PART I.
The name porcelain is derived from the Italian porcellana, signifying a cowrie shell, on account of the delicate translucent glaze on its surface. At how early a date the manufacture of pottery began in this country, before the Roman invasion, is not absolutely known. In the Anglo-Saxon times the pottery of the Celtic tribes was confined to the manufacture of cinerary urns and very common utensils of household use; as they preferred the employment of glass and horn for drinking purposes, and metal or wood for solid food. In the thirteenth century pottery was reinstated in public favour; and a great advance was made in the art, a glaze being employed from the fourteenth to the beginning of the sixteenth century, when a new description of pottery was invented, a salt-glazed stoneware, which came into the market with importations of Italian fayence and oriental porcelain.
It was not until the good Père d'Entrecolles introduced into this country the learning of that ancient Empire of China, in the mysteries of the ceramic art, that our own ideas became enlarged and elevated above the improvements made in our potteries. The Père, being a resident in a district distinguished for its porcelain manufactories, sent samples to his own country (A.D. 1727, 1729,) with information as to the substances employed at King-te-Chin, for which kilns affording greater heat and suitable for firing the differently-coloured enamels were employed.
Hard paste was made at Plymouth, Bristol and Lowestoft, and the soft paste at Chelsea, Bow, Derby, Nantgarw, Liverpool, Pinxton, Swansea, Rockingham, Worcester, Shropshire and Staffordshire; felspar being superadded in the latter two manufactories. The soft paste is produced from an alkaline flux, combining chalk, bone-ash, sand or gypsum.
Stratford-le-Bow.
At Stratford-le-Bow (called "New Canton") soft-paste china was produced in the old pottery works, believed to have been established in 1730, though little is known of them till 1744, when Edward Heylin and Thomas Frye, a painter, took out the first patent, and a second in 1749. The marks attributed to these works are as here illustrated.
The glaze on the Bow ware was very brilliant, but sometimes erred in point of thickness. The blue china was generally decorated with birds, flowers, figures and Chinese landscapes. A pattern of hawthorn was a favourite, consisting of two sprigs united. The bow and arrow mark is usually found on small objects, and the dagger and anchor, with a crescent at times, appears on figures. A small blue crescent, with the horns turned up, have also been used. The monogram of Thomas Frye, sometimes reversed, identified some figures from the Bow works at a date previous to 1760. Many variations of Frye's signature have been used by the workmen of this factory; too many for the space at disposal in these columns. It was carried on for many years by Messrs. Crowther and Weatherby, who employed some ninety painters, of whom one was Thomas Craft. The Bow paste is very hard and compact, and therefore heavy. But the most delicate ware was also produced; as in cups and saucers, which were like egg-shells in thinness, and of a milky whiteness.
Under Thomas Frye the china was brought to great perfection. It was after him we find that the works passed into the hands of Weatherby and Crowther, and were closed by the bankruptcy of the latter in 1763, Weatherby having died the previous year.
I may observe that sprigged tea-sets, Dresden sprigs and white bud sprigs—all very popular patterns—were largely produced at Bow, in addition to landscapes and dragon services; also statuettes and groups of figures, vases, etc.
Chelsea Porcelain Works.
The Chelsea manufacture of china is said to date from Cenvirons, 1745-49, but a species of porcelain was produced in a glass factory at Chelsea in 1676, established there by some Venetians, patronised by the then Duke of Buckingham. Clay from Dorsetshire, sand from the Isle of Wight and kaolin, and chinastone from Cornwall and Devonshire, were employed at this factory. An anchor sometimes barbed, and at other times with amulets, and one within a double circle; as also a triangle, with the name "Chelsea," and the date "1745" beneath it, were the marks chosen to distinguish this ware. On the finest specimens the anchor is gilt, on those of second quality in red, brown or purple upon the glaze.
The porcelain of Chelsea bears some resemblance to that of Venice of about the same date—the Cozzi period, 1780—which is natural, the founders of the manufactory having been Venetians; and the porcelain produced there stands amongst the very first of our English ceramic works in every respect, ranking higher than that of Bristol. The workmen were originally procured from Bow, Burslem and other works; the china manufacture being carried on at first by William the Duke of Cumberland and Sir Everard Faulkenor, the latter dying in 1755 or 1758, and the former in 1765, when Sprimont became sole proprietor. Three blemishes, or spots, characterise the china of this factory, appearing at equal distances where the glaze has been removed, apparently by contact with what the article rested upon.
The work executed at the Chelsea factory ranked in the highest place that was ever attained at others in this country. It was greatly admired by Wedgwood, and was scarcely inferior to the best at Sèvres. The whole contents of the manufactory were sold by auction by M. Sprimont on his retirement; Mr. Duesbury purchasing the house, etc., and the remainder of the stock was sold by Christie and Ansell in 1779.
One of the earliest of the Chelsea marks is here given showing the date; and two anchors side by side and one inverted, in gold, is only found on the finest examples.
The early productions of Chelsea were of soft paste, and the glaze was thick and creamy, much of the white ground being left without decoration. The pieces with the bleu de Vincennes, the peacock green and turquoise blue, copied from the Sèvres ceramists, were of later date. Those of claret-colour are very rare. All these self-coloured examples are highly gilt.
(To be continued.)
[RINGS LOST AND FOUND.]
By DORA DE BLAQUIÈRE.
Nothing is more curious and interesting in the changes and chances of the world than the stories of things "lost and found." One constantly hears of such on the best authority, being told by people in whom one has the most perfect confidence, and who have no reason to deceive us. Nearly everyone has tales of this kind to tell you when once they understand your interest in the subject, and generally they are about some article of jewelry, and nearly always of finger-rings. I have a large number of notes taken down from people's own lips, some of which would be too strange to be believed if you did not know the character of the narrator. Tales of what we call coincidences, of dreams, of apparitions, all connected with the recovery of certain articles, appear in the collection, but in the following papers I shall try to avoid taxing your powers of belief too severely, for though I may believe what has been related to me, you, not having had my experiences and knowledge of my sources of information, would probably refuse to credit them.
One of the most remarkable tales of rings lost and found is that told of the discovery, in June, 1820, of the signet-ring of Mary, Queen of Scots, in the ruins of the Castle of Fotheringay. The finder was a workman named Robert Wyatt, formerly a private in the Prince of Wales's 3rd Foot. In latter years he gained his living as a guide to the ruins of the castle, and often related to visitors how he assisted in the digging-up of the drawbridge and the filling-up of the moat; and that a Scottish gentleman had measured out the banqueting-hall, where the Queen was executed, and found it correct, and finally, how the ring was found by himself. It is supposed to have been swept away with the blood-stained sawdust, and to have fallen from her finger during the last agonies of her violent death. Wyatt died in September, 1862, at the good age of 83. It has an inscription, i.e., "Henri L. Darnley, 1565," the monogram of H and M bound up in a true lovers' knot, and within the hoop the lion of Scotland on a crowned shield.
This ring was exhibited at the Stuart Exhibition in 1889 (No. 337 in the catalogue), but the description is not quite accurate. It was in the collection of Mr. Waterlow, of Walton Hall, Yorkshire, and a full account is given in the Archæological Journal, vol. xv., p. 253, and also in Archæologia, vol. xxxiii., p. 355. No doubt seems to be entertained that it was Mary's nuptial ring, as well as the betrothal one, the date "1565" being that of their engagement, and they were married the following year.
Mary's rings, indeed, seem to have been addicted to being lost, for I saw at the Peterborough Exhibition, in 1887, a ring lent by Lord Wantage, found in the garden of Sywell Hall, which is believed to have been given by her to one of her attendants there. It has the motto "Tre loyalement ma souvreyn" engraved inside, and is of fine gold. A thumb signet-ring was found at Borthwick Castle, with her cipher on it, "M.R.," and is believed to have been lost during her stay at the castle, to which she fled with Bothwell, 1567. This was at the same exhibition.
Though called a signet-ring, it is well to say here that a signet-ring used by her is now in the British Museum, which was formerly the property of Queen Charlotte, and subsequently belonged to the Duke of York. The betrothal ring, however, is not a signet, though it might have been used for sealing.
Another interesting case of a ring lost and found is that of Dean Bargrave's signet, who was Dean of Canterbury in the days of Cromwell. This ring was probably either lost or hidden in the deanery garden when the dean was seized by Cromwell's Roundheads, and dragged to the Fleet Prison. It was found a few years ago, and was recognised by its appearance in the portrait of the dean, who has it on his finger. The portrait now hangs in the dean's study at Canterbury.
In nearly all the cases I am about to relate, I have the names and addresses of the narrators, and all of them are apparently true, and quite to be relied upon. The first one was told me by the daughter of an old lady, who was the daughter of a clergyman in Essex, and nearly related to one of the Archbishops of Canterbury. She was walking in the garden of the rectory one day, not long before her marriage, when in some way a ring she was wearing slipped from her finger, and no searching availed to recover it. Apparently it was lost for ever. The path was an ordinary gravelled garden walk, and there seemed no place where even so small an object could have found a sheltering to conceal it. The next year, after her marriage, she was paying a visit to her father at the rectory, and was walking down the same path in the garden, when she saw the lost ring lying on the ground in front of her. From the same authority I heard two other stories, the first of a ring lost in a hay-field while the hay-making was going on. After an interval had elapsed of a year and a half, one morning the coachman came in with the lost ring in his hand. He said he had been cutting out hay from the stack, and had felt something hard against the edge of his cleaver, and on putting in his hand, he had immediately discovered the ring. The second story was not of a ring, however, but of a very valuable scarf-pin, lost by a great fox-hunter while riding through a gap in a hedge. The next year the same ground was gone over, and the same gap revisited, which reminded the owner of his lost pin. He dismounted from his horse, and after a short search, found his pin, which was sticking upright in the ground near the hedge.
Many of these modern stories of lost and found sound like repetitions of old ones—"chestnuts," in fact. But they are not; and in this matter, as well as in others of a different kind, history appears to repeat itself. The Canadian story which follows is one of these, but it is quite a new one. It was told me by a friend, and confirmed by her husband, and by the original letter containing the account of the dream, which came from far-off Assiniboinia.
The tale begins with a family who dwelt on a farm by the lake of J—— in Ontario; but finding that the rocky land on its shores was not conducive to successful farming, they moved up to the Great North-West and took up fresh land in Assiniboinia. The family consisted of the father and mother, their son and his wife, and several children, and my tale relates to the son's wife only, who had lost, some years before her departure, in the garden of the old home, her wedding-ring. To a woman it will not be at all wonderful to hear that this loss was a subject of great concern, and also somewhat superstitious fear; for by many people such a loss is thought to be an omen of ill-luck. Some of the family still remained on the lake of J——, a married daughter, the sister-in-law of the loser of the ring. One morning, about two years after the departure of her family, she had a letter from her brother's wife, to beg her to go across the lake to the old homestead, for she had had a very vivid dream about the lost ring; and in this dream she had seen it, lying at the root of a white flower, a phlox, she thought, which grew on the right side of the front door, close to the wall of the house and the door-step.
A few days after the receipt of this letter, Mrs. B—— and her husband rowed across the lake and visited the old farm. It had never been let, and a buyer in those regions is hard to find; so the garden paths were overgrown, and the house neglected and forlorn; but growing by the front door-step there was a white phlox in full bloom, and taking the spade they had brought with them, they dug it up, and at its roots they found the lost wedding-ring.
I also gleaned another story in Canada of the same kind. A worthy alderman of a small town in Ontario was digging potatoes in his garden one summer morning, in the year 1894. His wife had several times summoned him to breakfast, but on her last summons he declared he could not come until he had dug up one more hill. When he finally came in to breakfast he brought with him a ring which she had lost in the garden seven years before, and which he had unearthed in that last potato hill.
A story which I thought very remarkable was told me the other day, and happened, I believe, at Hastings. A maidservant in the family of a resident found a brooch in the street, and as it was both pretty and rather valuable, an advertisement was put into a local paper by the finder, who wished to discover the owner, but without success. Two years elapsed, and the girl and her mistress both agreed that there was no hope of an owner turning up, and so she wore it. The very first day she put it on she went out, and walking down one of the main roads into Hastings, she met a lady who, looking at her closely, said, coming up to her, "I think you are wearing my brooch." The wonderful part of this story is that the lady was only a visitor, and had not been in Hastings since the day she had lost her brooch, two years before.
A writer in the Globe, a short time ago, gave a very remarkable account of a coincidence which is said to have been quite authenticated. A lady finding that the setting of a valuable ring had become insecure, entrusted it to a lad in her service to take it to the jewellers to be repaired. She lived on her estate at a short distance from the neighbouring town, and on his way the messenger had to cross a wooden bridge over a stream in the park. This, of course, presented the usual attraction. The boy lingered, and bethinking him of his charge, took the ring from the case for a closer inspection. But ill-luck followed him, for the ring suddenly slipped from his hold, and falling on a muddy bank, disappeared from view. The lad searched in vain; and being apprehensive that he might be charged with its theft, absconded from his situation and went to sea. Being a quick and handy boy, he grew into an energetic and enterprising man; settled in a colony, and in the course of time realised a large fortune. Returning to England, he found the estate on which he had formerly served was in the market, whereupon he bought it and took up his residence in the Manor House.
Walking through his grounds one day with a friend, they came to the scene of the lost ring, and he related the story which had indirectly led to his present position. "And that is the very spot where it dropped," said he, thrusting his stick into the bank. The lost ring was found upon the stick when it was withdrawn. It had actually impaled the lost jewel, which was its own startling verification of the story. The strange part of this tale is that the loser should have been the finder, for there is nothing marvellous in the misadventure until we come to the finding of the ring.
One of the interesting things shown at the Stuart Exhibition was the keys of Lochleaven Castle. I am sure my readers will all remember the romantic story of Queen Mary's escape from thence in 1568, with the help of young Douglas, who locked the gates to prevent pursuit, and then threw the keys into the lake, where they lay until discovered in 1805.
Many people have looked at the dredging and cleansing of the Tiber, which has been going on for the last few years, with much interest, in the hope that, during the course of these labours, many precious objects would be discovered, and amongst others, the spoils of the Temple at Jerusalem, which were brought by Titus to grace his triumph, and which may be seen depicted on the inside of the arch erected to commemorate his victories. Amongst these were the seven-branched candlesticks and the table of the shewbread. These, with other treasures, are said to have been thrown into the Tiber.
[JAP DOLL SCENT SACHETS.]
One of these little ladies travelled safely all the way from Ohio, United States, wrapped up in a newspaper; her sister came only from the other side of London, and arrived with a smashed head. Two kind friends, knowing I am always on the look-out for some novelty for "Our Girls," were seized simultaneously with the desire, which they carried into effect, to send me an "idea" by way of a birthday present, and here is the result.
The wee "Jap" dolls may be bought for a penny each at many fancy shops. For Fig. 1, three-quarters of a yard of satin or any good ribbon three inches wide, and one yard of a contrasting colour an inch wide, is required. Double the piece of wide ribbon and fringe both ends for an inch and a half, oversew one side, insert a thick layer of wadding to within two inches of the top, plentifully besprinkled with sweet sachet-powder—obtainable at any chemist's—oversew the otherside and along the bottom above the fringe, cut a hole at the top sufficiently large to insert the doll's body—poor thing, she requires no legs—fix it firmly at shoulders and waist, take the narrow ribbon and drape it gracefully round according to the drawing, leaving a loop for hanging purposes. Fig. 2 requires but half a yard of wide ribbon, two yards of quarter-inch ditto, and half a yard of one inch wide. Two little sleeves are made of the wide ribbon folded lengthwise and fringed at one end; the remainder is folded, filled, and sewn up. In this case only the doll's head is retained; there are no arms within those sleeves as in Fig. 1. A "toby" frill is made with the half yard of inch-wide ribbon, and the narrow is arranged artistically according to Fig. 2.
It is quite possible, of course, to make these sachets with any odds and ends of silk without buying special pieces of any particular width. The little dolls and some sachet-powder are the only absolute necessaries, and, if good colourings are chosen, an array of them look most tempting and fascinating on a bazaar stall. They should not be sold for less than sixpence, and in some places might fetch a shilling.
"Cousin Lil."