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 Ad 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.