Dr. to the Estate of James Cox.

1770.£s.d.
Feby. 6. To cash paid 2 small Bills5174
 „ 9. To ditto pd. Haskins1280
 „ 20. To Interest J. Cox note to N. Sprimont, 6 mo. £3007100
1774.
June 15. To 40 Museum Lottery Tickets4200
1771.£67154
Oct. 8. Cr. By net produce goods per Capt. Peirce5240
£15114

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 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, 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:—

“On Friday last her Majesty accompany’d with the Dutchess of Ancaster was pleased to honor with her presence Mr. Duesburys Ware Rooms in Bedford Street, Covent Garden, condescended to express great approbation at those beautiful articles of Derby and Chelsea porcelain, and patronize and encourage the same by making some purchases.”

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.

1770. A Weekly Bill at Chelsea from May the 12 to the 19.

£s.d.
Barton, 6 days at 3s. 6d.110
Boyer, 6 days at 3s. 6d.110
Seals, made overtime, 6 cocks007
3 Dozen Cupid crying by a Urn036
1 Dozen and 6 fine Gentle Man with a Muff019
1 Dozen and 6 Shephard Sheering of Sheep019
6 Arliquens007
Roberts, 6¾ days at 2s. 6d.01610½
Piggot, 7 days at 1s. 9d.0123
Ditto, Taking Care of the horse on Sunday[59]016
Inglefield, 7 days at 1s. 8d.0118
Bleeding of the horse, and a Broom and Soap010
Exd. and Entd.£4135½