Bristol--Delft Ware--Redcliffe Backs--Richard
Frank--Ring--Flower--Bristol China--William
Cookworthy--Richard Champion--Transference of
Plymouth Works--Extension of Patent--Wedgwood’s
Opposition--“Case” of the Manufacturers--Champion’s
Specification--Champion’s Productions--Edmund Burke--Bristol
Vases--Figures--Marks--Bristol Earthenware--Temple
Backs--Potters’ Songs--Temple and St. Thomas’s
Street Works--Temple Gate--Wilder Street--Bristol
Glass--William Edkins--Salt Glaze--Brislington--Crews
Hole--Westbury--Easton--Weston-super-Mare--Matthews’s Royal
Pottery--Poole--Architectural Pottery Company--Bourne
Valley--Branksea--Kinson.
BRISTOL.
The first record of pot-making in Bristol appears to have been in the
reign of Edward I., but it seems certain that vessels were made in the
neighbourhood in Saxon and Norman times, as well as in the earlier
Celtic and Romano-British periods. Mediæval earthenware vessels of
different periods, and probably made in the locality, have now and then
been found at Bristol, and during the reign of Elizabeth, there is no
doubt, a manufactory of fictile vessels was in operation.
“Six hundred years ago,” says Mr. Owen, “the art of pottery was
practised in Bristol, but in what form is beyond our speculation. The
record, though authentic, is too terse to give more than the bare
fact, and the imagination must be fertile indeed that can supply the
details. The Governor of Bristol Castle, under Edward I., in his
accounts, preserved in the Pipe Roll for the twelfth year of that
reign (1284), has an item--‘_pro terra fodienda ad vasa fictilia
facienda_’--which shows that this claim for high antiquity is
well founded.” Fragments of some curious pitchers and other mediæval
domestic vessels are engraved by Mr. Owen, and appear to be of about
the period alluded to.
* * * * *
_The Delft Works._--At the close of the seventeenth century, Delft
ware was made here, and continued to be produced until about the
time when porcelain began to be produced in the city. Many specimens
of Bristol Delft ware have come under my notice, some of which are,
fortunately, dated. The earliest dated example I have seen is a plate
marked on the rim with the initials S · M · B,
B
and the date 1703, thus--S M. The ware is of a very nice
1703
quality, with a good glaze, and the blue of good colour. The next dated
specimen, in chronological order, which has come under my notice is a
Delft high-heeled shoe, or choppine, which is dated on the sole 1722,
along with the initials M S--thus
M S.
1722
This very good example, which is said to be of Bristol make, was in
possession of the late Mr. James, of that city. It is beautifully
formed, has a buckle in front, and is flowered and bordered in blue.
Two of these Delft stands in the form of high-heeled shoes, formerly
belonging to Queen Charlotte, were sold at the Bernal sale. They were
of an earlier date, and marked M I 1705. Another example in the same
possession is a plate of the year 1740, bearing on its rim the initials
R · S · P, thus--
17 P 40.
R S
[Illustration: Fig. 735.--Edkins’ Plate, belonging to Mr. Owen.]
One of the latest dated examples I have seen is the plate engraved on
Fig. 735, which forms part of a set belonging to a descendant of the
artist who painted it, and has remained in the family from the time of
its manufacture until it came into my hands. It is a plate painted in a
somewhat peculiar style, in blue, with a Chinese figure, trees, cattle,
and birds, and having on its under side the date 1760, and the initials
M · B · E, as shown on Fig. 736. These are the initials of Michael and
Betty Edkins, of Bristol, of whom I shall have more to say presently.
[Illustration: E
M➕B
J760
Fig. 736.]
It may be well to remark, _en passant_, that this mode of placing
initials, which is so usual on traders’ tokens, was the favourite
way of arranging the initials of husband and wife, and they were so
understood without using the short &. The upper letter was the initial
of the surname, and those below of the Christian names of the husband
and wife. Thus
E
M B
would read M & B E, and stand for Michael and Betty Edkins.
The Delft ware works were situated on “Redcliffe Backs,” near to the
glass works of Messrs. Little and Longman. The names of the first
potters are, as usual, lost, but in the early part of last century
the works belonged to a Mr. Richard Frank, who seems to have been
a man of standing in the place, and who employed, along with other
workmen, a Mr. Thomas Patience, and a family of the name of Hope.
Richard Frank, who had also works at Brislington, was the son of
Thomas Frank, “gallipot maker,” of Bristol, who was married in 1697;
he, the “gallipot maker,” is therefore the earliest recorded potter of
this place. The goods produced at Richard Frank’s manufactory--who,
as well as his father, is described as a “gallipot maker” in 1734–9
and 1754--were principally plates, dishes, and “Dutch tiles” for
fire-places, dairies, &c. In the Museum of Practical Geology is a slab
composed of twenty-four tiles, on which is painted in blue a view of
St. Mary Redcliffe Church, Bristol. These were made by Richard Frank,
about 1738–50, and the arms of Bishop Butler appear upon one of them.
The tiles were all, of course, painted by hand, and we have it on the
authority of Michael Edkins, himself the actual painter of the plate,
Fig. 735, that the brushes which he and the other workmen used were
made by themselves from the hairs pulled from the nostrils and eyelids
of cattle. Michael Edkins, the painter of Delft ware, was, it appears,
from Birmingham, where he was apprenticed to a house painter. His
master dying before his term expired, he was of course left to shift
for himself, and made his way to Bristol, where, becoming acquainted
with Patience and Hope, he got employed at Frank’s pottery, where he
became a “pot painter,” and continued in that employment till the Delft
pottery declined, “when (in 1761) he became a coach and general painter
and decorator, and quickly rose to eminence, was employed about most
public works in the city, assisted in painting the bas-reliefs to the
altar-piece of St. Mary Redcliffe, and also assisted Hogarth in fixing
his celebrated pictures in that altar-piece.” He was also a successful
actor at the theatre. One branch of his business that he now followed
was “enamelling glass ware,” which he did for Little and Longmans,
and their successors, Vigor and Stevens, whose glass house adjoined
the Delft pottery on Redcliffe Backs. The works stood on what is now,
at the time I write, Redcliffe Wharf, occupied by Mr. Cripps, general
wharfinger, on the river Avon.
[Illustration: Fig. 737.--Election Plate, 1754.]
A plate bearing the words “Nugent only 1754,” was in all probability
made by Richard Frank, who was a supporter of Nugent at the general
election of that year. Another plate, commemorating the same year’s
election for Tewkesbury, is supposed to be from the same works; it
bears the words “Calvert and Martin For Tukesbury 1754 Sold by Webb.”
Among other dated examples of Bristol Delft are the following, which
may be from Frank’s pottery. A piece bearing the words “Ye 1^{st}
Sept^r 1761 Bowen · fecit;” a pair of plates made for a member of the
family of Davis, with the letters
D
T x H
1716
, and others with the following
H U ➕ D ELIZABETH IOHN
S x H 1760 BARNESS SAUNDERS
1751 1738 1754
“Hannah Hopkins Born Sep 17 New Style 1752,” occurs on a christening
bowl in the Edkins collection.
A fine plate, painted by Bowen, engraved on Fig. 738, is in possession
of Mr. Willet, of Brighton, who also possesses a grand tile picture,
consisting of seventy-two tiles, painted with Hogarth’s “March to
Finchley.” Mr. Fry has two clever tile pictures of nine tiles each,
one representing a cat and the other a dog. On the collar of the latter
are the words “_Bristol_, 1752.”
Later on Richard Frank took his son Thomas into partnership, and in
1777 the works were removed to Water Lane, to the manufactory which,
in 1775, had been carried on by James Alsop, a brown stoneware potter.
The following advertisement, of the year 1777, refers to this change:
“Richard Frank & Son, Earthen and Stone Pot Works, are removed from
Redcliffe Backs to Water Lane, where they continue the same business in
all its branches.”
[Illustration: Fig. 738.]
In 1784, Joseph Ring, rectifier and vinegar maker, who had married
Elizabeth, daughter of Richard Frank (and was father of Sarah, the
wife of Frederick Cookworthy, nephew of William Cookworthy), purchased
the business of Frank and Son for £669 1_s._ 3½_d._ Mr. Owen prints
the following extracts from the valuation for this sale. It shows that
Richard Frank and Son were general dealers in all kinds of ware, as
well as Delft and stone ware makers. The inventory is headed, “The
Stock & Utensils in Trade At the Pot House in Water Lane, Bristol, as
Appraised as following.” The following are some of the items; the whole
of the plant being valued at only ten pounds:--
£ _s._ _d._
“Black Ware 27 6 2½
Red China Ware 3 16 2
Tortoishell Ware 0 18 0
Blue and White Sprig’d Ware 14 15 6
Blue and White Stone Staffordshire Ware 2 18 9½
Dutch Ware, 18 Jugs, one to y^e Warp 0 18 0
Delph Ware 7 5 0
21 Doz. and ½ Copperplate tiles 4 4 0
Best Nottingham Ware 25 16 8½
Blue China Glaz’d Ware 11 3 2½
Enamelled China Glaze Ware 14 8 11½
Common Enamelled Ware 3 13 3
Copperplate Ware 2 0 0
Cream Colour Ware 90 13 4½
White Stone Ware 52 0 9
Brown Stone Ware 159 16 11½
Materials, 27 tons Clay, 2/6 29 0 6
80 bags Sand, 1/2 4 13 4
11 Cut Salt, 5/6 3 0 6
Tools, 324 Pot Boards, 3 Benches, 1 Pounding
Trough, 1 Mixing Trough, 1 Clay Chest, 3
Compleat Wheel and Wheel Frames, with Working
Benches, &c., Moulds and Drums for making 10 0 0
Slugs, Kiln Ladder, Salting Boxes, Lignum
Vitæ blocks and Hand Mill
Old Iron Pot, in the Yard 0 4 6
Richard Frank died in 1785, aged about 73, and was buried in the
Quaker’s ground at Redcliffe Pit. “Joseph Ring, successor to Richard
Frank in the Pottery Business,” in his address stated that he
“continues the manufactory of the Bristol Stone Ware, and sells all
other sorts of Queen’s and other Ware wholesale and retail.” This last
branch of his business he cultivated considerably, and appears to have
traded with most of the manufacturers of the day. In 1786 Mr. Ring
determined upon manufacturing Queen’s ware, and to that end engaged
Anthony Hassel (or Hassells), a potter of Shelton, in Staffordshire,
buying from him his stock and moulds, and removing them to Bristol.
[Illustration: Fig. 739.]
In 1788 Mr. Ring took two partners, Mr. Taylor and Mr. Carter, he
bringing in a capital of £3,000, and Messrs. Taylor and Carter £1,500
jointly. “The Stock and Utensils in Trade at the Pot House in Water
Lane, as per Inventory taken this day,” January 9th, 1788, were sold by
Mr. Ring to himself and partners, “under the firm of Ring and Taylor,”
for £2038 1_s._ 10_d._ The manufacture of Delft ware then came to a
close.
Another Delft ware potter was Joseph Flower, who, in 1775 lived
at No. 2 on the Quay, and in 1777 removed to 3 Corn Street, where
he put a sign-board, painted black, with “Flower, Potter,” in gold
letters, for the painting of which he paid Michael Edkins 10_s._ 6_d._
Flower’s ware, says Mr. Owen, is thinner and neater in make than most
British Delft; the glaze good, and the colour clear and brilliant in
tone--indeed, in no respect inferior to Dutch. Fig. 739 is a plate
belonging to a dinner service made by Joseph Flower, and now in the
possession of his descendant Mr. J. Flower Fussel. It is painted with
a Chinese pattern, and bears initial and dates varying from 1742 to
1750. The plate here engraved bears the initials (Fig. 740). In the
same hands is a plate dated 1741–2, painted with a view of the river
Avon and the old Hotwells House; and two dishes bearing the plan of
a battle, and the words “The taking of Chagre in the West Indies by
Admiral Vernon.”
[Illustration: Fig 740.]
BRISTOL CHINA.
The first mention of the making of china in Bristol occurs in a letter
of Richard Champion, dated February 26, 1766. In July, 1765, a box of
“porcelain earth” “from the internal part of the Cherokee nations, 400
miles from hence (Charles Town), on mountains scarcely accessible,”
was consigned to him, by his brother-in-law, to be forwarded to the
Worcester china works to be used there in experiments. The letter of
advice was dated Charles Town, 1765. At the same time another box of
this earth was sent to Champion for the Earl of Hyndford, who desired
Champion to open it and try experiments, or give it to Thomas Goldney
“who is a very curious gentleman.” In the letter of February 28th
Champion, writing to Lloyd, by whom it was consigned, says Mr. Goldney
has declined the clay. “I therefore,” he adds, “had it tried at a
manufactory set up here some time ago on the principle of the Chinese
porcelain; but not being successful is given up.” “The proprietors of
the work in Bristol imagined they had discovered in Cornwall all the
materials similar to the Chinese; but though they burnt the body part
tolerably well, yet there were impurities in the glaze or stone, which
were insurmountable even in the greatest fire they could give it, and
which was equal to a glass-house heat.” These works he had personally,
in November, 1765, spoken of as “a new work just established,” and
says, “this new work is from a clay and stone discovered in Cornwall,
which answers the description of the Chinese; but in burning there is a
deficiency, though the body is perfectly white within but not without,
which is always smoaky. This clay is very much like, but not quite so
fine as the Cherokee; however there can be no chance of introducing
the latter as a manufacture when it can be so easily procured from
Cornwall.”[91] This “new work” which had been tried and failed was
doubtless connected with Cookworthy of Plymouth. In 1764 he is spoken
of as “the first inventor of the Bristol china works.” Champion, at
all events, it is clear from the letters, had nothing to do with it,
and probably his first idea of making china was got from the fact of
the box of porcelain earth being consigned to him for the Worcester
works. In March, 1768, Cookworthy, the discoverer of the material,
the mainspring in all those matters, and the first to try experiments
and bring to a successful issue the manufacture of porcelain from
the Cornish materials he had found, took out his patent.[92] Soon
after this the manufacture of china was again commenced in Bristol by
Richard Champion. In 1771 a china manufactory, carried on by “William
Cookworthy & Co.,” appears to have been in operation in Castle
Green--the “Co.,” there can be no reasonable doubt, being Richard
Champion and others. In May, 1774, William Cookworthy assigned his
patent right, &c., to Champion, and the Plymouth manufactory, which had
probably been previously removed to Bristol, was finally closed; in the
rate-books the firm being, from 1773 to 1780, “Richard Champion & Co.,”
in 1781 “Richard Champion” only; and in the following year the premises
are stated to have been occupied by a pipe-maker named J. Carey.
“Every circumstance investigated,” says Mr. Owen, in his
valuable work “Ceramic Art in Bristol,” “proves that Champion
first commenced china-making under licence from the patentee
(Cookworthy). Mr. Edward Brice advanced £1,000 in aid of the
work in February, 1768; the partnership in 1768 consisted of
Richard Champion, Joseph Harford, and Thomas Winwood”--Harford
contributing £3,000 to the capital. On the 1st February, 1769,
the partnership was dissolved. Mr. Joseph Fry, without being
a partner, is also stated to have contributed £1,500 to the
scheme. In 1771 an advertisement of “Some beautiful dessert
services, ornamental figures, candlesticks, and many other
valuable articles of the Bristol manufactory,” were advertised
to be on sale “on retail at Taylor’s Hall” in that city.
In 1772, as Mr. Owen incontestably shows, the china works were in
full operation in Bristol. On August 15th of that year the following
advertisement appeared:--
“China. For Sale by Auction at the Taylors-Hall in Broad Street,
on Tuesday the 1st of September and the following days, Useful
and Ornamental China, The produce of the Bristol Manufactory,
consisting of very elegant Figures, beautiful Vases, Jars, and
beakers, with all kinds of useful China, blue and white and
enamel’d. To be sold without Reserve. J. Stephens, auctioneer.
The whole to be Viewed the Saturday and Monday preceding the
Sale, from Ten in the morning till Two, and from Three till
Six in the Afternoon. The Manufactory is still carried on in
Castle Green, where all persons may be supplied with useful or
ornamental China, Wholesale or Retail.”
In November, 1772, the following still more illustrative advertisement
appeared:--
“China. At the Manufactory in Castle Green, Bristol, are sold
various kinds of The True Porcelain, Both Useful and Ornamental,
consisting of a new assortment. The Figures, Vases, Jars, and
Beakers are very elegant, and the useful ware exceedingly good.
As this Manufactory is not at present sufficiently known, it
may not be improper to remark that this Porcelain is wholly
free from the Imperfections in Wearing which the English China
usually has, and that its Composition is equal in fineness to
the East Indian, and will wear as well. The enamell’d Ware,
which is rendered nearly as cheap as the English blue and white,
comes very near and in some Pieces equal to Dresden, which this
work more Particularly imitates. N.B. There is some of the old
Stock, which will be sold very cheap.--Two or three careful Boys
wanted. ☞ Also at CADELL’S Tea and China Shop,
No. 20, in WINE STREET, is to be sold Retail, on the same Terms
as at the Manufactory, a new and elegant Assortment of the above
Porcelain.”
In January, 1773, as again shown by Mr. Owen, to whom the world is much
indebted for many years’ laborious searchings into every available
source of knowledge, and whom I have to thank for much information,
another advertisement appeared as follows:--
“The True Porcelain, both useful and ornamental, Consisting of
a large and elegant assortment (Particularly some beautiful
Imitations of the Dresden) on any low Terms, to induce the
Public to encourage a Manufactory the first of the kind
introduced into England, and now brought to Great Perfection.
Its texture not to be distinguished from East India China, and
will wear equally well. Some of the old Stock selling remarkably
cheap.”
From these it is evident the Bristol works were carried on
simultaneously with those of Plymouth in the last few years of those
later works, and that, like Plymouth, “vases, jars, and beakers, very
elegant,” were produced, as well as the ordinary classes of useful
goods. In June, 1773, his prices are advertised as “Complete Tea Sets
in the Dresden taste highly ornamented £7 0_s._ 0_d._ to £12 12_s._
0_d._ and upwards. Tea Sets, 43 pieces, of various prices as low as
£2 2_s._ 0_d._ Cups and Saucers from 3_s._ 6_d._ to 5_s._ 6_d._ per
half-dozen, and all other sorts of useful Ware proportionately cheap.”
Whatever may have been the position of the manufactory at Bristol, and
by whomever--whether “W. Cookworthy & Co.,” “R. Champion & Co.,” or “R.
Champion” alone--it was carried on previous to that date, certain it is
that (as I have stated) in 1774 Cookworthy sold his patent right, &c.,
to Champion, closed his Plymouth works, and from that time forth ceased
to have any connection with china making.
In 1774, then, “Richard Champion, of Bristol, merchant,” became
possessed of Cookworthy’s patent. The deed of assignment of the patent
rights, &c., from Cookworthy to Champion, is dated May 6th, 1774,
and among other “considerations” it was covenanted that whatever
the amount of value of the raw material (the Cornish clay and stone
which Cookworthy had discovered and brought into use) Champion used
in the course of a year, an equal amount of money should be paid to
Cookworthy. For example, if, in the course of a year, Champion paid
£1000 for material in Cornwall, he would also have to pay another £1000
to Cookworthy for the privilege of using it, thus doubling the price of
the material from that at which Cookworthy had himself worked it. Of
this, however, more presently.
[Illustration: Figs. 741 and 742.--Portraits of Richard
Champion and Judith his wife.]
Champion was, evidently, a man before his time in Bristol, enthusiastic
in everything which could tend to improve that city commercially or
otherwise, and ever ready to expend his energies and his money in
furtherance of useful schemes and beneficial manufactures. He was, it
will have been seen, just the kind of man to enter earnestly, and even
enthusiastically, into the scheme of making porcelain on a principle
that should employ native materials only, and which bid fair to be a
great and lasting benefit, not only to his city, but to the community
at large.
I have shown, then, that Richard Champion, in 1774, by deed of
assignment from Cookworthy, dated May 6th in that year, became the
sole proprietor of the patent right, and everything connected with the
china works, for which he covenanted, among other things, to pay to
Cookworthy, his heirs, executors, &c., a profit equal to the first cost
of the raw material used in his manufactory. The first arrangement was
that this royalty was to be perpetual, but it was afterwards restricted
to ninety-nine years--the time of the lease for the raw materials.
Having thus become proprietor of the concern which had at one time
been carried on jointly by Cookworthy, Lord Camelford, and himself
(and probably others), he, on the 22nd of the following February,
1775, presented a petition to the House of Commons, praying for the
term of patent right to be enlarged for a further period of fourteen
years to himself. His petition was referred to a committee, which began
its sittings on the 28th of April. The following is the report of the
committee of the House of Commons upon the petition:--
“To prove the Allegations of the said petition, His present
Majesty’s Letters Patent, dated 17th March, 1768, granted to
WILLIAM COOKWORTHY, of Plymouth, Chymist, for the sole use and
Exercise of a Discovery of Materials, of the same Nature as
those of which the _Asiatic_ and _Dresden_ Porcelain are made,
were produced to your Committee and read.
“That an Assignment of the said Letters Patent from the said
WILLIAM COOKWORTHY to the petitioner, dated 6th May, 1774, were
also Produced and read; and
“Mr. _John Britain_ being examined, said That he has great
Experience in several China Manufactures, and has made several
Trials upon all those which had been manufactured in _England_,
and finds that all of them, except that of _Bristol_, were
destroyed in the same fire which brings the same Bristol to
Perfection.
“And he produced to your committee several samples of the said
kinds of China, which shewd the effect upon china severally, and
said that they had not been able to bring the _Bristol_ China to
a marketable commodity so as to furnish an order until within
the last Six Months, but that sometimes they succeeded and at
other times not; but that now they can execute any order.
“That they have lately made considerable Improvements in the
said manufacture, and particularly are endeavouring to perfect
the Blue, in which as yet they have not entirely succeeded,
though they have now a Gentleman who has succeeded in a small
way, in which they have been at a considerable expence; that
the witness thinks the manufacture is capable of further
improvements; that they can afford it at a price equal to
Foreign China of equal goodness; and that they have made some
Specimens equal to good _Dresden_; that he had not seen any
_Dresden_ ornamental China equal to the Vases produced to your
committee, nor anything equal to the Biscuit in those Vases
and other Ornaments; that the Gilding stands well; that _Seve_
China differs from this--the Ornamental is more of a cream
colour, but the glaze is so soft that it will not bear using;
that he believes the Enamell of the _Bristol_ China is as hard
as the Dresden and harder than the _Chinese_; that they can
make it of any degree of thickness required; that there is
the difference between the _Bristol_ China and the _Seve_ and
several other kinds, that when they are broke they seem as dry
as a Tobacco Pipe; that this is the case of all the _English_
China; but the _Dresden_, the _Bristol_, and the _Asiatic_
China have when broke a moist and Lucid appearance, in proof
of which he produced Fragments of the several kinds. That the
_Bristol_ China will stand hot water without splitting; that
he has never known an instance of it splitting, though he has
known several pieces of the _Asiatic_ split; that the gold does
not come off the _Bristol_; that there are some china which
frequent use turns brown and cracks, which the Witness thinks
arises from there not being a proper Union between the Body and
the glaze; that the Manufacturers have their Glaze made into a
glass previous to its being applied to the Body, but that that
is not the case with the _Bristol_. That they can make plates,
but have had great Difficulties. That they have not hitherto
much attended to that object, but have applied themselves to
perfecting the body as a Body and the Glaze as a glaze; that
they can render this China in most Articles as cheap as the
_Asiatic_, and much cheaper than the _Dresden_.
“Then the Witness produced to your committee Specimens of
the _Asiatic_ and Chinese materials, and said he found no
difference except that the materials of the _Asiatic_ shrunk in
the Burning One 42d Part more than those of Bristol, and judges
the _Bristol_ materials to be better. Then,
“Mr. _Samuel Hardensydes_ Produced to your committee several
pieces of China which he had lately tried Experiments on in
London; and being examined, said that he had put _India_,
_Dresden_, _Bristol_, and other _English_ China into the fire in
the same Crucible; that the _India_, _Dresden_, and _Bristol_
came out in the same state they were put in; the Bristol was
tried three times and stood it; the Fire moved the Gilding into
Grains, but had no other Effect upon it; in other respects it
was rather better for the Fire.
“_Ordered_, That leave be given to bring in a Bill for enlarging
the Letters patent.
“And that Mr. _Frederick Montagu_, Mr. _Cruger_, Mr. _Harris_,
Mr. _Cooper_, the _Lord Clare_, and Mr. _Eden_, do appear and
bring in the same.”
By this time he had prepared and produced some remarkably fine
specimens of china made at his works, for examination by the committee,
and it is not too much to say that at this period his productions were
of the highest rank. The result of his application was the ultimate
passing of an Act of Parliament, by which the patent was accordingly
enlarged. This Act, which contains a vast deal of valuable and
interesting information, I give _in extenso_, for the benefit of my
readers.[93] It was passed in 1775 (15 Geo. III., cap. 52), and is
entitled, “An Act for enlarging the term of Letters Patent granted
by his present Majesty to William Cookworthy, of Plymouth, Chymist,
for the sole use and exercise of a discovery of certain materials for
making Porcelain, in order to enable Richard Champion, of Bristol,
merchant (to whom the said Letters Patent have been assigned), to carry
the said discovery into effectual execution for the benefit of the
public.” It is as follows:--
“Whereas his present Majesty King George the Third has been
graciously pleased to grant his Royal Letters Patent under the
Great Seal of Great Britain unto William Cookworthy, Chymist,
in the words, or to the effect, following; that is to say:
George the Third by the grace of God of Great Britain, France,
and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith, and so forth, to all
to whom these presents shall come, greeting: Whereas, William
Cookworthy, of Plymouth, in the County of Devon, Chymist, has
by his petition humbly represented unto us that he hath by a
series of experiments discovered that materials of the same
nature as those of which the Asiatic porcelain is made are to
be found in immense quantities in our island of Great Britain,
which ingredients are distinguished in our two counties of
Devon and Cornwall by the names of _moor stone_, and _growan_,
and _growan clay_; that the ware which he hath prepared from
these materials hath all the character of the true porcelain in
regard to grain, transparency, colour, and infusibility, in a
degree equal to the Chinese or Dresden ware: whereas, all the
manufactures of porcelain hitherto carried on in Great Britain
have been only imitations of the genuine kind, wanting the
beauty of colour, and the smoothness and lustre of grain, and
the great characteristic of genuine porcelain sustaining the
most extreme degree of fire without melting; that this discovery
hath been attended with great labour and expense, and, to the
best of his knowledge and belief in regard to this kingdom, is
new and his own, the materials being, even at this time, applied
to none of the uses of pottery but by him and those under his
direction; and that he verily believes this invention will be of
great advantage to the public. He, therefore, most humbly prayed
us that we should be pleased to grant him our Royal Letters
Patent for the sole making and vending of this new invented
porcelain, composed of moor stone or growan, and growan clay,
within that part of our kingdom of Great Britain called England,
our dominion of Wales, and the town of Berwick-upon-Tweed, for
the space of fourteen years, according to the statute in that
case made and provided: we, being willing to give encouragement
to all arts and inventions which may be for the public good, are
graciously pleased to condescend to the petitioner’s request.
Know ye, therefore, that we, of our especial grace, certain
knowledge, and meet motion, have given and granted, and for
these presents our heirs and successors do give and grant unto
the said William Cookworthy, his executors, administrators, and
assigns, our special licence, full power, sole privilege and
authority, that he, the said William Cookworthy, his executors,
administrators, and assigns, and every of them, by himself and
themselves, or by his or their deputy or deputies, servants,
or agents, or such others as the said William Cookworthy,
his executors, administrators, and assigns shall at any time
agree with, and no others, from time to time, and at all
times hereafter during the term of years herein expressed,
shall, and lawfully may make, use, exercise, and vend his said
invention within that part of Great Britain called England,
our dominion of Wales, and the town of Berwick-upon-Tweed,
and in such a manner as he, the said William Cookworthy, his
executors, administrators, and assigns, or any of them, in their
discretions seem meet; and that the said William Cookworthy, his
executors, administrators, and assigns shall, and lawfully may,
enjoy the whole profit, benefit, commodity, and advantage from
time to time coming, growing, accruing, and arising by reason
of the said invention for and during the term of years herein
mentioned, to have, hold, exercise, and enjoy the said licence,
privileges, and advantages hereinbefore granted, or mentioned
to be granted, to the said William Cookworthy, his executors,
administrators, and assigns, for and during and to the full end
of the term of fourteen years from the date of these presents
next and immediately ensuing, and fully to be completed and
ended according to the statute in such case made and provided,
and to the end that he, the said William Cookworthy, his
executors, administrators, and assigns, and every of them, may
have and enjoy the full benefit and the sole use and exercise
of the said invention, according to our gracious intention
hereinbefore declared; we do by these presents, for us, our
heirs and successors, require and strictly command all and every
person and persons, bodies politic and corporate, and all other
our subjects whatsoever, of what estate, quality, degree, name,
or condition soever they be, within that said part of Great
Britain called England, our dominion of Wales, and our town
of Berwick-upon-Tweed aforesaid, that neither they nor any of
them, at any time during the continuance of the said term of
fourteen years hereby granted, either directly or indirectly,
do make, use, or practise the said invention or any part of
the same so attained unto by the said William Cookworthy as
aforesaid, nor in anywise counterfeit, imitate, or resemble
the same, nor shall make, or cause to be made, any addition
thereunto, or substraction from the same, whereby to pretend
himself or themselves to be the inventor or inventors, deviser
or devisers thereof, without the licence, consent, or agreement
of the said William Cookworthy, his executors, administrators,
or assigns, in writing under his or their hands and seals,
first had and obtained in that behalf, upon such pains and
penalties as can or may be justly inflicted on such offenders
for their contempt of this our Royal command; and further, to
be answerable to the said William Cookworthy, his executors,
administrators, and assigns according to law for his and their
damages thereby occasioned; and moreover, we do by these
presents, for us, our heirs, and successors, will and command
all and singular the justices of the peace, mayors, sheriffs,
bailiffs, constables, head boroughs, and all other officers
and ministers whatsoever, of us, our heirs, and successors for
the time being, that they, or any of them, do not, nor shall
at any time hereafter during the said term hereby granted the
said William Cookworthy, his executors, administrators, or
assigns, or any of them, or his or their deputies, servants, or
agents, in anywise molest, trouble, or hinder the said William
Cookworthy, his executors, administrators, and assigns, or any
of them, or his or their deputies, servants, or agents, in
or about the due and lawful use or exercise of the aforesaid
invention or anything relating thereto: Provided always, and
these our Letters Patent are and shall be upon this condition,
that if at any time during the said term here granted, it shall
be made to appear to us, our heirs, or successors, or any six
or more of our or their Privy Council, that this our grant is
contrary to law, or prejudicial or inconvenient to our subjects
in general, or that if the said invention is not a new invention
as to the public use and exercise thereof, in that part of our
kingdom of Great Britain called England, our dominion of Wales,
and town of Berwick-upon-Tweed aforesaid, or not invented or
found out by the said William Cookworthy as aforesaid, then,
upon signification or declaration thereof, to be made by us,
our heirs and successors, under our or their signet or Privy
Seal, or by the lords of our or their Privy Council, or any
six or more of them under their hand, these our Letters Patent
shall forthwith cease, determine, and be utterly void to all
intents and purposes, anything hereinbefore contained in
anywise notwithstanding. Provided also, that these our Letters
Patent, or anything herein contained, shall not extend to or
be construed to extend to the privileges of the said William
Cookworthy, his executors, administrators, or assigns, or any of
them, to use or imitate any invention or work whatsoever which
has heretofore been found out or invented by any other of our
subjects whatsoever, or publicly used or exercised in that part
of our kingdom of Great Britain called England, our dominion of
Wales, and town of Berwick-upon-Tweed aforesaid, unto whom, the
like Letters Patent or privileges have already been granted for
the sole use, exercise, and benefit thereof, it being our will
and pleasure that the said William Cookworthy, his executors,
administrators, and assigns, and all and every person or persons
to whom the like Letters Patent or privileges have already been
granted as aforesaid, shall distinctly use and practice their
several inventions by them invented and found out, according
to the true intent and meaning of the said Letters Patent and
of these presents. Provided, likewise, nevertheless, and these
our Letters Patent are upon this express condition, that the
said William Cookworthy, his executors, administrators, or
assigns, or any person or persons which shall or may be at any
time or times hereafter, during the continuance of this grant,
have or claim any right, title, or intent, in law or equity,
or of, in, or to the power, privilege, and authority of the
sole use of the said benefit hereby granted, shall make any
transfer or assignment, or pretended transfer or assignment,
of the said liberty and privilege, or any share or shares for
the benefit or profit thereof, or shall declare any trust
thereof to or for any number of persons exceeding the number of
five, or shall open, or cause to be opened, any book or books
for public subscriptions to be made by any number of persons
exceeding the number of five for such or the like intents or
purposes, or shall presume to act as a corporate body, or
shall divide the benefit of these our Letters Patent, or the
liberty and privileges hereby by us granted, into any number
of shares exceeding the number of five, or shall commit or do,
or shall procure to be committed or done, any act, matter, or
thing whatsoever, during the time such person or persons shall
have any right or title, either in law or equity, in or to the
said premises which shall be contrary to the true intent and
meaning of a certain Act of Parliament, made in the sixth year
of the reign of our late royal greatgrandfather King George
the First, entituled, ‘An Act for the better securing certain
powers and privileges, intended to be granted by his Majesty
by two charters, for the Insurance of Ships and Merchandize
by Sea, and for laying money out upon bottoming, and for
restraining several extravagant and unwarrantable practices
therein mentioned,’ or in case the said privilege or authority
shall at any time hereafter become vested in, or in trust for,
any number of more than five persons or their representatives
(reckoning executors or administrators as for the single person
whom they represent, as to such interest as they are or shall be
entitled to in right of such testator or intestate), that then,
and in any of the said cases, these our Letters Patent, and
all liberties and advantages whatsoever hereby granted, shall
utterly cease and become void, anything hereinbefore contained
to the contrary thereof, anywise, notwithstanding. Provided
also, if the said William Cookworthy shall not particularly
describe and ascertain the nature of his invention, and in
what manner the same is to be performed, by an instrument in
writing, under his hand and seal, and cause the same to be
enrolled in our High Court of Chancery within four calendar
months next and immediately after the date of these our Letters
Patent, that then these our Letters Patent, and all liberties
and advantages whatsoever hereby granted, shall utterly cease,
determine, and become void, anything hereinbefore contained to
the contrary thereof in anywise notwithstanding. And, lastly we
do by these presents, for us, our heirs and successors, grant
unto the said William Cookworthy, his executors, administrators,
and assigns, that these, our Letters Patent, or the enrollment
of the exemplification thereof, shall be in and by all things
good, firm, valid, sufficient, and effectual in the law,
according to the true intent and meaning thereof, and shall
be taken, construed, and adjudged in the most favourable and
beneficial sense for the best advantage of the said William
Cookworthy, his executors, administrators, and assigns, as
well in all our Courts of Record as elsewhere, and by all
and singular the officers and ministers whatsoever of us,
our heirs, and successors in that part of the said kingdom
of Great Britain called England, our dominion of Wales, and
town of Berwick-upon-Tweed aforesaid, and amongst all and
every the subjects of us, our heirs, and successors whatsoever
and wheresoever, notwithstanding the not full and certain
describing the nature or quality of the said invention, or
of the materials thereto conducing and belonging, in witness
whereof we have caused these our Letters to be made patent:
witness ourself, at Westminster, the seventeenth day of March,
in the eighth year of our reign.
“And whereas the said William Cookworthy hath by an instrument
in writing, under his hand and seal, described and ascertained
the nature of the said invention,[94] and the manner in which
the same is to be performed, and hath caused the same to be
enrolled in His Majesty’s High Court of Chancery within the
time and in the manner directed by the said Letters Patent; and
whereas by a deed of assignment, bearing date the sixth day
of May, One Thousand Seven Hundred and Seventy-four, the said
William Cookworthy (for the consideration therein mentioned)
hath assigned all his interest, benefit, and property, in the
said Letters Patent and invention, unto RICHARD CHAMPION, of
Bristol, merchant, his executors, administrators, and assigns;
and whereas the said Richard Champion hath been at very
considerable expense and great pains and labour in prosecuting
the said invention, and by reason of the great difficulty
attending the manufacture upon a new principle, hath not been
able to bring the same to perfection until within the last
year, and it will require further pains, labour, and expense,
to render the said invention of public utility, for all which
trouble and expense the said Richard Champion will not be able
to receive an adequate compensation unless the term granted by
the said royal Letters Patent be prolonged. To the end therefore
that the said Richard Champion may be encouraged to prosecute
and complete the said invention, may it please your Majesty (at
the humble petition of the said Richard Champion) that it may be
enacted, and be it enacted by the King’s most excellent Majesty,
by and with the consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal,
and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the
authority of the same, that all and every the powers, liberties,
privileges, authorities, rights, benefits, and advantages,
which in and by the said Letters Patent were originally given
and granted to him the said William Cookworthy, his executors,
administrators, and assigns, and no further or greater than he
or the said Richard Champion would have been entitled to if
this Act had not been made, shall be, and the same are hereby
given and granted, to the said Richard Champion, his executors,
administrators, and assigns, and shall be held, exercised,
and enjoyed by him the said Richard Champion, his executors,
administrators, and assigns, for and during the present term of
fourteen years granted by the said Letters Patent; and from and
after the end and expiration of the said term of fourteen years
thereby granted, for and during the further or additional term
of fourteen years, in as full, ample, and beneficial manner, in
all respects, and to all intents and purposes whatsoever, as
he the said Richard Champion, his executors, administrators,
and assigns, could have held and enjoyed the same under and by
virtue of the said Letters Patent for the term thereby granted,
in case the said Letters Patent had been originally granted by
his Majesty to him the said Richard Champion, his executors,
administrators, and assigns.
“Provided always, and be it further granted and declared by
the authority aforesaid, that if the said Richard Champion
shall not cause to be enrolled in the High Court of Chancery,
within four months after passing this Act, a specification
of the mixture and proportions of the raw materials of which
his porcelain is composed, and likewise of the mixture and
proportions of the raw materials which compose the glaze of the
same (which specification is now in the hands of the Lord High
Chancellor of Great Britain); or if the same shall not be a true
and just specification of the mixture and proportions of the
said materials, then this Act shall cease, determine, and be
absolutely void, anything hereinbefore contained to the contrary
notwithstanding.
“Provided also that nothing in this Act contained shall be
construed to hinder or prevent any Potter or Potters, or any
other person or persons, from making use of any such raw
materials, or any mixture or mixtures thereof (except such
mixture of raw materials, and in such proportions, as are
described in the specification hereinbefore directed to be
enrolled), anything in this Act to the contrary notwithstanding.
“And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, that this
Act shall be adjudged, deemed, and taken to be a public Act,
and shall be judicially taken notice of as such by all judges,
justices, and other persons whomsoever, without specially
pleading the same.”
Between the time, however, of the committee’s sitting and the passing
of the Act, Josiah Wedgwood, whose name is always received with
reverence by all who study the history of Ceramic Art, ostensibly as
the spokesman of the Staffordshire potters, but really at first alone,
opposed the grant, on the ground, among others, that the use of the
natural productions of the soil ought to be the right of all, and that
the restrictions would be detrimental to trade and injurious to the
public. In Wedgwood’s “memorial” against the petition of Champion,
which he presented to parliament, “Josiah Wedgwood on behalf of himself
and the manufacturers of earthenware in Staffordshire,” urges “that
the manufacture of earthenware in that county has of late received
many essential improvements, and is continually advancing to higher
degrees of perfection; that the further improvement of the manufactory
must depend upon the application and the _free use_ of the various
raw materials that are the natural products of this country; that
the raw materials, now secured for a limited time to the petitioner
(Champion) may, at the expiration of the patent assigned to him, be of
great use to enable the potters throughout Great Britain to improve
their manufactures into the finest porcelain, and thereby produce a
branch of commerce of more national importance than any of this kind
hitherto established;” that Mr. Champion “was not the inventor, but
the _purchaser_ only of the unexpired patent granted to another man,
who does not appear to have any interest in this application; that
the petitioner, therefore, _not being the original discoverer_, and
having purchased the remaining term of the patent at a _proportionate
price_, can have no right to expect a further extension of a monopoly
injurious to the community at large, which neither the ingenious
discoverer nor the purchaser, for want perhaps of skill and experience
in this particular business, have been able, during the space of seven
years already elapsed, to bring to any useful degree of perfection;”
and that, if he has brought his discovery to perfection, as alleged,
the unexpired term of seven years ought to be enough to enable him to
reimburse himself. To this memorial of Josiah Wedgwood’s, Champion
presented the following honourable reply:--
“When Mr. Champion presented a petition to the Honourable House
of Commons, praying the aid of parliament for a prolongation
of the term granted by the Patent for making porcelain, he
built his hopes of success on two circumstances: the first,
the apparent utility resulting from such a manufacture carried
to a perfection equal to that of the Dresden and Asiatic. The
second circumstance on which he grounded his expectation was
the sense which he hoped the House would entertain of the
justice of compensating, by some reasonable privilege, the great
labour, expense, and risque which had been incurred, not only
in the invention of the material and composition, but in the
improvement of this important manufacture. He was also almost
certain that no person whatsoever in this kingdom could, on
a supposition of their being prejudiced in their rights in a
similar property, have had any cause of complaint, or pretence
to interfere with him, or to oppose the prayer of his petition.
“Mr. Champion however finds, with some surprise, that Mr.
Wedgwood, who has never hitherto undertaken any similar
manufacture, conceives himself likely to be injured by the
indulgence which Mr. Champion has solicited. He has accordingly
printed a memorial containing his reasons against the granting
the prayer of Mr. Champion’s petition, and is now actually gone
in person into Staffordshire in order to solicit others to
prefer a petition to Parliament against Mr. Champion’s bill.
“Before Mr. Champion replies to Mr. Wedgwood’s observations
or complaints, he begs leave to remark on the time when Mr.
Wedgwood introduces them. Mr. Champion presented his petition
to the Honourable House of Commons on the twenty-second day of
February. The committee to which that petition was referred
did not sit until the twenty-eighth day of April, during which
time Mr. Wedgwood neither made any public application against
Mr. Champion, or gave him any sort of private information
of intended opposition. Neither did any manufacturers in
Staffordshire or elsewhere express any uneasiness or make any
complaint of Mr. Champion’s application, though it is not
improbable that Mr. Wedgwood’s journey thither may be productive
of both.
“Mr. Champion forbore to bring forward his petition before
the committee until he had prepared such specimens of his
manufacture as might give the committee the most striking proofs
of the truths of his allegations, and this could not be done
sooner in a manufacture so very lately, and with such incredible
difficulty, brought to its present perfection. He trusts that
the specimens which he has produced in various kinds will show
that he has been usefully employed, and merits the public
protection.
“Mr. Wedgwood is pleased to represent his memorial on behalf of
himself and the manufacturers of earthenware in Staffordshire.
Mr. Champion says, as has been already hinted, that Mr. Wedgwood
had not any authority from such manufacturers, or any others, to
make any representations in their behalf.
“Mr. Champion most cheerfully joins in the general praise which
is given to Mr. Wedgwood for the many improvements which he has
made in the Staffordshire earthenware, and the great pains and
assiduity with which he has pursued them. He richly deserves the
large fortune he has made from these improvements. But should he
not be content with the rewards he has met with, and not have
the avidity to grasp at a manufacture which another has been
at as great pains as Mr. Wedgwood has employed in his own to
establish?--a manufacture entirely original in this kingdom, and
which all nations in Europe have been desirous to obtain?
“Mr. Wedgwood says the application and free use of the various
raw materials of this country will make a great improvement in
the manufacture of Staffordshire earthenware. Mr. Champion has
no objection to the use which the potters of Staffordshire may
make of his or any other raw materials, provided earthenware
only, as distinguished by that title, is made from it. He wants
to interfere with no manufacture whatever, and is content to
insert any clause to confine him to the invention which he
possesses, and which he has improved. He is contented that Mr.
Wedgwood, and every manufacturer, should reap the fruit of their
labour; all he asks is, such a protection for his own as the
legislature in its wisdom shall think merits.
“Mr. Wedgwood’s remark on the difference of merit betwixt Mr.
Watt and Mr. Champion is ungenerous and unjust: ungenerous, as
Mr. Champion has not, or does not, compare himself to Mr. Watt;
he has not even mentioned his name in any of his applications.
His business is not with comparative or similar merits; it is
his duty to prove the merit of his own manufacture, for which
he solicits the encouragement of the legislature. He hopes that
the specimens which he has produced before the committee are
incontrovertible evidences of it. The remark is unjust, because
he has been many years concerned in this undertaking; nearly
from the time the patent was granted to Mr. Cookworthy, in whose
name it continued till assigned over to Mr. Champion. To deny
the advantage of any part of Mr. Cookworthy’s merits to his
assignee is to deny that advantage to Mr. Cookworthy himself.
One part of the benefit of every work, from whence profit
may be derived, is the power of assignment; and if, in fact,
the manufacture could not be completed, nor the inventor, of
course, derive any profit from it, without the expense, care,
and perseverance of the assignee and once partner, the merit of
that assignee, who both completes the manufacture and rewards
the discoverer, is equal in equity to that of the discoverer
himself--equal in every respect, except the honour that attends
original genius and power of invention.
“Mr. Champion can assert with truth that his hazard and expense
was many times greater than those of the original inventor. Mr.
Champion mentions this without the least disparagement to the
worthy gentleman, who is his particular friend; he gives him all
the merit which was due to so great a discovery; he deserved it
for finding out the means of a manufacture which will, in all
probability, be a very great advantage to this country; but yet
Mr. Champion claims the merit of supporting the work, and, when
the inventor declined the undertaking himself, with his time,
his labour, and his fortune, improved it from a very imperfect
to an almost perfect manufacture; and he hopes soon, with proper
encouragement, to one altogether perfect.
“What regards the original discoverer is, in some measure,
answered in the foregoing paragraph, but the original discoverer
is not without a reward. Mr. Champion at this moment allows him,
and is bound to his heirs, &c., in a profit equal to the first
cost of the raw material, and, as Mr. Champion’s manufactory is
encouraged, must increase to a very great degree.
“Nor is Mr. Wedgwood more excusable for his implication that
a want of skill prevented the work being brought earlier to
perfection; undoubtedly the difficulty arose from a want of
skill in working these new materials. This is a profound as
well as civil remark of Mr. Wedgwood’s; but that skill was to
be acquired only by care and expense, and that care and expense
are Mr. Champion’s merits. Mr. Champion pretends to no other
knowledge as a potter than what he has acquired in the progress
of this manufacture, his profession of a merchant not putting
more in his power; but he had the experience of Mr. Cookworthy,
the inventor, one of the most able chemists in this kingdom, to
whom the public is indebted for many useful discoveries; he had
the experience of the manager of his works, a person bred in the
potteries, and thoroughly conversant in manufactures of this
kind; the workmen he employed were brought up to the branch, and
he has spared no expense in encouraging foreign artificers.
“But Mr. Champion, as a further answer to Mr. Wedgwood’s
implication of want of skill, begs leave to observe that the
_Dresden_ manufacture (like this, a native clay), which has
been established so great a number of years, was long before
it attained perfection, and even now it has not that exact
proportion of shape which the Chinese manufacture possesses.
The _Austrian_ manufacture (also a native clay) was twenty-five
years before it attained any degree of perfection, and then only
by accidental aid of the Dresden workmen who were dispersed
during the late war. The work in _Brandenburgh_ is nothing more
than the Dresden materials, wrought by workmen removed hither
from that city, the Brandenburgh work having no clay of its
own territory. Mr. Champion is surprised that Mr. Wedgwood can
find no cause but one, which he chooses to blame, why a new
manufacture, upon a principle never before tried in England,
should not have attained perfection in a shorter space than the
very short space of seven years.
“As to Mr. Wedgwood’s calculation of the profits sufficient to
recompense the ingenuity, and repay the trouble and expense of
others, Mr. Champion submits it to a discerning and encouraging
legislature, whether a seven years’ sale is likely to repay a
seven years’ unproductive, experimental, and chargeable labour,
as well as the future improvement to grow from new endeavours?
Until Mr. Champion was able to make this porcelain in quantities
to supply a market, it was rather an object of curiosity than a
manufacture for national benefit.
“There is one branch of the manufacture, the _blue and white_,
upon which he has just entered--this branch is likely to be the
most generally useful of any: but the giving a blue colour under
the glaze, on so hard a material as he uses, has been found full
of difficulty. This object he has pursued at a great expense by
means of a foreign artificer; and he can now venture to assert
that he shall bring that to perfection which has been found so
difficult in Europe in native clay.
“If the various difficulties which have attended his work from
its beginning could have been foreseen, this patent ought not to
have been applied for at so early a period. The time in which
profit was to be expected has necessarily been laid out in
experiment. It was thought that when the principle was found,
the work was done; but the perfecting a chemical discovery into
a merchantable commodity has been found a troublesome and a
tedious work. It is therefore presumed that the legislature
will distinguish between the over-sanguine hopes, in point of
time, of an invention which, however, has at length succeeded,
and those visionary projects which deceive for ever. Upon
the whole, Mr. Champion humbly rests his pretensions to the
protection of the legislature upon three grounds--that he has
been almost from the beginning concerned in the work which has
cost so much labour and expense; that he now allows the inventor
a certain and increasing recompense, though the carrying that
invention to an actual merchantable manufacture was entirely
his own work; that the potteries of chinaware in most other
countries in Europe have been at the charge of sovereign
princes. It has been immediately so in France, Austria, Dresden,
and Brandenburgh; in Italy they have been under the care of
great noblemen. In this original work Mr. Champion claims the
principal share of supporting, improving, and carrying into
execution a manufacture so much admired in China and Japan, and
now first attempted in Britain, in capacity of resisting the
greatest heat, equal to the Asiatic and Dresden.”
Wedgwood answered this “Reply” of Champion’s by some “Remarks,” which
he issued to the members of the legislature, wherein he reminds them
that he “has all his life been concerned in the manufacture and
improvement of various branches of pottery and porcelain; that he
has long had an ambition to carry these manufactures to the highest
pitch of perfection they will admit of; and that so far from having
any personal interest in opposing Mr. Champion, it would evidently
have been his interest to have accepted of some of the obliging
proposals that have been made to him by Mr. Champion and his friends,
and to have said nothing more upon the subject; but Mr. Wedgwood is
so fully convinced of the great injury that would be done to the
landed, manufacturing, and commercial interests of this nation, by
extending the term of Mr. Champion’s monopoly of raw materials, of
which there are immense quantities in the kingdom, and confining the
use of them to one or a few hands, that he thought it a duty of moral
obligation to take the sense of his neighbours upon this subject, and
to give up to the manufactory at large all advantages he might have
secured to himself. It is upon these principles, and these alone,
that he has acted in this business, and therefore he humbly presumes
he does not merit the censure of _avidity_ in grasping at other men’s
manufactures, though he thinks that himself and all manufacturers
should be protected in the _free use_ of all raw materials that are
not invented by men, but are the natural productions of the earth.
When Mr. Wedgwood discovered the art of making _Queen’s Ware_,
which employs ten times more people than all the china works in the
kingdom, he did not ask for a patent for this important discovery. A
patent would greatly have limited its public utility. Instead of _one
hundred manufactories_ of Queen’s Ware, there would have been _one_;
and instead of an exportation to all quarters of the world, a few
pretty things would have been made for the amusement of the people of
fashion in England. It would be the same with the use of the materials
in question: if they are not only confined to the use of one person
or manufactory, by patent, for fourteen years, but that patent be
extended for twenty or thirty years longer, so long they may be the
means of supporting _one_ trifling manufactory; but if the materials
are left free for general use, and Mr. Champion is in possession of
the result of all his experiments and real discoveries with respect
to the art of manufacturing these raw materials into porcelain, no
essential part of which has been revealed by him to the public, either
in his specifications or otherwise, then there is reason to expect a
very large and extensive manufactory of porcelain will be established
in various parts of this kingdom, to the great benefit of the public,
without any injury to Mr. Champion.”
Wedgwood continued his “remarks” by replying that Mr. Champion’s offer
of inserting a clause to allow the potters the free use of the raw
material in all kinds of earthenware, restricting its use in porcelain
only to himself, was a useless concession, because Champion had failed
to define the difference between earthenware and porcelain, and had
failed to impart the secret of his manufacture to the public, either
by his specifications or otherwise. “How then,” he asked, “are the
Staffordshire potters to use the growan stone and growan clay for the
improvement of their finer stone and earthenwares, without producing
such a manufacture as may in Westminster Hall be deemed porcelain?” He
also said that, judging from Mr. Champion’s own words, Cookworthy’s
patent “ought not to have been applied for at so early a period,” it
was evident that the “patent was taken out for a discovery of the
art of making true porcelain before it _was_ made; and if the
discovery has been since made, there can have been no specification of
it; it has not been revealed to the public, it is in Mr. Champion’s
own possession, and being _unknown_, it is presumed the right to
practise it cannot be confirmed or extended by Act of Parliament, which
ought to have some clear ground to go upon.” The patent, he says, has
evidently been considered as a privilege to the patentee, “for the sole
right of _making experiments_ upon materials which many persons
have thought would make good porcelain, and on which experiments have
been prosecuted by several successive sets of operators many years
before the date of the patent.” He contended that it would have been
an “egregious injury to the public” to continue the patent to one
person who was no original discoverer, who was only just commencing
the commonest and most useful part of his business with the aid of a
foreign artificer, in the hope that a discovery might at some future
time be made. He considered that if the raw materials were thrown open
to all, “a variety of experienced hands would probably produce more
advantage to the nation in a few years than they would ever do when
confined to one manufactory, however skilful the director might be,”
and that the extension of the patent securing the monopoly “would be
a precedent of the most dangerous nature, contrary to policy, and of
general inconvenience,” and therefore he “humbly hopes the legislature
will not grant the prayer of Mr. Champion’s petition,”--a hope which,
however earnestly expressed, and however tenaciously followed, was
eventually of no avail. To this opposition, however, is doubtless to be
traced the ultimate abandonment of the patent, and the manufacture of
the less difficult soft paste to so great an extent in Staffordshire.
The term of the original patent, it will be remembered, was for
fourteen years, of which nearly eight years remained unexpired at the
time when it was assigned over by Cookworthy to Champion. The extension
petitioned for would thus have given Champion nearly twenty-two
years’ exclusive right to the raw materials, and it was this extended
monopoly which aroused the watchfulness of Wedgwood, and made him
determined to use his utmost efforts to prevent its being enacted.
In this opposition--which was determined and energetic, though only
partially successful--Wedgwood, besides memorialising the legislature
against granting the prayer of the petition, issued a number of
“Reasons why the extension of the term of Mr. Cookworthy’s patent, by
authority of parliament, would be injurious to many landowners, to the
manufacturers of earthenware, and to the public.” In addition to this,
he made out and presented a “Case of the manufacturers of earthenware
in Staffordshire,” setting forth the advantages that would be derived
from throwing open the use of the raw materials, and the disadvantages
which an extension of the monopoly would entail, not only on the
manufacturers, but on the public at large.
These “reasons” why the extension of the term of Mr. Cookworthy’s
patent, by authority of parliament, would be injurious to landowners,
to the manufacturers of earthenware, and to the public are so
ingenious, and the “case” so carefully made out, that I here give them
entire.[95]
“It would be injurious to the _landowners_, because by means
of this monopoly materials of great value would be locked up
within the bowels of the earth, and the owners be deprived of
the power of disposing of them; for the present patentee and his
assigns have contracted with _one gentleman_ that he shall sell
these materials only to _them_, and that they shall purchase
such materials only from _him_, during the term of _ninety-nine_
years.
“It would be injurious to the _manufacturers_ of earthenware;
because, notwithstanding the mechanical part of their
manufactory, their execution, their forms, their painting, &c.,
are equal, if not superior, to those of any other country, yet
the _body_ of their ware stands in great need of improvement,
both in colour and texture; because the public begin to require
and expect such improvement; because without such improvement
the sale of their manufactures will probably decline in favour
of foreign manufacturers, who may not be deprived of the
use of the materials that their countries produce. For the
consideration in this case is not whether one manufacturer or
manufactory shall be supported against another, but whether the
earthenware manufactories of _Great Britain_ shall be supported
in their improvements against those of every other country in
the world; because the materials in question are the most proper
of any that have been found in this island for the improvement
of the manufactures of earthenware; and because _no line has
been drawn_, or _can be drawn_, with sufficient distinctness,
between earthenware and porcelain, and especially between
earthenware and the various kinds of this patent porcelain, to
render it safe for any potter to make use of these materials in
his works.
“The extension of this monopoly would be injurious to the
_public_, by preventing the employment of a great number of
vessels in the coasting trade in bringing the raw materials
from the places where they would be dug out of the earth to the
different parts of this island where they would be manufactured.
“This extension would also be injurious to the public because
it would prevent our manufacturers of earthenware from being
_improved in their quality_ and _increased in their quantity and
value_ to the amount of many hundred thousand pounds _per annum_.
“And lastly, it would be injurious to the public by preventing
a very great increase of our exports, _which must infallibly
take place_ when the body of our earthenwares shall come to be
improved so as to bear a proportion to the beauty of their forms
and the excellence of their workmanship.
“Upon the whole, would it not be unreasonable to extend the term
of a monopoly in favour of an individual to the prejudice of ten
thousand industrious manufacturers, when the individual can have
no merit with the public, as he has made no discovery to them?”
The following is the “case” of the manufacturers of earthenware in
Staffordshire, as drawn up by Wedgwood:--
“The potters, and other persons depending upon the pottery in
_Staffordshire_, beg leave humbly to represent that Nature has
provided this island with immense quantities of materials proper
for the improvement of their manufactures; that such materials
have been known and used twenty or thirty years ago, and that
many experiments were made upon them by various operators with
various degrees of success.
“That porcelain was made of these materials, and publicly sold
before the year 1768.
“That in March, 1768, _Mr. Cookworthy_, of _Plymouth_, took out
a patent for the sole use of the materials in question, called
in the patent moor-stone or growan, and growan clay, for the
making of porcelain, which is defined to have a fine colour and
a lucid grain, and likewise to be as infusible as the Asiatic.
“That _Mr. Cookworthy_ contracted, as the condition upon which
he held the privilege of his monopoly, that he would make a
full and true specification of the art by which he converted
these materials into porcelain, and that he entirely failed in
fulfilling this obligation.
“For in the pretended specification which he made, he omitted
to describe the _principal operations_ in which his art or
discovery consisted, having neither exhibited the proportions in
which the materials were to be mixed to produce the _body_ or
the _glaze_, nor the art of _burning_ the _ware_, which he knew
to be the _most difficult_ and important part of the discovery.
“That the company concerned in the porcelain manufactory at
_Plymouth_, established under the authority of this patent,
contracted with one gentleman, in whose lands these materials
are found, that he should sell the materials only to them, and
that they should purchase materials from no other person, during
the term of ninety-nine years.
“That nevertheless there are great quantities of such materials
in other estates in _Cornwall_ and _Devonshire_, and probably in
many other parts of this island.
“That in the year 1774 _Mr. Cookworthy_ assigned over his patent
right to _Mr. Champion_, of _Bristol_, who now applies to
parliament for an extension of this monopoly, seven years before
the expiration of the patent; which assignment was made upon
condition that _Mr. Cookworthy_ should receive for ninety-nine
years from _Mr. Champion_ as large a sum every year as should be
paid to the proprietor for the raw materials, hereby laying a
tax of 100 per cent. upon them.
“That _Mr. Champion_ in his petition sets forth that he has
brought this discovery to perfection; and that in a paper he
has published, entitled _A Reply, &c._, he says that if the
various difficulties which have attended this work from the
beginning could have been foreseen, _this patent ought not to
have been applied for at so early a period_; that is, in plain
English, the patent was taken out for the discovery of an art
before the discovery was made by the patentee. And if the
discovery has been made since, there has been no specification
of it; it has not been recorded for the public benefit; it is
in _Mr. Champion’s_ own possession; it is kept from the public
for his own private emolument: and the _nature_ of it being
_unknown_, it is humbly presumed such a pretended discovery can
neither entitle the patentee nor the petitioner to the extension
of a monopoly injurious to many thousands of industrious
manufacturers in various parts of the kingdom.
“And in the same paper in which we find the above curious
confession, _Mr. Champion_ acknowledges that even at _this time_
he has just entered upon the commonest and most useful branch
of his manufactory, which he has pursued at a great expense,
by means of a _foreign artificer_, and can _now_ venture to
assert that he _shall_ bring it to perfection. And in the space
of seven years yet to come of his patent, and fourteen years’
further indulgence which he expects from parliament, one would
hope some discovery might be made; but would it not be an
egregious injury to the public, an unheard of and unprecedented
discouragement to many manufacturers who have great and
acknowledged merit with the public, to continue to _one person_
who, in _this instance_, has no _public merit_, the monopoly of
earth and stones that nature has furnished this country with
in immense quantities, which are necessary to the support and
improvement of one of the most valuable manufactures in the
kingdom?
“_Mr. Champion_ says, in the Reply referred to above, he ‘has no
objection to the use which the potters of _Staffordshire_ may
make of his or any other raw materials, provided earthenware
only, as distinguished by that title, is made from them. He
wants to interfere with no manufactory whatsoever, and is
content to insert any clause to _confine_ him to the invention
which he possesses, and which he has improved,’ &c.
“If _Mr. Champion_ had accurately defined the _nature_ of his
own invention; if he had described the proportions of his
materials necessary to make the body of his ware; if he had
also specified the proportions of his materials necessary to
produce his glaze, as every mechanical inventor who takes out
a patent is obliged to specify the nature of the machine by
which he produces his effect; if _Mr. Champion_ could have drawn
a _distinct line_ between the _various kinds of earthenware
and porcelain_ that have been made, and are now made in this
kingdom, and _his porcelain_, a clause might have been formed to
have confined him to the invention which he says he possesses,
and to have prevented him from _interrupting the progress of_
other _men’s improvements_, which he may think proper to call
imitations of his porcelain; but as he has not chosen to do
the former, nor been able to do the latter, no manufacturer of
stoneware, Queen’s ware, or porcelain, can with safety improve
the present state of his manufacture.
“It is well known that manufactures of this kind can only
support their credit by continual improvements. It is also
well known that there is a _competition_ in these improvements
through all _parts of Europe_. In the last century _Burslem_,
and some other villages in _Staffordshire_, were famous for
making _milk pans_ and _butter pots_, and by a succession
of improvements, the manufactory in that neighbourhood has
gradually increased in the variety, the quality, and the
quantity of its productions, so as to furnish, besides the
home consumption, an annual export of useful and ornamental
wares, nearly to the amount of _two hundred thousand_ pounds;
but during all this progress it has had the free range of the
country for materials to work upon, to the great advantage of
many landowners and of navigation.
“_Queen’s_ ware has already several of the properties of
porcelain, but is yet capable of receiving many essential
improvements. The public have for some time _required_ and
expected them. Innumerable experiments have been made for
this purpose. There are immense quantities of materials in
the kingdom that would answer this end; but they are locked
up by a monopoly in the bowels of the earth, useless to the
_landowners_, useless to the _manufacturers_, useless to
the public; and one person is petitioning the legislature,
in effect, to stop all the improvements in earthenware and
porcelain in this kingdom but his own.
“For the next step, and the only step the manufacturers can
take to improve their wares, will be deemed an invasion of this
_vague_ and _incomprehensible_ patent.
“The manufacturers of earthenware are justly alarmed at the
prospect of extending the term of the patent, because, without
improvements, the sale of their manufactures _must certainly
decline_ in favour of _foreign manufacturers_, who may not be
deprived of the _free use of the materials their countries
produce_; for the consideration in this case is not whether one
manufacturer or manufactory shall be supported against another,
but whether the earthenware and porcelain manufactories of
_Great Britain_ shall be supported in their improvements against
those of every other country in the world. Upon the whole, the
petitioners against the bill humbly presume this monopoly will
appear to be _contrary to good policy_, highly _injurious_ to
the public, and _generally inconvenient_; that the extension of
the monopoly, supposing any patent to be valid, would be greater
_increasing the injury_; that the bill now depending is not only
calculated to _extend_, but to _confirm_ it, and therefore they
humbly hope it will not be suffered to pass into a law.”
Despite all this factious opposition--for it was factious in the
extreme--to his petition by Wedgwood, as the representative of the
potters, and by the members of parliament for the county of Stafford,
and others who had been moved by the exertions of Wedgwood and his
friends, the bill passed the House of Commons, and was sent up to the
lords without amendment. The “case” just given, along with extracts
from the bill, with comments, showing, among other things, that the
passing of the Act, as originally framed, conferred the full benefits
of Cookworthy’s patent on Champion, without compelling him to enrol
anew any specification of his process of manufacture, was printed for
circulation among the members of the Upper House. With reference to
this important point, it was shown that Cookworthy, having enrolled
his specification, and having afterwards assigned the patent right to
Champion, the bill enacted that all and every the powers, liberties,
privileges, authorities, and advantages which in and by the said
letters patent were originally granted to the said William Cookworthy,
shall be held, exercised, and enjoyed by the said Richard Champion
for the present term of fourteen years, granted by the said letters
patent, and after the expiration thereof, for the further term of
fourteen years, in as full, ample, and beneficial a manner as the
said Richard Champion could have held the same in case the said
letters patent had originally been granted to him. The view of the
bill is manifestly to confirm to Mr. Champion the letters patent for
the present term of fourteen years, as well as to grant him fourteen
years more. Had it been intended only to _enlarge_ the term,
and that the letters patent should have stood upon their own ground,
such words of confirmation would not have been necessary; or if they
had been thought so, they should have been succeeded by words to the
effect following:--“_Subject, nevertheless, to the same provisoes,
conditions, limitations, and agreements, as the said William Cookworthy
held and enjoyed the same before the date of the said assignment._”
But these being omitted, and the bill having stated that the “said
William Cookworthy had described the nature of his said invention
and the manner in which the same is to be performed,” it is evident
that the design of the bill is not only to confirm absolutely the
letters patent, and consequently the monopoly of these materials for
the present term of fourteen years, but also to grant it to him for
fourteen years more; and the Act is to have this operation, even
though the letters patent may be void by the discovery not being a new
invention, according to the statute of James I., or by Mr. Cookworthy’s
not having conformed to the terms and conditions of the letters patent,
by having described and ascertained the nature of the said invention,
and the manner in which the same is to be performed. That the making of
porcelain is not a new invention is too evident to need any proof; that
the letters patent are not within the intent of the statute is manifest
by a cursory perusal of it. That Mr. Cookworthy has not described
and ascertained the nature of this invention and the manner in which
the same is to be performed (unless the discovery of the materials
can alone be deemed so), will appear by what he has been pleased to
call his specification. But it will appear in evidence that even the
discovery of the materials was not, at the time of granting the letters
patent to Mr. Cookworthy, “new and his own,” but that they were at that
time, and had been long before, applied to the uses of pottery.
“Is it therefore reasonable that Parliament should confirm to
Mr. Champion the present term of fourteen years, and also grant
him fourteen years more, in the monopoly of an immense quantity
of materials, the natural products of the earth, for the making
of porcelain, which no person is to _imitate or resemble_; but
also virtually the sole privilege of vending and disposing of
these materials at what price and in what manner he thinks
proper? For no person can use them in any respect but they will
produce (if not the same effect) an effect that will _resemble_
what he may call his patent porcelain; and it is not to conceive
how he can be deprived of the exclusive right of selling as well
as using these materials if the bill now depending should pass
into a law.”
The presenting these papers to the Lords produced more effect, it would
seem, than the efforts in a similar direction had apparently done in
the Commons. The consequence was, that “Lord Gower and some other noble
lords, having fully informed themselves of the facts upon which the
merits of the case depended, and having considered the subject with a
degree of attention proportioned to its importance, saw clearly the
injurious nature of the bill, and were determined to oppose it.” This
determination brought on a conference between the two noble lords who
took the most active part for and against the bill, and the result was
the introduction of two clauses, the first making it imperative on
Champion to enrol anew his specification of both body and glaze within
the usual period of four months; the second throwing open the use of
the raw materials to potters for any purpose except the manufacture of
porcelain, was as follows:--
“Provided, also, that nothing in this Act contained shall
be construed to hinder or prevent any potter or potters, or
any other person or persons, from making use of any such raw
materials, or any mixture or mixtures thereof (except such
mixture of raw materials, and in such proportions, as are
described in the specification hereinbefore directed to be
enrolled), anything in this Act to the contrary notwithstanding.”
The Act being obtained (specimens of his skill in making porcelain
having been submitted to the Committee by Champion), the specification
was duly prepared and enrolled according to the provisions of the Act.
It is dated the 12th of September, 1775, and was duly enrolled on the
15th of the same month. The following is the specification, which will
be found to contain much matter of interest; and, taken in conjunction
with that of Cookworthy, given in my account of the Plymouth works,
completes the important series of papers in connection with this
manufactory:--
“TO ALL TO WHOM THESE PRESENTS SHALL COME, I, RICHARD CHAMPION,
of Bristol, Merchant, send greeting, and so forth.