CHELSEA
Old Chelsea--with what associations is the name endowed! Hither came the
wits--Smollett, Steele, Swift, Horace Walpole, and others of the
_monde_. Those were the days when Chelsea was still a village of the
eighteenth century, boasting of Ranelagh and its gaieties on the one
hand, and Cremorne Gardens on the other. Here was the manor Henry VIII
had given to Catherine Parr when Chelsea was completely rural; in
Walpole’s time it was just beginning to be truly suburban, while now it
is so integral a part of London that it might long ago have had its
identity swallowed up but for the perpetuation of its literary,
artistic, and historical atmosphere by Carlyle and his circle and by
Whistler and his.
The fifteen years from 1750 to 1765 comprised the period of old
Chelsea’s social heyday, though the aftermath was not without its
distinctly brilliant though somewhat irascible flashes. These were years
demanding fine things for the fashionables. Horace Walpole and others
had stirred up the passion for chinaware and the English porcelain and
pottery-manufacturers were kept busy not only to supply the demand but
to meet the exacting quality of that demand, which called for perfection
in _fabrique_. With this in mind it is not at all strange that some
enterprising potter with a provident eye to business should have decided
on establishing a porcelain factory at Chelsea. Just when this venture
was established, history has neglected to disclose, but it must have
been somewhere around 1740. We do know that the Chelsea porcelain-works
were already celebrated for their wares in 1745. Some students of
ceramics believe a very early date should be assigned to Chelsea
productions. It is even possible that porcelain was being made in the
village as early as 1682, the year in which was begun the old hospital
for invalid soldiers, designed by Sir Christopher Wren. Of course as
Oriental porcelain had been introduced into England some fifty years
before that--in 1631, to be exact--it is likely enough that works for
the purpose of imitating it were established in Chelsea. Horace Walpole
made note of very early “specimens of Chelsea blue-and-white.” Perhaps
these were the sort of crude porcelain which Dr. Martin Lister referred
to in an account of his visit to France, in 1695, wherein he mentions
the superiority of the “Potterie of St. Clou” over the “gomroon ware” of
England, although he observes that the English were “better masters of
the art of painting than the Chineses,” a statement that might have
applied to Chelsea porcelains of the _gomroon_, or imitation Oriental
genre, productions perhaps antedating the native English development in
decoration.
The French manufacturers of 1745 had become concerned over the strides
taken by the English potters and they petitioned, accordingly, for the
privilege of establishing a soft-porcelain factory at Vincennes,
complaining of the competition of English wares of Chelsea. Such early
porcelains as are extant and ascribed to a period coeval with that of
the porcelain of St. Cloud exhibit clumsiness and lack of finish.
Already the village of Chelsea had become well known in the industrial
world through its glass manufactory established there by Venetian
glass-workers under the patronage of the Duke of Buckingham, in 1676. It
may be that the Chelsea pottery was evolved as an outcome of this
experiment, an experiment so successful that Elers joined it in 1720.
The early bits of Chelsea were, almost entirely, copies of Oriental
wares and mainly decorated with Chinese designs. Queen Anne does not
appear to have bothered her head particularly about the Chelsea
porcelain. The Hanoverian Georges paid more attention to it. In their
minds porcelain was too intimately connected with the table to escape
royal patronage. George II especially encouraged the manufactory at
Chelsea. Frederick II had early borrowed and taken from France the art
of porcelain-making and had initiated his several hundred princes in the
mysteries of its allurements. Naturally the Hanoverians were interested
and George II had everything, from models to workmen, brought over in
the hope of rivaling the wares of Sèvres and of Dresden. The Duke of
Cumberland took an especial interest in the Chelsea factory and made it
an annual allowance.
Soon the fame of Chelsea porcelain had become so great that the demand
was far in excess of the supply and the prices soared accordingly. In
1765 contemporary reference informs us that the china of Chelsea 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.
Watkins in his “Life of Queen Charlotte” writes:
There are several rooms in Buckingham Palace full of curiosities
and valuable moveables, 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.
Indeed, Horace Walpole, in writing to Sir Horace Mann in 1763, had said:
I saw yesterday a magnificent service of Chelsea china, which the
King and Queen are sending to the Duke of Mecklenburg. There are
dishes and plates without number, an epergne, candlestick,
saltcellars, sauceboats, tea and coffee equipage. In short, it is
complete, and cost £1,200.
After the death of the Duke of Cumberland and that of the director of
the works, Nicholas Sprimont, the porcelain of Chelsea declined.
Grosley’s “Tour to London,” as we have it in Nugent’s translation, noted
this. Apropos of earthenware he wrote:
The manufacturers of this sort lately set on foot in the
neighborhood of London have not been able to stand their ground.
That at Chelsea, the most important of all, was just fallen when I
arrived at that capital.
The last proprietors had pleaded in vain for further state protection,
but it was not forthcoming. It closed its doors, while the models,
materials, etc., were carted off to Derby, followed by the forlorn
workmen who witnessed the dissolution.
In Smith’s “Life of Nollekens” we find the following reference to the
porcelain of Chelsea:
The factory stood just below the bridge upon the sight of Lord
Dartery’s house. “My father worked for them at one time,” said
Nollekens. “Yes,” replied Betew, “and Sir James Thornhill designed
for them. Mr. Walpole has at Strawberry Hill half-a-dozen china
plates by Sir James which he bought at Mr. Hogarth’s sale. Paul
Ferg painted for them. The cunning rogues produced very white and
delicate ware, but then they had their clay from China, which when
the Chinese found out, they would not let the captains have any
more for ballast, and the consequence was that the whole concern
failed.”
Nevertheless, although decorated by Sir James Thornhill, these plates
were probably of Dutch _fabrique_, and not Chelsea.
We learn from Faulkner’s “History of Chelsea” that Dr. Johnson
“conceived the notion that he was capable of improving the manufacture
of china. He even applied to the directors of the Chelsea China Works,
and was allowed to bake his compositions in their ovens in Lawrence
Street, Chelsea. He was accordingly accustomed to go down with his
house-keeper, about twice a week, and stayed the whole day, she carrying
a basket of provisions with her.”
[Illustration:
_Courtesy Metropolitan Museum of Art_
A Pair of Candlesticks and a Vase, Chelsea, 18th Century]
[Illustration:
_Courtesy Metropolitan Museum of Art_
Cabinet Inset with Wedgwood Jasper Ware Medallions]
One could hardly imagine the good doctor’s adventuring without the
provisions! But alas! the doctor’s mixtures all yielded to the intensity
of the heat, while the clays prepared by the company came forth
irritatingly whole. Faulkner says:
The Doctor retired in disgust, but not in despair, for he
afterwards gave a dissertation on this very subject in his works;
but the overseer (who was still living in the spring of 1814)
assured Mr. Stephens that he (the overseer) was still ignorant of
the nature of the operation. He seemed to think that the Doctor
imagined one single substance was sufficient, while he, on the
other hand, asserted that he always used sixteen; and he must have
had some practice, as he had nearly lost his eyesight by firing
batches of Chine, Chelsea, and Derby, to which the manufacture was
afterward carried.
The collector of old Chelsea will find it rare indeed. But as with so
many things worth while, an occasional find will cause thrills of a
quality scarcely to be compared with the ordinary excitement of coming
upon a bit of commoner ware. As the Chelsea porcelain was of very soft
paste, the pieces do not withstand refiring, in consequence of which it
is not redecorated or patched up as often is the case with many wares.
The color charm of old Chelsea is very definite. Where, for instance, in
any other porcelains, will one find just its own peculiar claret color?
The earliest forms were Oriental, undoubtedly, but the early forms of
Chelsea within the period of its history which is clear to us were
French. Under the Georges, Dresden exerted its influence in form, color,
and decoration. I have seen pieces of Chelsea that appeared comparable
with Royal Sèvres, whose influence was so distinctly in evidence from
1750 to 1765. Especially fine are the pieces which bear the landscape
decorations painted by Beaumont.
The Chelsea figure pieces began to appear about 1750, at least the
earliest mention of them extant is dated about that time. While they
were influenced by the Dresden and by French figurines, they developed
qualities of their own and their greater naturalness and freedom from
affectation at once lends them an unmistakable distinction. Not only
were gentle shepherds, demure shepherdesses, and swains and sweethearts
modeled in old Chelsea porcelain, but portrait busts as well came into
fashion. Field-Marshal Conway, Walpole’s friend, and others intimate
with the master of Strawberry Hill “sat” to Chelsea. The George II
portrait bust is one of the best of the series.
The early figure pieces were usually ungilded. On those that were gilded
the gilt was sparingly used. With the advent of 1760 gorgeous coloring
and a lavish use of gilding came into play. Scent-bottles, cane-handles,
knife-and fork-handles, breloques, bonbonnières, and patch-boxes are a
few of the many things to which Chelsea porcelain lent itself. As to the
texture of the ware, it has already been said that all genuine Chelsea
is of very soft paste, requiring all decoration to be done at one time,
as it could not withstand a second firing. In body it is uneven, the
paste having the effect of poor mixing, as one will see by holding a
piece of Chelsea to the light, when the spots can be detected. The glaze
of the earliest pieces is thick and was applied unevenly. Nearly all
bits of Chelsea porcelain display stilt marks.
A crudely drawn triangle marks the Chelsea ware of the 1745-1751 period.
From 1749 to 1753 inclusive we find the embossed anchor, a raised anchor
upon an embossed oval. Then followed, through 1759, the anchor mark in
red or gold painted on the glaze. Sometimes Chelsea pieces were marked
with two anchors. When the Derby Works acquired the Chelsea manufactory
and continued the Chelsea porcelain for a while, the mark used was a
combination capital letter D and an anchor. From 1773 to 1784 the mark
was a crown over an anchor, or a crown over a D, and a combination D
and anchor. In the early pieces, which were copies of Oriental ones,
various pseudo-oriental marks were used at Chelsea, but nearly all
introduce an anchor-like mark. This anchor was probably suggested by
some early Venetian workman in Chelsea’s first porcelain manufactory.
Fine Chelsea is rare enough to lead one to consider a few good pieces,
even four or five, a “collection.” But whether or not one is a
collector, every lover of beautiful porcelain should know something of
Chelsea’s interesting story.