The ceramic art of Great Britain from pre-historic times down to the present day, Volume 1 (of 2)

“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 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 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.”

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 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 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:—

James Cox, Esq., to Eliz. Thomas, Dr.

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 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.

Messrs. Wm. Deusbury & Co.,

Dr. to the Estate of James Cox.

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:—

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.

Recd. of Mr. Duesbury in full of all Demands for Self and the a Bove.

Richd. Barton.

Work done this Week (May 12 to 19, 1770) at Chelsea, by Barton, Boyer, &cc.

1771. A Weekly Bill at Chelsea from March the 16 to the 23.

Recd. of Mr. Duesbury in full of all Demands for Self and the a Bove.

Richd. Barton.

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.

1770. April 7 to 14. Work Don at Chelsea by Barton & Boyer.

• 3 hantike Perfume Vauses with handles.
• 4 Oval Jarrs and Covers with Ornement^d handles.
• 4 hantike Bottles with handles.
• 2 Scollopt Bottles with handles.
• 2 hantike Perfume Vauses.
• Roberts, making cases.
• Piggot, making Cases and Grinding of the Clay.
• Inglefield making Cases and Cutting of wood.

1770. June 16 to 23.

• Making of Pidgeon house Perfume Pot and Glasing of the Work for the Glase killn.
• Roberts, Glasing of the Cases and Reparing of the Glasd work.
• Piggot, making of Tryhangles for the Work to be Plasd on in the Glasd kiln and Making of Cases.
• Inglefield, getting of the Work Ready to be Glasd & Cutting of Wood.

July 7 to 14.

• Barton, Glasing of the Work, &c.
• Boyer, Reparing of the Glasd Work, &c.
• Roberts, Setting of the Glase kiln and Burning of it.
• Piggot, Working of the Clay ingin and Clearing of the Bisket Work and Case Making.
• Inglefield, Cutting Wood and Case Making and Clearing of the Ware.

July 21 to 28.

• Barton, Reparing of the Glaze Work.
• Boyer, Laying on of Safer.
• Roberts, Getting of the Glaze Cases ready for the Kiln.
• Piggot, Grinding of Case Clay and Making of Cases.
• Inglefield, ditto, and Glazeinge of Cases.

August 11 to 18.

• Barton, Reparing of the Glasd Work.
• Boyer, Laying on of Sapher (this is zaffer, the blue that was used).
• Roberts, setting the Glass kiln (Glaze kiln).
• Piggot, making of Cases and working the Mill (the “Cases” were the Saggers).
• Inglefield, ditto.

1770. Augt. 25 to Sep. 1.

• Barton, Dickorating Sum of the Perfume Pots and Making of 1 Perfume Pot a figuar and Oiling of the Moulds of the Burst (bust) for Casting.
• Boyer, 1 Perfume Vause & 2 Large Ornement Beakers, 5 Covers, &c.
• Roberts, at Case Making.
• Piggot, Grinding of Case Clay and Working the Brusers, &c.
• Inglefield, Cutting of Wood.

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.

Sep. 8 to 15.

• Barton, Making of 1 Jarr with a Dog and Rabits, and flowering of them. Casting of one Bust in Plaister and Barbing of 2 of ditto.
• Boyer, 4 Ornement Jarr and 6 Plain Jarrs with ornement handles.
• Roberts, a Case Making & Making of Tiles and Bricks.
• Piggot, Cleaning of Flint, Treading of Clay.
• Inglefield, Cutting of Wood and helping at the Cases.

Sep. 22 to 29.

• Barton, making 5 Cup Vauses, &c.
• Boyer, Making of 3 Season Vauses, Cleaning of the Gallory, &c.
• Roberts, Making Soports for the inhamil kiln and Mending of ditto, and Burning of the Gleasd Kiln.
• Piggot, Cleaning of flint, Bruising Clay, &c.
• Inglefield, Cutting of Wood.

1770. Sep. 15 to 22. Work Don this Week by Barton, Boyer, &cc.

• Barton, Barbing of 1 of the Plaister heads & Casting 3 Paddistols for ditto, Making of 2 Antike Vauses with figies & 1 Cup Vause.
• Boyer, 2 Ornement Vauses with Chinas figuars, 2 ditto Seasons Vauses, and Casting the Leaf in a Basket in Wax.
• Roberts, making Tiles & Triangles and c.
• Piggot, Cleaning of flint, &c.
• Inglefield, Cutting of Wood.

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

• 4 hantick Jarr, with heads, wanting to be flowered.
• 4 ditto, with handles.
• 1 Bottle, with ornement handles.
• 48 Compotiers, all made with the Darby Clay.
• 24 Ornement Plates, made with ditto.
• Perfume Jarrs, with handles.
• Repairing of Plaister Heads, and greasing of sum Bluework.
• Season Vauses.
• Season Perfume Jar.
• Perfume Pot with Indian figures.
• Junquill beaker with stag-head handles.
• Ornament Vauses, with Chinease figures.
• Cleaning of Flint, Treading of Clay, &c.
• A Jarr, with Dog and Rabbits.
• Pidgeon House Perfume Pot.
• Perfume pots, with boys and girls dancing.
• 2 Large Vauses, with Venus at her Toylet.
• Perfume pots, with 2 Boys.
• 4 hantike bottles, with handles.
• 4 Scollopt Bottles, with handles.
• 2 hantike Perfume Vauses, with 3 goats heads.
• 24 Strawbery Compoteirs, made with the Darby Clay.
• Crimson and Gould Tea Saucers.
• 6 large ornement Pedistols for the Grand Popore.
• 5 large Popore Perfume Pots to Ditto.
• 1 Square Perfume pot, Dickarated with heads of the 4 Seasons.
• Hantike Vauses, with 3 figures each.
• Making a Large Pedestol for the Quarters of the World.
• Making of Clay Sheep, and c, to go to Darby, and helping at the Kiln, and c c.
• Perfume Jar on 4 feet.
• Perfume Vause, with 3 children a dauncing.
• Making of Lambs, Sheep, Dogs, Calfes, and c c.
• Square Perfume Jarr, with Pearc’d Neck and Globe cover.

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.