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 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, 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 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 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 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, 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:—

POEM

Worcester, 20th Dec., 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 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 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, 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 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 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. 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, 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 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.”