.

It should be premised that no mark was placed on the early productions of these works, and they are, therefore, only to be ascertained by a knowledge of the body, the glaze, and the style of ornamentation used.

This incised mark, the earliest used by these works, occurs on one of the famous “Brown China” high-shaped teapots of which I have spoken. It is a mark of great rarity.

in large capital letters, impressed into the body of the ware. The same in small capital letters. These occur on early examples of “Rockingham ware,” &c. The name MORTLOCK also occurs on examples of this ware.

An embossed mark, in an oval, stuck on the ware, from which it generally differs in colour, being usually in blue.

in small capitals, in four lines, impressed. This mark occurs in biscuit figures, &c.

This mark (Fig. 880) is the crest of the Earl Fitzwilliam, and was adopted in 1825–6 on the commencement of the manufacture of china, under the assistance of that nobleman, who was owner of the works. It is usually printed in red.

in writing letters. The first of these marks occurs, with the date 1826, on the Rhinoceros Vase at Wentworth House. The others are also in writing letters in purple.

(Same crest.)
Rockingham Works.
Brameld
Manufacturer to the King
Queen and Royal Family.

It is only necessary to add to this account of the Swinton Pottery that collectors will find remarkably good examples of Rockingham china, for reference, in the Jermyn Street Museum, including pattern plates of the royal service.

Mexborough.

The “Rock Pottery” or “Mexbro Pottery” is situated at Mexborough, a rising town near Swinton, with stations on the South Yorkshire and Midland lines of railway. The works, at first very small, were, I believe, established for the manufacture of brown and yellow wares, and for common red garden-pots, by a person named Beevers, who, with a partner named Ford—trading as Beevers and Ford—carried on the business for some years. The workrooms at this time were built close up to the rock, which, indeed, formed the back wall of the manufactory; and from this circumstance the place was called the “Rock Pottery,” a name by which it is still occasionally known. The goods at this time, and subsequently, during the proprietorship of Ford, Simpson, and Beevers, were made entirely from native clays, and were confined to “cane” or “yellow ware” dishes, jugs, &c., for household use; garden and root pots of red ware; and pitchers, &c., of a brown ware.

The works next passed into the hands of Messrs. Reed and Taylor, who also owned the works at Ferrybridge (which see), and by them were considerably enlarged. The manufacture of finer kinds of earthenware was also introduced by them, and carried on with great success. In 1839 the pottery passed entirely into the hands of Mr. James Reed, who carried it on until 1849, when he was succeeded by his son, Mr. John Reed, by whom the manufactory was conducted until his decease. It was then carried on by his executors under the management of the late Mr. C. Bullock. During the time of Mr. Reed’s proprietorship, and that of his father, considerable alterations and additions were made to the works, and new kilns[518] erected; the character of the productions was also much improved, and several new varieties of wares were introduced. In 1873, Messrs. Sydney Woolf & Co., the owners of the “Australian Pottery,” at Ferrybridge (which see), became the purchasers of this manufactory, and they now carry it on conjointly with their other works at Ferrybridge, under the management of Mr. Bowman Heald. By Messrs. Woolf & Co. the works have been considerably extended and several new varieties of shapes and patterns introduced. They successfully compete in several classes of goods with any in the locality, and with many of the Staffordshire houses. The principal varieties of goods are,—in ordinary white earthenware,—all the most marketable varieties of painted, printed, enamelled, and gilt services of different kinds, many of which are of good design, manufactured chiefly for the home market. In dinner and toilet services, especially, some remarkably good patterns, well enamelled and gilt, are produced. In Stilton cheese stands and covers some good designs have been introduced. In Rockingham ware all the usual kinds of vessels are made. In “terra-cotta,” which is of a good colour, and of a fine and durable quality, Mr. Reed manufactured large-sized flower-vases for gardens and other decorative purposes; pendant flower-vases for conservatories, entrance-halls, &c.; root-pots of tasteful design, butter coolers, &c., &c.

In green glazed earthenware, dessert services, in which the plates, centres, comports, &c., are embossed with leaves, flowers, and other patterns, are made, many of them from the original moulds of the Swinton Works, which passed by purchase to the Mexborough pottery; and others of equally elegant design from moulds expressly belonging to Mexborough. In this ware garden seats, both plain and foliated, of the same designs as those produced in the old days of the Rockingham Works; and also root-pots and flower-vases, are made. Of these the “lotus vase,” of which I have already given an engraving (Fig. 872), is one of the most elegant and attractive, and is, I believe, made only at the Mexborough Pottery, as is also the model of the keep of Conisborough Castle already alluded to.

The mark used at the Mexborough Pottery, but which is only occasionally introduced, is simply the name of the proprietor,

Mexborough Old Pottery.—At Mexborough was formerly another pot-work, known as the “Mexborough Old Pottery.” This was established at the end of the last century by Messrs. Sowter and Bromley,[124] who held the works until 1804, when they came into the possession of Mr. Peter Barker. Peter Barker was the son of Joseph Barker, who came out of Staffordshire as manager of the Swinton Pottery. He became partner with Mr. Wainwright at the pot-works at Rawmarsh (afterwards Hawley’s), and ultimately took to the works at Mexborough. These were continued by the brothers, Peter and Jesse Barker, who were succeeded by Mr. Samuel Barker, the son of the latter, until 1834, when they acquired the Don Pottery. By Mr. Samuel Barker they were continued until 1844. The Mexborough Old Pottery was then discontinued, and is now converted into ironworks for the manufacture of wheels for locomotives. At these works the commoner descriptions of earthenware, including blue printing, were produced.

Rawmarsh.

In the latter part of last century a pottery was carried on here by Mr. Peter Barker and his partner, under the style of “Barker and Wainwright.” He afterwards joined his brother Jesse at the Mexborough Old Pottery.

Rotherham.

North Field Pottery.—This pottery was established in 1851 by Joseph Lee, a working potter, who had previously carried on a small manufactory (now disused) in the town of Rotherham. In 1855 it was purchased by Mr. George Hawley, of Rawmarsh; who, on his death, was succeeded by his sons, the late Mr. William Hawley, father of the present proprietors, Mr. Matthew Hawley, and his two brothers. The firm was for a time carried on as “W. and G. Hawley,” but its present style is Hawley Brothers. The goods manufactured are the commoner descriptions of earthenware; and a large trade is carried on in furniture polish bottles and articles of a similar class.

Holmes Pottery.—These works were built on part of the Holmes Hall Estate—the kitchen garden, in fact—formerly belonging to the[520] Walker family, who owned the large ironworks there, where at one time the notorious Tom Payne worked. The pottery was at first extremely small, but has gradually extended itself until it is now of considerable extent. It was first worked by Messrs. Earnshaw and Greaves, who were succeeded by Messrs. Dickinson and Jackson; it was then continued by Mr. Thomas Jarvis until some few years back, when it passed into the hands of Messrs. John Jackson & Co., the present owners. The goods produced are the commoner class of white and blue printed earthenware. Some years ago an attempt at china manufacture was made here, but was abandoned.

The Don Pottery.

The Don Pottery, closely adjoining the canal at Swinton, on which it has a wharf, was established in a very small way about 1790, and considerably increased in 1800 by John Green, of Newhill. He was one of the Greens of Leeds, of the same family as the proprietors of the Leeds Pottery, and a proprietor in the Swinton Pottery. He is, in fact, stated to have been the manager of the Leeds and the Swinton potteries, and to have sustained considerable losses on the breaking out of the French war. About 1800, or a little later, he purchased a plot of almost waste and swampy land at Swinton, and, with the aid of partners, set about the erection of the present works. At this time a person named Newton, father to the more than octogenarian from whom, some years ago, I picked up many scraps of the information I record, had an enamel kiln at the back of his house at Swinton, where he used to burn such wares as he decorated. To this man, for the first twelve months, Green, of the Don Pottery, brought his pattern pieces to be fired, as he prepared them. In 1807, other members of the family united with John Green, who also had partners named Clarke; the firm trading as “Greens, Clarke, & Co.” In 1831, Mr. Green was proprietor of the Don Pottery.

In 1834 the Don Pottery passed by purchase to Mr. Samuel Barker, of the Mexborough Old Pottery; which latter works he closed in 1844, and confined his operations entirely to the Don manufactory. In 1851 the firm became “Samuel Barker and Son,” under which style it is still continued, the present proprietors being Mr. Henry Barker and Mr. Edward Barker.

From a list of goods prepared by the firm in 1808, it appears that[521] a considerable variety was produced at that time. This list, which is in my own collection, is thus headed:—

Of the ordinary fine earthenware made soon after the opening of the works, some specimens, whose actual date can be satisfactorily ascertained, have come under my notice, and show to what perfection in body and glaze, in manipulation, and in decoration, the manufacture had already arrived. The most remarkable of these early specimens is a jug, commonly called the “Jumper Jug,” which is of great rarity. On either side of the larger jugs is the figure of a very uncouth, coarse, and slovenly-looking man, in red coat, pink waistcoat, striped green and white under-waistcoat, orange-neckerchief, orange breeches, above which his shirt is seen, top boots, and spurs. In his hand he holds his hat, orange, with red ribands, on which is a card bearing the words “Milton for ever.” Beneath the spout, on a scroll, is the following curious verse:—

This man, who was known all the country round as “Orange Jumper,” was a very eccentric character, and a great mover in the political “stirs” of his county. He was a horse-breaker at Wentworth, and many extraordinary stories are remembered in connection with him. One of these, as connected with the story of this jug, is worth repeating. In the great Yorkshire election of 1807—the most costly and the most strongly contested election on record—when the candidates who were so mercilessly pitted against each other were Lord Milton, Wilberforce, and Lascelles, “Orange Jumper” was employed to carry dispatches regularly backwards and forwards from York to Wentworth House, the seat of Earl Fitzwilliam, the father of Lord Milton, who eventually won the election, and was returned as the colleague of Wilberforce. Orange was the Fitzwilliam colour, and blue that of Lascelles (son of the Earl of Harewood), his opponent; and on one occasion “Jumper” was seen[522] entering York decked out as usual in orange, but riding on an ass gaily decorated with bright blue ribands. On being jeered at for this apparent inconsistency in wearing both colours, he replied that he wore the right colour, orange, and that his ass was only like other asses, for they were all donkeys that wore blue! The election was gained by the party he espoused, and in commemoration these jugs,[125] with his portrait and verse, were made. They are marked

An engraved pattern-book was issued by the firm, in the same style, and of the same size, as that of Hartley, Greens, & Co., of the Leeds Pottery. A careful comparison of the two books reveals the fact, that whereas in the latest edition of that of Leeds 269 patterns are engraved, in that of the Don Pottery 292 are given. It also reveals the important fact that many of the Don patterns are identical with those of Leeds, the engraver of the former having evidently traced from those of the latter (Leeds) in preparing his plates. Many of the remaining patterns are slightly altered from Leeds, while others do not appear in the book of those works at all. In this pattern-book Figs. 1 to 8 are covered tureens; 10 to 12 are leaves; 13 to 18, covered vegetable dishes; 19 to 23, sauce tureens with covers, stands, and ladles; 24, a two-handled drinking cup; 26 to 30, butter-boats; 31 to 49, dishes and plates, &c.; 50 to 69, fruit bowls, side dishes, &c.; 70 to 76, perforated, open-work, and embossed baskets and stands, some of which have covers, and are precisely of the same kind as those of the Leeds works; 77, a perforated chestnut tureen, like that of the Leeds works; 78, also perforated and embossed; 79 to 83, perforated dishes and plates; 84 to 91, covered sugar bowls, &c.; 92 to 96, spoons and strainers; 97 to 110, bowls, &c.; 111 is a melon bowl of the same kind as those made at Leeds; 113 to 116 are egg cups and stands; 118 to 130, cruets, &c.; 131, an asparagus holder, like the Leeds; 139 to 145, mugs and jugs; 146, a toast rack; 147, an invalid’s feeding cup; 148 to 159, dishes, tureens, &c.; 160 and 161, vegetable trays in compartments; 163 to 176, ice pails and domestic vessels; 177 to 183, ink stands; 184, 185, flower-pots; 186 to 202, toilet services and shaving basins; 201 is a scaphium; 206 is a quintal flower horn;[523] 207, a pastile-burner; and then come candlesticks, egg-cups, flower-vases, flower-stands, vases, crosses with cup for holy water, &c. Another series of plates, the figures numbered from 1 to 54 and from A to K, are devoted to tea equipages, consisting of a remarkable and very striking variety of teapots, coffee-pots, milk jugs, sugar bowls, cake trays, tea canisters, basins or bowls, tea, coffee, and chocolate cups and saucers, &c., &c. On each plate throughout the series the name “Don Pottery” is engraved in a scroll.

Open-work baskets, tureens, &c., twig baskets, in which the “withies” were of precisely the same form as those of Leeds and Wedgwood, &c., perforated plates, dishes, tureens, spoons, ladles, and other articles, ice-pails, salt-cellars, flower-vases, cruets and stands, inkstands, seals, bird fountains, smelling-bottles, and, indeed, every variety of articles, as well as services of all descriptions, and ornamental vases of several designs, were made in these wares, and such as were adapted for the colour were made in green glazed ware. Of teapots, many patterns, with raised groups, trophies, &c., and others for loose metal “kettle-handles” are also engraved.

In the cream-coloured ware, and also in the fine white earthenware, excellent dessert and other services were made, and were painted with flowers, &c., with a truth to nature which has seldom been equalled. In my own collection are also some remarkable plates of small size of fine earthenware. In these the underside of the plate is left white, while the whole of the rest is tinted of a deep buff. The edge, and a line on the inner side of the rim, is black, and in the centre of each plate is a landscape, which has all the beauty and effect of a well-executed Indian ink drawing.

About 1810–12, china of an excellent quality was, to a very small extent indeed, made at the Don Pottery, and examples of this are of extreme rarity. In Mr. Manning’s possession is a coffee mug of excellent body, and of remarkably good soft glaze, well painted with Chinese subjects, which is marked “Don Pottery” in very small letters, pencilled in red. This interesting specimen is the only marked one which has come under my notice. Two other specimens of this very rare china ware, which are equally curious and interesting with the one just spoken of, are here engraved. One is a jug which will hold rather more than a pint, and has a curious story attached to it. The china body of which it was made was mixed by Godfrey Speight and Ward Booth, both of whom were originally from Staffordshire; the latter, it is said, was brought from that county “with a whole regiment of hands” to work at the new Don Pottery, of which he became the manager. The jug was painted by his son, Taylor Booth, who was brought up with Enoch Wood, of Burslem, and afterwards was at the old Derby China Works, and given to Speight, from whose aged son’s hands it passed into my own. It is beautifully painted with groups of flowers on either side, and a sprig of jasmine beneath the spout, and has a broad gold line round the top. The curious part of the story connected with this jug is, that in the body of which it is composed, by one of those strange and unaccountable freaks to which potters as well as other people are liable, are two of the fingers of a noted malefactor, Spencer Broughton, who was gibbeted on Attercliffe Common at the close of the last century. It appears that a party of the Don and Swinton potters, who had been to Sheffield for a carousal, and had stayed there till the small hours of the morning, were, when not sober, returning over the moor, when, on passing the gibbet on which the gaunt skeleton of the malefactor still hung, as it had for years, in chains, one of them, saying, “Let’s ha’ a rap at him,” picked up a stone and threw it, knocking off the bones of two of the fingers. These were picked up, and carefully carried home as trophies of the exploit; and some time afterwards, when trials in the manufacture of china were being made, they were brought out, calcined, and mixed with some of the body. Of this body a seal was made, “with a gibbet on it,” and the jug (Fig. 882) just described. This story I had from the lips of one of the party of potters, a man then fast nearing “fourscore years and ten” in age. The horrible and brutal taste displayed by the potters has, it must be admitted, its use in authenticating[525] the example, and in giving it, at all events, an approximate date.

The other example is a comport (Fig. 881) of remarkably fine body and excellent glaze, and has a plant of the tiger-lily exquisitely painted of natural size, occupying the whole of its inside.

In fine cane-coloured ware, tea-services, jugs, &c., were made, and were ornamented with figures, borders, and other designs in relief. Of this kind of ware the accompanying engraving of a sugar-box will serve as an example. It is ornamented with figures, trophies, &c., in relief in black and is marked “Green’s Don Pottery.”

In green glazed ware flower-vases of large size, root-pots, dessert and other services; in red ware, scent jars of bold and good design, large-sized mignonette vases, and many other articles; and in “Egyptian black,” teapots, cream-ewers, jugs, &c., were made.

The “brown china” spoken of in the list of goods was the “Rockingham Ware,” which was attempted to be made at the Don Pottery, and is still made of the common marketable quality.

A considerable trade was carried on with Russia, with France and Belgium, and with South America, to which markets the greater part of the goods produced were consigned.

At the “Don Pottery” at the present day, Messrs. Barker produce all the usual varieties of the commoner classes of earthenware to a large extent; the works giving employment to between two and three hundred hands. In toilet services many excellent patterns are produced, both enamelled, gilt, and lustred. They also produce dinner, tea, dessert, and other services, as well as all the usual varieties of goods for home and foreign consumption, including in “Egyptian black,” teapots, cream-ewers, &c., Rockingham ware, and “cane,” or yellow ware.

Some of the painted patterns recently introduced are of good design, and their pressed jugs are of superior shape.

The marks adopted by these works have been but few, and these only very occasionally used. They are, so far as I have been able to ascertain, as follows:—“Don Pottery” pencilled in red on the bottom of the vessel, or “DON POTTERY” impressed on the bottom of the pieces.

The first of these (Fig. 884) was impressed, the second (Fig. 885) was printed and transferred on the ware. It was the first mark used by Samuel Barker, and was adopted by him on purchasing the Don Pottery on its discontinuance by the Greens.

The first of these marks (Fig. 886), also in transfer printing, an eagle displayed rising from out a ducal coronet, was adopted by the firm when it became Samuel Barker and Son, at which time the old mark was discontinued. The eagle displayed is not now used, the firm having adopted the old mark of the demi-lion rampant holding in his paws the pennon, and enclosed within a garter, beneath which are the initials of the firm, “S. B. & S.” (Fig. 887) On the ribbon of the garter is usually given the name of the pottery, as for instance YORK.

Denaby.

The Denaby Pottery was established for the manufacture of fire-bricks, &c., but was, about 1864, taken by Mr. John Wardle (from Messrs. Alcocks, of Burslem), who was shortly afterwards joined in partnership by Mr. Charles W. Wilkinson, the business being carried on under the style of “Wilkinson and Wardle.” The works were situated near the railway, from which they had a siding direct into the premises. The goods produced were the general ordinary classes of printed earthenware, pearl body, cream ware, &c., which were of good ordinary quality. In these all the more popular and favourite[527] patterns were produced, and all the copper plates being new, were sharp and fresh in appearance. Dinner, tea, coffee, toilet and other services were produced, as well as jugs and other articles, some of which are of really good and effective design. Yellow, or cane-coloured ware, was also made, as well as tiles for external decorative purposes. These were made from clay found at Conisborough, where branch works were established. The mark adopted by the firm, for what reason it is difficult to divine, unless it be that the wares were intended to pass for Staffordshire make, was the Staffordshire knot, with the words “Wilkinson and Wardle, Denaby Potteries.” These works, after an existence of a few years only, were closed in 1869 or 1870, and the buildings converted into bone and glue works.

Kilnhurst.

At Kilnhurst, a place which one would naturally say took its name from pot-works, is a manufactory of earthenware, known as the “Kilnhurst Old Pottery.” This was established about the middle of last century, soon after the Act for the navigation of the river Don was obtained. It was erected on the estate of the Shore family. It was held at the beginning of this century by a potter named Hawley, who had also a pottery at Rawmarsh. From him it passed into the hands of George Green (one of the family of the Greens at Leeds), by whom, on the 25th of April, 1832, they were purchased by Messrs. Brameld & Co. (subject to Mr. Shore, the owner, accepting them as tenants), at a valuation, Mr. Green to retain all the manufactured goods, copper plates, moulds, &c., and to reduce as much as convenient the stock of raw materials. In 1839 it came into the hands of Messrs. Twigg Brothers. It is now carried on by the surviving partner, Mr. John Twigg, who produces the usual varieties of earthenware, and has made some unsuccessful trials in china.

Wath-upon-Dearne.

The “Newhill Pottery” was established, about 1822, by Mr. Joseph Twigg, who up to that time had the management of the Swinton Old Pottery, by whom, in partnership with his sons John, Benjamin, and Joseph Twigg, it was carried on until about 1866, when it passed into the hands of Messrs. Binney and Matthews, who were shortly afterwards succeeded by Messrs. Dibb and Coulter. In April, 1872,[528] the works were purchased by Messrs. Bedford and Richmond, the present proprietors. The goods produced are the ordinary useful classes of earthenware, both for home consumption and for export. In these all the usual services and articles of every-day use are made, both in white, in printed (in which some good patterns are employed), sponged and coloured varieties, and they are produced of the usual qualities.

Wakefield.

A pottery existed on Wakefield Moor in the latter part of the seventeenth century, where vessels were made from clay found on the spot. This clay Houghton, in 1693, calls “The potters’ pale yellow clay of Wakefield Moor.”

Potovens.

The village of Potovens lies about two miles from Wakefield, and, as its name implies, takes its origin from some old potteries established at this place. Ralph Thoresby in his Diary (1702) says, under date of March 16th, “From Wakefield then by Allerthorpe (Alverthorpe) and Silkhouse to the Pott-Ovens (Little London, in the dialect of the poor people), where I stayed a little to observe not only the manner of their forming their earthenware—which brought to mind the words of the prophet, ‘As clay in the hands of the potter, so are we in the Lord’s’—but to observe the manner of building the furnaces, their size and materials, which are small, and upon the surface of the ground, confirming me in my former apprehensions that those remains at Hawcaster-rigg (Philosoph. Trans. No. 222) are really the ruins of a Roman pottery.” These works were carried on, about the time, or in the time, when Thoresby wrote, by one Caleb Glover. In his will, dated 29th of January, 1728, recorded in the Rolls Office, February 6th, 1729, this Caleb Glover “of Pott-Ovens, pott-maker,” bequeaths to his wife all his chattels excepting his “working tools and oven house,” and to his son Daniel Glover he leaves all his “working tools belonging to the trade of a pot-maker, and the pot oven.” He was succeeded at his death, in 1728–9, by this son Daniel Glover, who continued the works. No manufactory of the kind now exists at this place, and the name of the village itself is somewhat ambiguous, for it is occasionally known as Wrenthorp.

Yearsley.

The earliest, and, indeed, only potters of whom anything is known at this place, are members of the Wedgwood family, as recounted in my “Life of Josiah Wedgwood” (p. 583), where these works were first brought into notice. One branch of the Wedgwoods of Staffordshire settled at Yearsley, in the Yorkshire Wolds, at an early date, and commenced pot-making, which was carried on successfully for some generations. In 1682 John Wedgwood, of Yearsley, was “buried in woollen,” as were also in 1692 William Wedgwood, and in 1690 Isabell, who was wife of one of these. John, the son of this John Wedgwood, who died in 1707, was, I have reason to believe, the John Wedgwood whose name appears on the puzzle jug here engraved, with the date 1691. It is in the Museum of Practical Geology, in the Catalogue of which museum is an engraving of the opposite side from Fig. 888. It is of brown ware body, coated with green lead glaze, and has, round the body, the name “John Wedg Wood 1691. incised in writing letters.

The ware made by the Yorkshire Wedgwoods was the common hard brown ware, made from the clays of the district, and consisted, of course, mainly of pitchers, pancheons, porringers, and other vessels of homely kind. From researches I have made, I have succeeded in tracing out, with tolerable accuracy, a pedigree, of the Yorkshire Wedgwoods for seven or eight generations, ranging from the middle of the seventeenth century down to the present time, when their descendants are still living in the district, not as potters, but in other equally useful walks of life.

So well known were the Wedgwoods of this district, that one member of the family has been immortalised in song, thus:—

“Pancheons” are thick coarse earthenware pans, made of various sizes, and used for setting away milk in, and for washing purposes. They are made in several localities, and besides being sold by earthenware dealers, are hawked about the country by men who make their living in no other way.

Several fragments of brown pottery have at one time or other been dug up at Yearsley, and, among the rest, a brown earthenware oven, green glaze, semicircular, open at top, with a hollowed ledge round the inner side about half way, and a flat bottom, having two handles at the sides, and between them a crinkled ornament, bearing some letters and the date 1712.

Wortley.

The works at Wortley, near Leeds, were established in 1795 by Mr. John Cliff, father of the present Mr. Joseph Cliff, the head of the now firm of “Joseph Cliff and Son,” for the manufacture of fire-bricks, for which the clay of the locality was considered highly valuable. In 1820 the manufacture of clay retorts was commenced and continued very largely until 1830, when it gradually died out, but was revived about 1850 and has continued to the present day one of the most successful branches of the trade—the retorts being considered to be both better and cheaper than those in iron. About 1847 the manufacture of drain-pipes was added, and these were, and still are, made at the rate of several miles per week; blast-furnace lumps being also largely made, and, owing to their excellent quality, extensively used. In 1866, terra-cotta was added to the other productions of this firm and is still carried on. About the same time white and coloured glazed bricks were made, and now form one of the staple trades of the works, as do plumbago crucibles, the manufacture of which was introduced in 1869.

The goods principally produced by Mr. Cliff are, in terra-cotta, vases, tazzas, and pedestals; figures and brackets; capitals, trusses, keystones, terminals, and other architectural enrichments; flower-boxes, baskets, and suspenders; chimney-shafts, and many other articles, some of which are characterized by extreme chasteness of[531] design and by excellence of finish. In stoneware, tubes, pipes, and sanitary goods of every description; troughs, mangers, and sinks; enamelled retorts for gas, and chemical goods, &c. Fire and other bricks and tiles are also very extensively made, as are garden edgings, fire-backs, for which a patent has been obtained by the firm. Messrs. Cliff and Son were awarded a medal in 1862, and at the Paris Exhibition of 1867.

Healey.

A mediæval pottery existed here, in the parish of Masham, in the North Riding of Yorkshire. Its site was on the spot where Healey church now stands, the ground bearing the name of “Potters Field.” When the church was erected in 1848 considerable quantities of “wasters” and fragments of pottery were dug up by the workmen.

Colsterdale.

A pottery of a similar character existed at this place on a spot called “Potter’s Pit.” Here many vessels have been found, as well as the clay pits which had been worked for their manufacture. The place was, according to some old maps, a very ancient enclosure from the moor.[126]

FOOTNOTES:

[1] For articles upon this subject see the “Reliquary, Quarterly Archæological Journal and Review,” vol. ii.; Bateman’s “Ten Years’ Diggings;” Jewitt’s “Grave-Mounds and their Contents;” Sir John Lubbock’s “Pre-historic Times,” &c.

[2] Lib. III. c. 5, § ii.

[3] Warne’s “Celtic Tumuli of Dorset.”

[4] From Borlase’s “Nænia Cornubiæ”—a recently published and most excellent work on the early antiquities of Cornwall; it contains a vast amount of valuable information upon discoveries of Celtic pottery in that county, and enables me, through the courtesy of its author, to present these remarkable looped examples to my readers. This work is a valuable addition to archæological literature.

[5] Wright.

[6] “The Durobriva of Antoninus Identified and Illustrated.” 1828.

[7] Vol. i. p. 1.

[8] Vol. iv. p. 80, and vol. vi. p. 179.

[9] In the furnace of one kiln was a layer of wood ashes from four to five inches thick. The kiln, in a very perfect state, was covered in again undisturbed.

[10] “Collectanea Antiqua.”

[11] Artis.

[12] Sloane MSS., 958, fol. 105.

[13] “Illustrations of Roman London,” p. 79, and “Collectanea Antiqua,” vol. vi. p. 173.

[14] Conyers had previously described the red, lustrous (Samian) ware, and also the vessels termed Castor ware, with figures of animals and foliage, but which he did not find in the kilns.

[15] Stone ware, the kind imported from Cologne, was commonly called Cullen. In 1626, too, Abraham Cullen took a patent for the making of these stone pots. It is this kind of ware to which Conyers refers.

[16] Wright.

[17] “The New Forest, its History and Scenery,” by John R. Wise (Smith, Elder, & Co.), p. 214.

[18] “Archæologia,” xxxv. 91.

[19] Vol. ii. p. 36.

[20] Vol. v. p. 159, and vol. vi. pp. 52 to 67.

[21] This curious and unique potter’s mould is in my own possession.

[22] For a further account of this ware see p. 51.

[23] “Col. Ant.,” vol. v. p. 193.

[24] Journal of the British Archæological Association, vol. vi. p. 64.

[25] These three engravings are reproduced from Messrs. Buckman and Newmarch’s “Ancient Remains of Cirencester,” an admirable and truly useful work, to which I refer my readers for much information.

[26] It was also a common practice to place a tile as the covering of a cinerary urn.

[27] This is extremely interesting, as illustrating the custom of funeral garlands, which still obtains in some parts of our country.

[28] These glasses were made rounded or pointed at the bottom; thus they must have been filled while held, and could not without spilling have been set down till emptied. From these the name of “tumblers” takes its origin. For a drinking-cup and wine-pitcher, see our cut, Fig. 225, and for two of these “tumblers,” see Figs. 228 and 231.

[29] See notice of pot-works at King’s Newton on a later page.

[30] For an account of the pottery here discovered see the “Reliquary, Quarterly Archæological Journal and Review,” vol. ii. p. 216.

[31] Marryatt.

[32] See p. 79, ante.

[33] Arch. Journ., vol. iv. p. 29.

[34] Edwards.

[35] Vol. iii. p. 63.

[36] Page 182.

[37] Lansdowne MSS., 108, fol. 60.

[38] Probably written about ten years before printed.

[39] Page 98, ante.

[40] Not 1693, as stated by Chaffers, who has evidently not understood that the date given by Houghton is “old style.”

[41] Aubrey, in his “MS. Natural History of Wiltshire,” had also, a few years previously, thus spoken: “In Vemknoll, adjoining the lands of Easton Pierse, neer the brooke and in it, I bored clay as blew as ultra marine, and incomparably fine, without anything of sand, &c., which perhaps might be proper for Mr. Dwight for his making of porcilaine. It is also in other place, hereabout, but ’tis rare.”

[42] I perceive that Mr. Chaffers, in the 1870 edition of his work, says: “the discovery of the two patents granted to John Dwight ... now published for the first time, in treating on this matter,” &c.; but here he is in error. In 1863 Mr. Woodcraft printed abridgments of these very patents, and to these abridgments Mr. Chaffers is indebted for the knowledge he possessed of them. In 1864 I, too, gave notices of these patents, four years before the date of his publication.

[43] November.

[44] This is evidently the material for the white-brown and white gorges to be made of, which were to be decorated with incised lines.

[45] November.

[46] Guineas.

[47] Those entries which I thus indicate are all crossed out in the MS. Evidently they have been crossed out as the money was withdrawn.

[48] October, 1862.

[49] This collection afterwards passed into the hands of Mr. C. W. Reynolds, and has since been dispersed by auction.

[50] See page 90.

[51] Page 98.

[52] See “Stamford.”

[53] See under “Blackfriars Road.”

[54] It would seem from this that General Conway and Mrs. Dimer had figures, &c., probably their own modelling, fired privately.

[55] See “Runcorn.”

[56] This plan is in possession of my friend, Mr. T. Hughes, F.S.A.

[57] No. 829, folio 21.

[58] In 1757 the following notice appeared: “The Publick is hereby acquainted that the Chelsea Porcelain Manufactory has been very much retarded by the sickness of Mr. Spremont; nevertheless several curious things have been finished, and are now exposed to sale at the warehouse in Piccadilly, with the lowest price, for ready money, fixed on each particular. All warranted true enamel.”

[59] The horse was used for turning the flint and clay mills.

[60] Mr. Lygo was London agent and salesman to Mr. Duesbury.

[61] These are mentioned by Walpole as twelve earthen plates in blue and white delft, painted with the twelve signs of the Zodiac by Sir John Thornhill, in August, 1711, bought at Mrs. Hogarth’s sale. They were bought for seven guineas, and are said to have been of Dutch make, and then painted by Thornhill.

[62] I know of one service of flowered cups and saucers where the whole of the saucers have the raised anchor, and the cups bear the usual anchor drawn in red.

[63] Or Barnett.

[64] Or Parker.

[65] Mr. Rhodes was the Clerk.

[66] For an account of this, see Kentish Town.

[67] Sir Patrick Blake, Bart., of Langham, co. Suffolk.

[68] Sir James Lake, Bart., of Edmonton, who died in 1807, married, in 1764, Joyce, daughter of this Mr. John Crowther; she died in 1834.

[69] This is an error; it was at Cornhill.

[70] This is very doubtful.

[71] See Chelsea.

[72] The portrait here engraved is copied from an engraving by Daniell, after a drawing by George Dance, R.A.

[73] Chambers’s “Biographical Illustrations of Worcestershire.”

[74] At Pirna.

[75] The battle of Prague.

[76] The battle with Ct. Daun, 18th of June.

[77] The battle of M. Lehwald, with the R.

[78] The battle with the Prince Soubise, November 5.

[79] Chambers’s “Biographical History.”

[80] The Battersea works were carried on, it is said, by Alderman Jansen, who failed in 1756, and soon afterwards the Worcester printing began.

[81] Mr. Binns, in his “Century of Potting in the City of Worcester,” 8vo., 1865, says—“We may here state that the copper plate from which not only this Chinese porcelain was painted, but some of the finest specimens in our cabinet, was discovered by Mr. Jewitt at Coalport.”

[82] For full details of all the changes which have taken place, and for an immense fund of information on every point connected with the works, the reader is referred to Mr. Binns’s “Century of Potting in Worcestershire.”

[83] It may not be out of place to allude to the Prince Consort’s unqualified approval and appreciation of these enamels. In 1854, Mr. Binns obtained permission to exhibit specimens of his new invention to his royal highness, whose commendations were most emphatically and unhesitatingly expressed, and he at once purchased all the examples which had been shown him, saying they were the best things he had seen. Her Majesty subsequently ordered some specimens of this work, which was all on dark blue ground; and latterly an order for a magnificent dessert service, in the same style of work, on a turquoise ground, has been ordered by her Majesty. The Worcester works owe much to the pure taste of his late Royal Highness the Prince Consort.

[84] Pages 270 and 271.

[85] “A few Words on ‘Fairy Pipes,’” Reliquary, vol. iii., pp. 72 to 84.

[86] Pipes of three feet long and more, with barrel bowls, are still imported in small quantities.

[87] “They are called “Fairy Pipes” in this neighbourhood, and the small bowls with broken stem have been occasionally found on my estate at St. James’s.”—H. S.

[88] “Maund” is the Devonshire name for basket, or hamper. In Plymouth it is not unusual to hear of a “maund o’ cloam,” which is only “a basket of pots”—cloam being the Devonshire word for crockery ware.

[89] Mr. Owen has shown that previous to December, 1765, china had been attempted to be made in Bristol. In November of that year, Champion wrote, in reference to some clay from Carolina, “I sent part to Holdship, as you desired, and gave part to a new work just established.... This new work is from a clay and stone discovered in Cornwall, which answers the description of the Chinese,” &c.; and on December 15th, “I have had your clay tried at the works here, which is now given up, as they could not burn the ware clean.” Probably either Cookworthy was connected with these short-lived works, or they were carried on under license from him.

[90] This allusion to the time occupied in the journey from Bristol to Plymouth is very interesting. It was then, it seems, a hundred years ago, a two days’ journey by the “machine” (which was, of course, the coach). Cookworthy intended to set out, it seems, on the Tuesday morning, and hoped to reach Plymouth by the machine some time on the Thursday. On my last journey, in fact while making these notes, I left Bristol at eight o’clock, and arrived at Plymouth at ten minutes after twelve, the journey occupying only four hours and ten minutes! What a contrast between the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries this simple fact presents.

[91] “Two Centuries of Ceramic Art in Bristol,” by Hugh Owen, F.S.A.

[92] See the account of the Plymouth china works, p. 329.

[93] This Act I first printed in extenso in the Art-Journal, for 1863, page 214.

[94] This specification of Cookworthy’s I have given in extenso in my history of the “Plymouth China Works,” Art-Journal, September, 1863, and on page 329, ante, of this volume.

[95] My notice of the Bristol china works in the Art-Journal for 1863 was the first occasion in which these “Reasons” were reprinted, in connection with the porcelain works of this kingdom.

[96] This would have formed a straight line, and is omitted in the figure.

[97] Felix Farley’s Journal.

[98] Felix Farley’s Journal.

[99] John Hope was apprenticed to Richard Frank, and became a stoneware potter in Temple Street.

[100] Thomas Patience, “victualler and potter,” kept the Cross Keys, Temple Street, the “potters’ house of call.”—(Sketchley’s Directory.)

[101] Enamel.

[102] For this extract I am indebted to the librarian, Mr. J. P. Briscoe.

[103] Vol. xiii. p. 161.

[104] Reliquary, Archæological Journal and Review, vol. xv. p. 207.

[105] The whole of the dated examples which I have described (with the exception of this last, which I now make known for the first time) and those of 1765 and 1782, I fully described in the Art-Journal for 1863, and they have served, unacknowledged, as the foundation upon which Chaffers and every other later writer have built up their notices of Lowestoft.

[106] It is worthy of note that Mr. Chaffers, speaking upon this, says (p. 619): “There is such a peculiarity in the form and quality of the Lowestoft porcelain, that we are surprised any one at all conversant with or accustomed to see collections of china could ever mistake it for Oriental;” and yet a few pages later on he says (p. 636), “a punch-bowl representing similar harvest scenes is in the collection of the Author, which has been in his (Mr. Chaffers’) family for nearly a century, painted evidently by the same artist; former possessors supposing it to be of Oriental manufacture.” How is it that, being in his own family for nearly a century, and he being assuredly “conversant with and accustomed to see collections of china,” Mr. Chaffers did not previously find out that it was Lowestoft, but should have allowed his family always to suppose it to be Oriental?

The same writer relies in great measure on a statement made by Mr. Abel Bly, in 1865, that “No Oriental porcelain ever came into it to be decorated.” The statement is as follows:—“From my Father working at the Factory I was in the habit of going daily to the premises, and can most positively affirm that no manufactured articles were brought there to be painted; but that every article painted in the Factory had been previously made there. I remember that the ware produced in the Factory was deemed far superior to anything to be obtained in the country.”

The statement is almost too ridiculous to notice, and how any careful writer could give credence to it is somewhat mysterious. Abel Bly begins his statement (which evidently was drawn up for him to sign) by saying, “I ... am now in the 84th year of my age.... My father’s name was Abel Bly, who was employed in various departments in the china factory at Lowestoft. He died when I was eleven years of age.” It will be seen that he says that, from his father working at the factory, he was in the habit of going there daily, and so can “positively affirm” as above, and yet his father died when he was only a little boy eleven years old! and he was only four years old when hard paste porcelain, according to Chaffers, began to be made there. I think one can judge pretty well what amount of weight can be attached to a statement made seventy-three years afterwards, of the internal and commercial arrangements of a manufactory where, till he was only eleven years old, a boy was in the habit of going daily, probably with his father’s dinner! The statement is just as ludicrous as the next, where he says, “I remember that the ware produced at the factory was deemed far superior to anything to be obtained in the country.” Where was the Chelsea? the Bow? the Derby? the Bristol? the Plymouth? and a host of others?

[107] A copy of this most interesting pattern-book—from which, however, three plates are missing—is in the Museum of Practical Geology, Jermyn Street, London, which has the English list, 1786; German, 1783; and French, 1785. I have also copies bearing the date 1794, and others undated.

[108] In the Pattern Book of 1783 the plates represent the various articles as follows:—

Nos. 1 to 4 are covered terrines; 5 to 8 are sauce terrines with spoons and stands; 9 and 10 are the same articles with fast stands; 11 to 13 are a pickle leaf, a sea shell, and an escallop shell; 14 to 17 are sauce-boats; 18 to 21 are oval dishes; 22 to 25, table plates; 26 to 29, covered, or ragout dishes; 30 to 34, sallads; 35, a turtle dish; 36 to 39, compotiers; 40 to 46, pierced dessert dishes, with open-work rims; 47 and 48, fish drainers; 49 to 54, salts, with covers; 55 to 57, egg-cups; 58 and 59, pierced double salts; 60 and 61, jugs; 62 and 63, salts; 64 to 67, mugs covered and uncovered; 68, melon terrine and spoon; 69, round terrine and stand; 70 and 71, covered bowls; 72 and 73, covered dessert, pierced covers, and bowls, &c.; 74 to 79, butter-tubs and stands; 80 to 82, single castors; 83 to 85, mustards; 86 and 87, strawberry dishes and stands; 88, platt menage; 89, water-bottle and basin; 90, ice cellar; 91 and 92, bakers; 93 and 94, ice-pails; 95, glass tray; 96 and 97, double and single pails; 98, hot-water dish; 99, asparagus shell; 100, escallop’d nappy; 101, salad; 102 and 103, large furnished castors; 104, oil and vinegar stand; 105 and 106, grand platts menage; 107 to 115, various candlesticks, some highly ornamental; 116, vase candlestick; 117, composite candlestick; 118, flat candlestick; 119 and 120, ewers and basins; 121 and 122, scaphia; 123 and 124, “spitting pots;” 125 and 126, shaving basin; 127 to 130, spoons and ladles; 131, pierced fish trowel; 132 to 136, fruit-baskets and stands of elegant basket, twig and open work; 137, pierced chesnut basket and stand; 138, ornamented jar, or pot pourri; 139, a cockle pot, or potpourri; 140, caper jar, or pot pourri; 141, covered flower cup; 142, a quintal flower-horn; 143 and 144, sweetmeat cups; 145, confectionery basket and stand; 146, a pot pourri, whose top inverts to form a candlestick; 147, inkstand; 148, a wafer-box; 149, a fountain inkstand; 150, a sand-box or pounce-box; 151, inkstand; 152, a cross with holy water cup. Tea ware: Nos. 1 to 4, teapots; 5 to 8, coffee-pots; 9 to 11, tea-cannisters; 12 and 13, milk pots with covers; 14 and 15, slop-bowls; 16 and 17, milk ewers; 18, tea or coffee-tray, with open-work border; 19 to 24, sugar-basins with covers; 25 to 32, cups and saucers of various kinds.

[109] Henry Ackroyd died in 1788. In a letter from John Green, of the Leeds Pottery, to his partner, John Brameld, at the Swinton Pottery, dated “Leeds Pottery, 15 April, 1788,” the following curious allusion is made to him:—“Our worthy friend Ackroyd is dead, and I doubt not but is alive again. It was a pleasant reflection to me, being one of the pall-bearers, to think I was bearing the Cover over a dead Carkess whose soul I had not the least doubt was in heaven. He left this world with as great Composer and Confidance in his future state as was posable for a man to do; and I sincerely wish that you and me may be as well prepared as friend A^d for a future state.”

[110] A letter of John Green’s in June, 1788, says, “Letters are to be directed to me at Flint Mill Grange, near Wetherby.”

[111] The Act of Parliament for the formation of this line of railway was passed in January, 1758, and it is therein stated that Charles Brandling, the owner of the collieries, had made agreements with the owners of the lands through which it was intended to pass, “to pay yearly rent or other considerations” for the privilege. The Leeds pot works must, therefore, have been established some length of time previous to the year 1758. It may be interesting to add that by this act Mr. Brandling bound himself for a term of sixty years to bring from his collieries at Middleton, to a repository at “Casson Close, near the Great Bridge at Leeds,” “20,000 dozens, or 240,000 corfs of coals,” each corf containing in weight about 210 lbs., and in measure 7,680 cubical inches, and there sell the same to the public at the price of 4¾d. a corf. As the town increased in size, and its manufactures spread, fresh acts of parliament were applied for and obtained in 1779, 1793 (two), and 1803, by which last the quantity of coal undertaken to be supplied was increased to 1,920 corfs per day, and the price raised to 8d. per corf.

[112] In the same year (1825), to add to the perplexities of the proprietors, there appears to have been a strike among the potters. The following “Appeal” was printed for the men by Mr. Baines, who afterwards became one of our statesmen:—

“An Appeal to the Public from the Journeymen Potters of Leeds and its Neighbourhood.

“It is with painful feelings that we are under the necessity of laying before a discerning public the following brief statement of Facts relative to those differences now existing between us and our Employers.

“At a time like the present, it is very strange that our Employers should attempt an unparalleled Reduction of our Wages, amounting from 20 to 30 per cent. upon the prices we have received, when those prices were barely sufficient to support a Man and his Family, and at the same time raise the price of his goods to the Public at least 50 per cent.

“We feel confident the above Statement of Facts will at once convince every thinking individual that our conduct in standing out to oppose such uncalled-for proceedings is just and right. We should have exposed ourselves to the censure of every reasonable Man, and all who have alive in their bosom a spark of honest indignation, had we tamely submitted to the fiat of our Employers, and not have made every effort in our power to preserve that which is every man’s natural right—a fair remuneration for his labour.

“We respectfully solicit the aid of a generous Public, to enable us to withstand the unjust proceedings of those who have driven us to this alternative, by their unceasing endeavours to reduce us to a state of misery and degradation from which we hope to be preserved by your kind assistance, and enabled to withstand those encroachments which would inevitably plunge ourselves, our families, and our successors into inevitable ruin.—Dec. 13, 1825.”

[113] Jewitt’s “Life of Wedgwood.” London: Virtue Brothers, p. 177, et seq.

[114] Letter from Josiah Wedgwood, M.P.

[115] Vessels of this construction, of early Japanese make, are in existence.

[116] These teapots were of high and somewhat peculiar form, like what are now usually sold as coffee pots, and were universally known as “Rockingham Teapots.” This high form was said to be the reason of the tea being produced of a better quality than in the ordinary shaped ones.

[117] Mr. Allen, of Lowestoft, at one time was in the habit of purchasing white wares from the Rockingham Works, which he painted and burnt in an enamel kiln, erected at the back of his shop.

[118] The following is a copy of the agreement in my own possession:—

“Memorandum of Agreement the 28th of February, 1838.

“Brameld & Co. agree to buy from Mr. Wm. Dale, of Shelton, his interest in a certain invention he has now in the Patent Office in London for the manufacture of China, Ironstone China or Earthenware Pillars, Columns or Rails, &c., for Bed-Posts, Window-Heads, &c., &c., and for obtaining the Patent-right of which he has entered a Caveat and taken other preliminary steps.

“B. & Co. agree to employ the said Wm. Dale in the manufacture of and superintendance of the completion of the articles to be manufactured by them under the Patent, and also in the general management of the China Clay department at the Rockingham Works for seven years, to be computed from the 1st of , this year—at the yearly salary of Eighty Pounds.

“The whole expences incurr’d from this time in obtaining the proper security of the Patent to be borne and paid by Brameld & Co. at their sole cost and risk.

“The said Wm. Dale to have no extra allowance above his salary as fixed above, for the first year of his servitude. But for the second, and each and every of the succeeding years of the term the allowance or premium of Fifty Pounds, as a compensation for giving up his interest in the Patent, making in the six years terminating this agreement a total of Three Hundred Pounds. But it is understood and provided that if the amount of sales of the articles made under this patent does not, in any of the said six last years of this agreement, amount to Five Hundred Pounds or upwards, at wholesale or trade prices, nett money, then, in such case, the premium or compensation for the Patent-right shall be reduced exactly in the same degree or proportion as the sales may fall short of the amount of Five Hundred Pounds in any or all the said six years of this agreement.

“For the considerations agreed as above to be given by Brameld & Co. to the said Wm. Dale, it is fully and clearly understood that he shall give up to them the whole of his designs, models, and moulds of every sort connected with the execution of the articles to be produced under the Patent.

“It is also further agreed between the parties to this contract, that if it shall turn out that the said Wm. Dale cannot from any cause whatever substantiate his claim to, and fully secure an available and efficient Patent so that the advantages to be expected from it shall fail of being obtained, then, in such case, this Agreement, in every part, shall be considered to be annulled, and to cease and determine.”

The specification, of which I possess a copy, was enrolled on the 10th of September, 1838, and is accompanied by illustrative drawings.

[119] I possess two original copper plates engraved with views of these works in their best days.

[120] Conisborough Castle is in the neighbourhood of these works, being only four or five miles distant from Swinton. It is one of the finest Norman keeps in existence.

[121] This truly exquisite plate, which is a perfect chef-d’œuvre of ceramic art-decoration, was designed by Mr. Thomas Brameld, after the death of King William IV., and submitted to her present Majesty, Mr. Brameld proposing to substitute it for the plates made for his late Majesty. The Queen, however, did not give her consent to the alteration. The cost of the substitution would, it is stated, have been £1,700.

[122] Services were also made for the King of Hanover, the King of the Belgians, the Dukes of Sussex, Cambridge, &c., for the Duke of Sutherland, and for many others of the nobility.

[123] Butterflies were more frequently introduced into the decorations at these works than at any others, and were beautifully painted from nature. They were also introduced as “knobs” to muffineers, sauce tureens, &c., and were for that, and other decorative purposes, charmingly modelled.

[124] Of Mr. Bromley, and his connection with these and the Whittington Works, some notice will be found under Whittington.

[125] On the quart jugs the figure appeared on one side, and the verse on the other.

[126] Fisher’s “History of Masham,” p. 68.

Transcriber’s Notes:

1. Obvious printers’, punctuation and spelling errors have been corrected silently.

2. Where hyphenation is in doubt, it has been retained as in the original.

3. Some hyphenated and non-hyphenated versions of the same words have been retained as in the original.

4.Where appropriate, the original spelling has been retained.

5. New partial original cover art included with this eBook is granted to the public domain.

D. M.	To the gods of the shades.
LAELIAE	To Lælia
RVFINAE	Rufina.
VIXIT·A·XIII	She lived thirteen years,
M·III·D·VI.	three months, and six days.

	£	s.	d.
Seals, 2 dozen of Tom-tits	0	2	4
3 dozen of Ouls Crests	0	3	6
2 dozen of Indian Boys with Handscreen	0	2	4
Seals, 3 dozen Bull finches	0	3	6
2 dozen of Parrotts	0	2	4
1 dozen fine Gentle Man with a Muff	0	1	2
2 dozen and 6 Cocks	0	2	11
2 Vincent Perfume Potts	0	3	0
Jarr, with Globe Cover	0	1	0
1 Junquill Beaker, with ornament handles	0	2	6
3 Hart Shape Perfume Potts, with handles	0	3	9
2 Perfume Potts, Royhal Pattern	0	1	6
1 dozen Seals, Cupid as a Letter Carrear	0	1	2
1 dozen and 6 Boys a drumming	0	1	9
1 dozen and 6 Cupid as Doctor	0	1	9
3 dozen Perimeds	0	3	6
1 dozen and 6 Chinease Men a smoking	0	1	9
1 dozen and 6 Cupids with a Nett	0	1	9
3 dozen Seals, Chinease Men with a Burd	0	3	6
3 dozen Cupid as a Backus	0	3	6
Seals, 5 dozen Swallows	0	5	10
Seals, 3 dozen Arliquens	0	2	4
1 dozen and 6 Shepherds Shearing of Sheep	0	1	6
1 dozen and 6 Cupids Booted and Spur’d	0	1	9
1 dozen and 6 Harts on a Cushion	0	1	9
1 dozen and 6 Turks a Smoakin	0	1	9
Seals, 6 dozen Birds	0	7	0
Jinks overtime for painting 3 dozen of Tom tits, at 1½d. each	0	4	6
5 Sweet Meat Basins, at 1s. each	0	5	0
30 Seals painted in Mottowes, by Boarman and Wollams	0	3	1½
34 Figure Seals, painted by Jinks, at 2d. each	0	5	8
Paid (carriage) for the plaster Mould from Darby	0	0	6
Painting Smelling bottles, overwork, viz:—			[181]
2 boys catching a Squrel, at 1s. 3d.	0	2	6
2 ditto with a Birds nest, at 1s. each	0	2	0
1 ditto piping with a Dog, at 1s.	0	1	0
1 ditto Double Dove	0	1	0
Modling of a Pedestol	0	14	0
21 Snuff boxes of Cupid and Lamb	1	4	6
1 Cupid forgin Harts	0	1	3
12 Tooth picks, with Head of Turk, and companions	0	18	0
23 Seals painted, overtime, by Jinks	0	2	10½
10 Plates, at 1s. 6d. each	0	15	0
6 Large Pieces, at 2s. 3d. each	0	13	6
A Junquill Beaker, overtime, by Barton	0	2	0
Overtime, by Boyer & Barton, 2 Junquills Beakers	0	4	0
Pollishing and Cheasing 24 Pleats and 20 Compots, at 3d. each, Boyer, Jinks, &c.	0	11	0
To Modling of a Pedestol	0	14	0
Overwork, by Boyer & Barton, 8 Sweet Meat Basons	0	5	0
Mottoing 60 Seals, at 1¼d. each	0	6	3
18 figuar Seals, painted by Jinks	0	3	0
Paid (Carriage) for the Plaister Mould from Darby, the 9 of August	0	0	6
1 Vincent pattern Perfume Pot (painting)	0	1	6
33 Cocks, painted, overtime, by Jinks, at 1½d. each	0	4	1½
Wolliams, Painting Mottows to 46 Seals	0	5	0
18 Doves painted, overtime, at 1s. and 2d. each	1	1	0
5 Royal Pattern Perfume Pots	0	3	3
49 Painted Seals, Overtime, by Jinks	0	6	0½
Cheasing and Pollishing of 20 Pleats at 1s. 6d. each	1	10	0
Polishing 6 Perfume Pots at 1s. 6d.	0	9	0
Mr. Woolams & Boremans Expenses on Saturday the 9 of March, 1771. Taking pattrons at Mr. Morgans	0	2	0
84 Seals, Painted, Overtime, by Boyer & Co.	0	14	0
96 Thimbles, Painted, Overtime, by Boarman & Co.	0	12	0

Over Work by Jinks, Boyer, Snowdon & Co., Pollishing and Chasing 2 Three turn^d Vauses, 1s. 4d. 6 Crimson & Gould Tea Saucers, 4s. 0d. 5 Cups & Saucers with Medalions, 6s. 3d.
2 Large Jars French Pattern, Pollishing & Cheasing	0	9	0
2 Less ditto	0	3	6
2 small Goat head Vauses ditto	0	3	4
4 Butter Tubs and Stands	0	5	4
16 Cupid & Lamb Snuff Boxes, Painted 1s. 2d. each	1	1	0
To painting of Mottos to 90 Seals, by Wollams & Co.	0	9	4½
Painting 1 Cupid forgin Harts at 1s. 3d.	0	1	3
1 Ditto Booted & Spurd	0	1	0
2 Bird Catchers at 1s. 3d. each	0	2	6
12 Tooth Picks, with head of turk and Companions with Emblamatick ditto	0	18	0
Plaister	0	3	11
Barton, Modling 2 Small Antiquit Vauses	1	1	0
Seals made, overtime, 6 Cocks	0	0	7
3 Dozen Cupid Crying by a Urn	0	3	6
1 Dozen & 6 fine Gentle Man with a muff	0	1	9
1 Dozen & 6 Shephard Shearing of Sheep	0	1	9
6 Arliquens	0	0	7
4 Liqer Bottles at 1s. each	0	4	0
4 Globe Cover Jarrs att 1s. each	0	4	0
31 Seals, Indian, Painted by Jinks	0	5	2
The Mottoes don to 36 Seals, By Boardman & Wolliams	0	3	9
8 Hart Shape Perfume Pots with handles at 1s. 3d. each (overwork by Barton & Boyer)	0	10	0
3 Dozen of Seals of the Lambs, made overtime	0	3	6
3 Dozen of Lyons, ditto	0	3	6
24 Double Doves Snuff Boxis, Painted overtime, at 1s. and 2d. each	1	8	0
P^d for Siver (silver) paper for Chelsea	0	4	6
P^d Porterage of Wt Lead	0	2	6[182]
P^d Coach Hire with the Attorney to Mr. Spremont and Chelsea	0	7	6
Gold Writing Peaper	0	0	8
Gum for the Gold	0	0	3
a Almanack	0	0	6
Modling Clay	0	0	6
Bone Ashes to Derby	4	5	6
2 Tons of fine Clay Shipping to Darby	2	7	0
Plaster to Mould the Jarr	0	1	8
Cord for the Kilns (cord wood)	1	17	4
3 baggs of Plaister	0	3	0
100 Loads of Billet at 7s. 9d. per Load	38	15	0
(“Billets” i.e. Wood, for firing the kilns.)
Painting 96 Thimbles	0	12	0
2 Three-turn Vauses		—
2 Row Wagon in figures	1	10	0
Mr. O’Neil, on account, a Painter	1	1	0

Boarman, or Boreman	5s. 3d. per day.
Wolliams, or Wollams	4s. 6d. „
Askew	4s. 2d. „
Jenks, or Jinks	3s. 6d. „
Snowden	3s. 6d. „
R. Boyer	3s. 6d. „
Gauron	8s. 9d. „
Barton	3s. 6d. „
Richard Roberts	2s. 6d. „
Piggot	1s. 9d. „
And 1/6 for Sunday, for taking care of the horse.
Thomas	1s. 6d. „
(Turning the wheel for a Thrower.)
Inglefield	1s. 8d. „

1770. (Carriage.)	s.	d.
To 10 Bags of Boneash from London	3	0
To 2 Tuns of Clay from ditto	5	0
To 2 Tuns of Clay from London	5	0

	Cash paid at Chelsea for Wages	On J. W.’s Acct.			On W. & B.’s Acct.
1770.		£	s.	d.	£	s.	d.
Oct. 6.	John Lawrence, 6 days	0	5	3	0	5	3
	Timothy Roberts, 6 days				0	12	0
„ 5.	James Bakewell, 6 days	0	16	0
	Thos. Blomeley’s Bill	1	0	5
	Thos. Hutchings, 6 days				1	6	0
	William Roberts, 4 days	0	4	4
	Nathl. Cooper, 6 days	0	16	0
	William Shuter’s Bill				0	8	0
	Thomas Simcock, 6 days	0	16	0
	Ralph Wilcocks, 6 days
	Mrs. ditto 6 days
	John Winstanley, 6 days	0	13	0
„ 6.	Thomas Barrett,[63] 5 days	0	7	0
	Thomas Green, 6 days.
	Miss Edwards, 6 days.
	Miss Parkes,[64] 6 days.
	Mr. Rhodes.[65]
	Ditto for Joe.
	Ditto for Will.
	Ditto for Unwin.

			£	s.	d.
1644.	May 7.	For 8 cwt. 2 qrs. 7 lb. of cheese to Tutbury	7	15	10
		For 5 potts of butter to ditto	0	12	0
1645.	June 25.	Bread, beer, cheese, a pott of butter, and a flitch of bacon, for Lieut.-Col. Watson’s men quartered at Blunts Hall	2	5	6

	£	s.	d.
To Keeping a Horse from ye 14 of Decm. 1769, to Friday, March ye 2, 1770, which is 11 Weacks, at 10s. 6d. pr. Weack	5	15	6
To 20 Trusses of Hay, at 18d. pr. Truss	1	10	0
To 11 Trusses of Straw, at 10d. pr. do.	0	9	2
To 5 Pecks of Corn Remaining	0	2	10
To 1 Chaldren & ¾ of Coals	2	19	6
To Shuting the Coals	0	1	0
1770.	£10	18	0
Jany. 27. To paid a weekly Bill	3	2	6
Feb. 3. To paid ditto	2	14	10
„ 10. To paid ditto	3	19	2
Carried forward	£20	14	6
Brought forward	20	14	6
Feb. 17. To paid a Weekly Bill	4	16	9
Mr. Thomas’s Sallery for Looking after the Manufactory—£100 pr. anam, which he enjoyed from Septm. 1769 to Jany. 6, 1770	25	4	0
	£50	15	3
Received in part by Mourning Rings	17	0	0
	£33	15	3

1770.	£	s.	d.
Feby. 6. To cash paid 2 small Bills	5	17	4
„ 9. To ditto pd. Haskins	12	8	0
„ 20. To Interest J. Cox note to N. Sprimont, 6 mo. £300	7	10	0
1774.
June 15. To 40 Museum Lottery Tickets	42	0	0
1771.	£67	15	4
Oct. 8. Cr. By net produce goods per Capt. Peirce	52	4	0
	£15	11	4

	£	s.	d.
Barton, 6 days at 3s. 6d.	1	1	0
Boyer, 6 days at 3s. 6d.	1	1	0
Seals, made overtime, 6 cocks	0	0	7
3 Dozen Cupid crying by a Urn	0	3	6
1 Dozen and 6 fine Gentle Man with a Muff	0	1	9
1 Dozen and 6 Shephard Sheering of Sheep	0	1	9
6 Arliquens	0	0	7
Roberts, 6¾ days at 2s. 6d.	0	16	10½
Piggot, 7 days at 1s. 9d.	0	12	3
Ditto, Taking Care of the horse on Sunday[59]	0	1	6
Inglefield, 7 days at 1s. 8d.	0	11	8
Bleeding of the horse, and a Broom and Soap	0	1	0
Exd. and Entd.	£4	13	5½

	£	s.	d.
Oil for the Mould of the Burst	0	0	7
for a Pedistol to ditto	0	1	6
Plaister to Cast ditto	0	7	6

	£	s.	d.
To a Strong Double Waterpot	0	5	6
Lighting the Lamp two Quarters	1	1	0
	£1	6	6

1754. Jan. 5.	Goods Credited with Discount.			Credit without Discount.			Retail Cash, London.			Cash, per Journal.			Cash Recd. at Bow.			Goods Returned.
5	134	15	5	1	1	0	20	4	3	11	1	6	28	17	9½	9	15	0
12	174	6	1	25	5	6	29	4	8	138	9	3	16	14	8	4	13	0
19	192	13	6	24	16	10	50	16	0	153	18	9	28	15	10½	15	5	0
26	115	14	4	1	0	0	59	6	2	94	13	0	20	8	9	16	16	3
Feby. 2	50	16	11	15	19	3	26	2	6	86	15	0	30	9	6½	1	6	6
9	69	8	7	9	14	7	42	3	9	40	5	4	21	6	1	62	1	5
16	51	16	8	3	7	6	32	17	5	71	18	5	24	14	7½	7	16	6
23	48	9	11	71	1	8	38	12	8	58	17	7	22	10	7½	2	19	3
Mar. 2	67	1	3	13	9	6	56	4	3	83	2	5	26	3	10	17	14	6
9	89	12	7½	8	9	4	44	11	9	145	14	2	35	5	1½
16	136	17	0½	9	5	6	27	11	5	70	12	6	33	16	4	2	0	6
23	41	7	5	13	6	0	36	8	10	55	9	6	14	7	0	1	9	0
30	104	11	0	14	10	6	41	18	3	90	16	2	21	9	9
	1277	10	9	211	7	2	506	1	11	1101	13	7	325	0	0	141	16	11

	Sold with Discount.			Sold without Discount.			Cash received, London.			Cash received, Bow.			Debts come in.
1st Quarter	1277	10	9	211	7	2	506	1	11	325	0	0	1101	13	7
2nd Quarter	2222	11	8	200	0	3	569	3	11	299	10	4	1434	10	1
3rd Quarter	2647	18	1	385	2	2	381	18	11	150	4	0	2184	6	11
4th Quarter	1982	3	8	189	0	0	353	5	8	77	8	11	2429	10	9
Total	8130	4	2	985	9	7	1810	10	5	852	3	3	7150	1	4
Disct. 10%	813	0	0				Cash received Bow						852	3	3
	7317	4	2				„ „ London						1810	10	5
							Sold without Discount						985	9	7
							Sold with Discount						7317	4	2
							Total						18,115	8	9

O.S. 1750–1	£6,573	0	8
N.S. 1752	7,747	4	8
„ 1753	10,114	11	6
„ 1754	10,965	6	3
„ 1755	11,229	15	2

1754.
Jan. 5		No Kilns
12		Do.
19		Do.
29		Do.
Feb. 2		Do.
9		Do.
16		Do.
23	2	Kilns	128	15	2
Mar. 2	2	Do.	126	8	11
9	2	Do.	134	9	10
16	2	Do.	147	18	6
23	2	Do.	129	0	6
30	2	Do.	132	14	10
			799	7	9
1754.
Apr. 6	2	Kilns	109	4	3
13	2	Do.	140	13	3
20	2	Do.	128	8	6
27	2	Do.	115	3	6
May 4	2	Do.	121	13	3
11	2	Do.	115	16	6
18	2	Do.	128	5	0
25	3	Do.	184	13	8
June 1	3	Do.	177	0	8
8	3	Do.	177	17	6
15	3	Do.	181	14	5
22	3	Do.	177	3	0
29	3	Do.	169	9	1
			1,927	2	7
			799	7	9
Amount one week with another for 19 weeks is £143 10 0 each week			£2,726	10	4

To Debt as pr. Warrant	£12	6	2
To Cost of Suit, &c.	2	2	0
	£14	8	2

“Silica	57·29
Alumina	13·55
Ferric Oxide	4·90
Manganese Oxide	0·46
Lime	8·84
Magnesia	2·27
Potash	3·62
Loss on calculation (Water and Carbonic Acid)	10·06
	100·99

	No. 1, Dark.	No. 2, Grey.	No. 3, White.	No. 4, Grey.	No. 1, White.	L. White.
Silica	51·40	59·10	66·20	54·40	58·70	65·40
Alumina, total	30·00	35·16	28·00	37·00	34·80	25·40
Magnesia	·60	—	—	—	·50	—
Carbon	2·10	—	—	·20	·30	—
Protoxide of iron	12·60	4·60	1·60	5·40	3·50	5·00
Sulphate of lime	3·40	1·24	4·40	3·00	2·00	4·00
	100·10	100·10	100·20	100·00	99·30	99·80
Alumina out of the above soluble in acid	12·75	12·50	8·70	13·20	12·10	4·46

No. 1.		Stock-brick Clay.
2.		Top White Loam.
3.		Top Black Loam.
4.		Top Blue White Vein.
5.		Top Blue Red Vein.
6.		White Loamy Pottery Clay, Red Vein.
7.		White Loamy ditto.
8.		Best London, for bottle ware.
9.		Best Blue Vein.
10.		Best Bottom Black.

1776.				£	s.	d.
May 4.	By	Miss Clarkson’s Bill	received	3	8	6
„		Lord Palmerstone’s	do.	0	14	6
13.	„	Coll. Twisleton’s	do.	0	10	6
15.	„	Lady Nuneham	do.	2	14	6
„	„	Lady Ailesford	do.	0	15	0
„ 28.	„	Mrs. Nesbitt	do.	0	10	6
June 14.	„	Duke of Bolton	do.	3	4	0
„ 17.	„	Mr. Robt. Child	do.	2	15	0
„ 10.	„	Mr. Duesbury	borrow’d	5	5	0
July 23.	„	Ditto	do.	5	5	0
Aug. 17.	„	Ditto	do.	3	13	0
1777.
May 17.	„	Mr. Buller	his Bill	8	19	0
„ 30.	„	Dutchess of Ancaster	do.	10	1	0
June 14.	„	Mrs. Stevens	do.	0	11	6
„	„	Mr. Cooper	do.	0	9	0
„	„	Mr. Kent	do.	2	10	6
July 12.	„	Mr. Sheridan, on Acct.		20	0	0
Sept. 8.	„	Ditto, in full		3	12	6
				£74	19	0

1776.		£	s.	d.
May 11.	Jas. Steventon, assisting before, at and after the Auction at Squibs, 17 days at 3s.	2	11	0
„	Saml. Sanders do., 10 days at 3s.	1	10	0
„	Paid Cartage from Berwick Street	0	4	0
„	Hay, paper, nails, &c.	0	3	7
13.	Pd. ½ year’s rent to Mrs. Becket	15	0	0
June 5.	Steventon and Sanders, 14 days each at Sale King’s Head, Butcher Row, at 3s. each	4	4	0
„	Paid Porterage	0	2	0
July 5.	Paid Mrs. Becket ½ year’s Rent in full	15	0	0
Aug. 28.	Bill for enamelling sundries to compleat Stock	25	2	10
1778.
April 30.	Paid Debt to Flight & Co.	12	6	2
„	Cost of arrest to do.	2	2	0
„	Paid Debt to Mr. Maiden	0	7	6
		£78	13	1

		£	s.	d.
48	Shank’d Tea Cups and Saucers, blue edge, at 8d.	1	12	0
2	Teapots 4s.; 2 Milkpots, 3s.; 2 Slop Basons, 3s.; do.	0	10	0
2	Sugar Boxes, 4s.; 2 large Plates, 4s.; 2 less do., 3s.	0	11	0
2	Teapot Stands, 2 Spoon Trays do. at 1s.	0	4	0
12	Plain Handle Teas, 12 Saucers do. at 8d.	0	16	0
6	Coffee Cups, 4s.; 2 Slop Basons, 4s.; 2 Sugar Boxes, 4s.; do.	0	12	0
2	Bread and Butter Plates, 3s.; 2 Teapots, 4s.	0	7	0
12	Handle Teas, 12 Saucers, 6 Coffee Cups, green edge, at 8d.	1	0	0
1	Slop Bason and 1 Sugar Box, do., at 2s.	0	4	0
17	Fluted Teas, 1 Coffee Cup, 1 Slop Bason, 1 Sugar Box, 1 Milk Pot, blue wreath	1	11	6
24	Handle Cups and Saucers, 6 Coffee Cups, and 1 Sugar Box, fruit and flowers and pea-green ground	4	16	0
7	Twig Handle Teas, 6 Coffee Cups, gold Dontell, at 1s.	0	13	0
1	Teapot, 1 Milkpot, do.	0	5	0
12	Plain Handle Cups and Saucers, for Breakfast, do.	0	15	0
1	Slop Bason, 1 Sugar Box, do.	0	5	0
2	Saucers, 1s.; and 1 Coffee Can, do.	0	2	6
24	New Ribb’d Handle Teas and Saucers, do., at 1s.	1	4	0
1	Teapot, 3s.; 1 Milkpot, 2s.; 1 Slop Bason, 2s. 6d.; 1 Sugar Box, 2s. 6d.	0	10	0
1	Stand, 1 Boat, 2s. 6d.; 1 large Plate, 2s. 6d.; 1 less, 2s.	0	7	0
24	Shank’d Handle Teas and Saucers, 1 Sugar Box, 1 Milkpot, green flower, &c.	1	10	0
2	Chocolates, 2 Saucers, flowers and brown edge	0	4	0
1	Coffee Cup, pink sprigs	0	0	10
1	Table Plate, French blue ring	0	3	0
12	Handle Teas, 12 Saucers, sky-blue and gold	3	0	0
2	Slop Basons, 9s.; 1 Teapot, 6s.; 1 Butter Tub and Cover do., 5s.	1	0	0
18	Desert Plates in large birds	3	0	0
		£25	2	10

F. T. Rufford	Hungary Hill.
Hickman & Co.	Haygreen and Brettell Lane Works.
Perrens & Harrison	The Lye and Brettell Lane Works.
E. H. J. Pearson	The Delph and Tintern Abbey Works.
Jas. B. Fisher & Co.	The Hayes.
Mobberley & Bayley	The Thorns and Cradley.
King Brothers	Netherend.
Harris & Pearson	Amblecote.
Edward Bowen	Clattershall.
John Hall	Amblecote and Bug Hole.
Trotter, Haines & Corbett	Brettell Lane.
AND
John Walker	Kingswinford, near Dudley.
The Himley Fire Brick Company	Near Dudley.

	£	s.	d.
“Black Ware	27	6	2½
Red China Ware	3	16	2
Tortoishell Ware	0	18	0
Blue and White Sprig’d Ware	14	15	6
Blue and White Stone Staffordshire Ware	2	18	9½
Dutch Ware, 18 Jugs, one to y^e Warp	0	18	0
Delph Ware	7	5	0
21 Doz. and ½ Copperplate tiles	4	4	0[355]
Best Nottingham Ware	25	16	8½
Blue China Glaz’d Ware	11	3	2½
Enamelled China Glaze Ware	14	8	11½
Common Enamelled Ware	3	13	3
Copperplate Ware	2	0	0
Cream Colour Ware	90	13	4½
White Stone Ware	52	0	9
Brown Stone Ware	159	16	11½
Materials, 27 tons Clay, 2/6	29	0	6
80 bags Sand, 1/2	4	13	4
11 Cut Salt, 5/6	3	0	6
Tools, 324 Pot Boards, 3 Benches, 1 Pounding Trough, 1 Mixing Trough, 1 Clay Chest, 3 Compleat Wheel and Wheel Frames, with Working Benches, &c., Moulds and Drums for making Slugs, Kiln Ladder, Salting Boxes, Lignum Vitæ blocks and Hand Mill	10	0	0
Old Iron Pot, in the Yard	0	4	6

1762.		£	s.	d.
April 26.	To 5 long dozn. Aml.[101] Beakers	0	10	0
May 3.	To 3 do. basons, cans, & cream jugs	0	6	0
„ 5.	To 3 Do. sorted blue ware	0	12	0
„ 10.	To 2 Lg. dzn. Amell ware	0	4	0
„ 12.	To 1 Lg. dzn. Aml. Beakers	0	2	0
„ 14.	To 20 Sugar dishes & covers	0	2	6
June 12.	To 5 Lg. dzn. Aml. ware	0	10	0
„ 17.	To 1 Dn. blue pint bowls	0	8	0
„ 19.	To 1 sett Jar & Beakers 5 in a Sett	0	2	6
July 15.	To 8½ Long dzn. Amell sorted	0	17	0
„ 19.	To 4 blue jars & Beakers with Mosaick border, to match a large sett for Mr. Wilson	0	2	0
„ 20.	To 1 do do Amell cans	0	2	0
„ 26.	To 1 pint blue can ornamented with gold and letters	0	0	8
„ 30.	To Amell 12 pint cans	0	2	0
Sept. 4.	To 6 setts blue jars and Beakers with mosaick borders 1s. 6d. sett	0	9	0
„ 13.	To 12 blue quart canns 6d. each	0	6	0
Dec. 3.	To 3 long Dozen cream Bucketts 2s.	0	6	0[405]
„ 3.	To 12 sett large blue Jars & Beakers	0	18	0
1763.
Feb. 11.	To 15 long dozn. sorted Blue ware	1	0	0
April 13.	To 10 „ „ Do. Do.	2	0	0
May 31.	To 12 small blue jars & covers 4d.	0	4	0
June 24.	To 1 pint Blue Can with name John Vowell	0	0	6
Aug. 18.	To 6 Enamell pint Cans—wrote “Liberty & no Excise” 4d.	0	2	0
„ „	To 6 Cannisterrs blue 6d.	0	3	0
Oct. 18.	To 1 dozn. Canns & Milk jugs	0	1	1
Nov. 12.	To 12 Wash hand Tumblers 4d.	0	4	0
„ „	To 12 Saucers 4d.	0	4	0
„ „	To 6 Flower bottles	0	1	0
1765.
May 28.	To 2 blue pints “Mary & John Vowell”	0	1	0
1766.
Aug. 20.	To 12 long Dozen fine Wine—wrote “Pitt & Liberty” 3s. Dozen	1	16	0
1767.
Dec. 4.	To 3 large setts Enamell richly ornamented with Gold and Flowers 5s. sett	0	15	0
1769.
Sept. 22.	To 3 pair blue Cornucopias ornamented with gold 1s. pair	0	3	0
1773.
Aug. 25.	To 84 blue wash hand basons & Plates	0	14	0
1775.
Aug. 23.	To 24 large Shades, with a large gold border at top and the bottom rim gilded	3	0	0
1787.
Dec. 10.	To Ornamenting 1 Enamell Jar with Gold [last Entry in Ledger]	0	1	0

1775.		s.	d.
May 10.	A Flawed Chelsea Leaf, a Plymouth Teapot, and 2 Liverpool Coffee Cups	0	6
May 12.	A set of Bristol China	6	0
„	A ½-pint Worcester Basin and broken ware	0	6
„	2 Slop Basins, Derby and Leastoff	1	6
„	1 Quart Bristol Mug and Teapot Stand	2	6
„	A Broken Quart Mug, Bristol	0	6

Slip Men	£96	19	0
Flat Men	144	4	9
Pressers	47	1	10
Throwers and Turners	376	5	6
Saggar Making	33	15	11
Cock Spurs	26	18	10
Modelling	21	0	0
Printing	164	0	11
Biscuit Firemen	59	16	11
Biscuit Painting	89	18	8
Gloss Firemen	113	9	4
Packing, &c.	104	19	8
Engineer	79	10	5
Enamel Painting	76	17	9
	£1,434	19	6

(Same crest.)	(Same crest.)
ROYAL ROCKINGHAM	ROYAL ROCKINGHAM WORKS
BRAMELD	BRAMELD

THE CERAMIC ART OF GREAT BRITAIN

INTRODUCTION.

CONTENTS OF VOL. I.

CHAPTER I.

CHAPTER II.

CHAPTER III.

CHAPTER IV.

CHAPTER V.

CHAPTER VI.

Fulham.

Lambeth.

Blackfriars Road.

Vauxhall.

Aldgate.

Mill-Wall.

Mortlake.

Southwark.

Isleworth.

Stepney.

Greenwich.

Deptford.

Merton (see “Aldgate”).

Hounslow.

Wandsworth (see “Aldgate”).

Ewell.

Cheam.

Chiselhurst.

CHAPTER VII.

Bow.

Stratford.

Kentish Town.

Euston Road.

Oxford Street.

Hoxton.

Hammersmith.

CHAPTER VIII.

Worcester—The Royal Porcelain Works.

Stourbridge.

CHAPTER IX.

Caughley.

Coalport.

Broseley.

Coalbrookdale.

Madeley.

Jackfield.

Broseley.

Coalmoor.

CHAPTER X.

Watcombe.

Honiton.

Exeter.

Bovey Tracey.

Bideford.

Fremington.

Aller.

Pednandrea, Redruth.

CHAPTER XI.

Bristol.

Bristol China.

Bristol Earthenware.

Bristol Glass.

Salt Glaze.

Brislington.

Crews-Hole.

Westbury.

Easton.

Weston-super-Mare.

Poole, Dorset.

Kinson.

CHAPTER XII.

Nottingham.

Lowesby.

Coalville.

Ibstock.

Polesworth.

Market Bosworth.

Tamworth.

Wilnecote.

Coventry.

Nuneaton.

THE
CERAMIC ART
OF
GREAT BRITAIN