Duesburys--so worthily tenacious were they of their reputation, and of
keeping up the high and unblemished character of their works--to allow
none but _perfect_ goods to leave their premises, and no matter
how costly the article, or how trivial the fault (frequently so trivial
as to be only perceptible to the most practised eye), all goods which
were not perfect were stowed away in rooms in the factory, and had
accumulated to an enormous extent. When Mr. Bloor took the concern,
this stock of seconds goods became an almost exhaustless mine of wealth
to him. Having to pay the purchase money by instalments, he found the
easiest method of doing so was to finish up these goods, take them to
different large towns, and there sell them by auction, and also to
have sales at the manufactory; one of these sales, in 1822, continued
twenty-five days. By this means Mr. Bloor amassed large sums of money,
as the “Derby china” found ready and liberal purchasers wherever it
was thus offered. This system, however, though it had a temporary
good, produced a lasting evil. The temptation to produce large
quantities of goods specially for auction sale was so great as not to
be withstood, and as by this means they were disposed of “with all
their imperfections thick upon them,” less care was devoted to their
manufacture, and the decline of the works, principally from this cause,
commenced.
Mr. Robert Bloor was assisted in his works by his brother Joseph, by
whom the “mixing” was mainly done, and from 1828, when Mr. Robert
Bloor’s health began to fail, they were carried on for him by a manager
named Thomason. The two brothers died within a short time of each
other. Robert, who had lost his mind for many years before his decease,
died in 1845, and Joseph the year following. The works then passed
into the hands of Mr. Thomas Clarke, who had married a grand-daughter
of Robert Bloor’s, who discontinued them, and sold most of the models,
&c., to the Staffordshire manufacturers--the greater bulk going into
the hands of Mr. Boyle, a manufacturer, of Fenton, who was son of Mr.
John Boyle, and for a short time before his death a partner with the
Wedgwoods. The final dissolution of the old works took place in 1848,
when a number of the workmen naturally migrated into Staffordshire and
Worcestershire.
At this time, however, several of the old hands--actuated by the
laudable desire of securing the continuance of a business which for
a century had been so successfully carried on, and of continuing it
as one of the trades of their native town--clubbed together (to use
a characteristic expression), and commenced business on their own
account. They each and all threw into the common stock what knowledge,
experience, money, and tools, &c, they possessed, took premises in King
Street (on the site of old St. Helen’s Nunnery), and under the name
of “Locker and Co.” commenced making “Derby china,” and adopted, very
properly, a distinctive mark, which shows this epoch in the works. It
is a somewhat curious circumstance, that on the site of the old china
works the modern Roman Catholic nunnery of S. Marie was erected; while
on the site of the old nunnery of St. Helen, the present china works
are now carried on. Great difficulties were encountered by this band of
workmen, but their zeal and determination overcame them.
Mr. Locker (who was a native of Blackfordby, and had been clerk and
warehouseman at the old works in the latter part of their existence)
died in 1859, and the works were next conducted under the style of
“Stevenson and Co.,” and “Stevenson, Sharp, and Co.,” till the death of
Mr. Stevenson, when the style was changed to that of “Hancock and Co.,”
and the works are now continued by Mr. Sampson Hancock, and bid fair,
if not to rival the early glory and success of the works, at least to
do credit to the town of Derby, in which they are situated. Some of the
productions are highly creditable to the taste and skill of the men,
and show that “ye art of making English china,” imparted to William
Duesbury in 1756, is not forgotten, but remains with his successors to
the present day.
One of the last large services made by Bloor was a magnificent dessert
made for her present Majesty, and some large additions to that set, and
pieces for replacing, have been from time to time made by the present
owners of the works, which are still therefore as fully entitled to
the name of “Royal” works as any of their predecessors. The marks used
by these later firms will be found engraved on page 93; I give them to
complete the chronological series. The name of Courtney, which appears
on one of these marks, was Bloor’s agent.
Having now gone through the HISTORY of the works, it only remains to
speak of the artists employed, and of one branch of the manufacture,
that of “Biscuit,” which requires more than a passing notice. This
material was a discovery of, and quite peculiar to, the Derby Works,
and the secret of its composition is still preserved. To it the
beautiful material Parian thus owes its origin. One of the Derby
workmen having engaged himself to Mr. Copeland, was trying experiments
to recover the secret of the biscuit composition, when instead of
it he produced accidentally that which has been named “Parian,”
and in which all the exquisitely beautiful figures and groups that
characterise their, and other equally admirable, productions have
since, with modifications and improvements, been worked. It is pleasant
thus to know, that although the art of making Derby biscuit figures
has been discontinued, the Parian has sprung from it, and was first
produced by a Derby man. Nothing could exceed the sharpness and beauty
of the biscuit figures as produced in the best days of the Derby
Works, and some examples, for delicacy and fineness of modelling, and
for sharpness of touch, have never, in any ceramic material, been
surpassed, or scarcely equalled.
Transfer printing on china appears to have been introduced at Derby in
1764--some years before even Wedgwood printed his own ware, but while
he was in the habit of sending it off to Liverpool to be printed by
Messrs. Sadler and Green. The process, however, did not obtain much
favour at Derby, and Mr. Duesbury evidently found it better, and more
satisfactory, to adhere to hand-work in all his goods. The person who
introduced the process, and whom he engaged to carry it on, was Richard
Holdship, of Worcester, who, by deed, covenanted for the sum of £100
paid down, and a yearly sum of £30 so long as the works continued on
his process, to impart in writing to Messrs. Duesbury and Heath his
secret process for making china according to proofs already made by him
at the Derby Works; to supply them with all sufficient quantities of
soapy rock at fair prices; and to print all the china or porcelain ware
which might have occasion to be printed. The engagement with Holdship
lasted, at all events, many years, but during that time the printing
evidently was not much followed, as in his letters to his employers
he is constantly complaining of having no work for his presses, and
in having no goods made according to his process. He had an assistant
named William Underwood, and in one of his letters he values his press
at ten guineas in cash, and his copper-plates at a large amount, while
he says “for his process for Printing Enamell and Blew, he hath been
offered several Hundred Pounds.” His stock of enamel colours, 151 lbs.
in weight, he offers to sell for £35. It is needless to write more
in this place of Holdship’s connection with Derby, as I have already
given more full particulars in the first volume, page 232. At one time
John Lodge, the eminent engraver, engraved some plates for printing at
Derby. The following is his bill for some engraving done in 1771:--
Mr. DEUSBERRY Dr. to JOHN LODGE,
£ _s._ _d._
Engraving a Plate of Chinese Figures 0 10 6
Copper to do. 0 2 6
To Engraving Eight Borders 0 16 0
Copper to do. 0 1 11
To Engraving two Plates for Cups and Saucer 1 1 0
Copper 0 4 5
To Engraving two Plates for Cup and Saucer 1 1 0
Copper to do. 0 2 4
To Engraving two Plates for Small China 1 4 0
Copper to do. 0 5 10
----------
£5 9 6
==========
Sept. 28, 1771.
Recd. the Contents in full of all demands, JOHN LODGE.
Fruit dishes, and other articles were at one time made with open-work
reticulated rims or sides; a raised “Dresden” flower being placed
on each of the outer sections in much the same manner as was
characteristic of one period of Worcester work. These were made both in
blue and white, and in enamel; they are somewhat scarce.
[Illustration: Fig. 53.]
In 1789 Mr. Duesbury endeavoured to introduce batt-printing into his
manufactory, and for that purpose prevailed on his former assistant, J.
Hancock, then in Staffordshire, to inquire into and describe to him the
process. I must not omit to say that earthen ware, called the “Cream
Ware,” very closely resembling Wedgwood’s celebrated “Queen’s Ware,”
was made at Derby for a short time, and was of great beauty. Specimens
of this ware are of great rarity.
In 1790 Mr. Duesbury invented a machine for exhibiting the contraction
of earthen bodies when in the fire; this he had constructed by Spooner
and Son.
[Illustration: Figs. 56 to 58.]
The marks used at the Derby China Works may be thus briefly summarised.
The simple writing letter _D_ is said to have been the first mark used
by William Duesbury. The _D_, which stands either as the initial of
Derby or of Duesbury, conjoined with the anchor of Chelsea [anchor
symbol] is the distinctive mark of the Chelsea-Derby period--the period
when William Duesbury, who had purchased the Chelsea works, carried on
both the manufactories, and, later, produced goods at Derby from the
Chelsea moulds. Two or three varieties of this mark, according to the
taste or whim of the workmen, occur (see Figs. 56, 57, and 58).
[Illustration: Figs. 59 to 61.]
Two other marks, the one a _D_ surmounted by a crown, and the other
an anchor, similarly surmounted, are said to have denoted respectively
the articles made at this period at Derby and at Chelsea (Figs. 59 to
63). Now and then the first of these is met with in connection with the
anchor (Fig. 63).
[Illustration: Figs. 62 to 67.]
The most usual mark is that of the letter D, with crossed swords, dots,
and crown, of which several varieties occur. Sometimes the initial is
the writing letter _D_, and sometimes a Roman capital D, and the
crown also varies according to the caprice of the painter. Figs. 64 to
67 show some of the varieties.
[Illustration: Fig. 68.]
A variety of this, in which a _D_ and a _K_ are conjoined, denotes the
period when the works, in their later days, were carried on by Duesbury
and Kean. It was, however, only very sparsely used. For some years, at
all events up to about 1825 or 1830, Mr. Bloor continued to use the
old mark of the Duesburys--the crown, cross daggers with dots, and D
beneath--but about that period discontinued it, and adopted instead a
mark with his own name (Fig. 68). It is well to note, that down to the
discontinuance of the old mark, it had invariably been done with the
pencil, _by hand_, but that those adopted by Mr. Bloor were _printed_
ones. The first printed mark I believe to be Fig. 69, and somewhat
later the same was used, but slightly larger in size (Fig. 71). Other
marks are shown on the engravings. Figs. 74 and 75 have an old English
[Illustration: D] surmounted by a crown; another (Fig. 76) a crown,
with a riband bearing the word DERBY in Roman capitals beneath it.
[Illustration: Figs. 69 to 73.]
[Illustration: Figs. 74 to 78.]
Other marks, said to have been for one purpose or other--of course as
imitations--used at Derby, are the following:--
[Illustration: Figs. 79 to 84.]
In my own possession is a design, in pencil, by Mr. Duesbury, by his
own hand, for a mark, which I engrave on Fig. 84, although I believe
it was never adopted. At all events I have failed in discovering a
single specimen so marked. Mrs. Palliser, however, engraves a mark as
occurring on a cup and saucer, which somewhat assimilates to it. She
also gives, from a specimen in her own possession, the word _Derby_
in writing letters. This, she states, occurs “in black on a biscuit
statuette;” but I fear the mark has been added at a later date. Another
mark, which has been described to me, but of which I have not seen an
example, is very similar to Fig. 84, but has the cross daggers and
crown added, with the encircling words “DUESBURY, DERBY,” Fig. 85. It
may be well, _en passant_, to notice a mark which appears on one of
the copper-plates of the Caughley works (see Vol. I., p. 273). It is
an anchor over the word “Derby.” As the initials RH conjoined also
appear along with the anchor and word “Worcester,” and may mean either
R. Hancock or Richard Holdship, the probability is they belong to the
latter (who was connected with the Derby works), and that the _anchor_
was adopted in allusion to his name, _hold ship_--a very clever and
ingenious device. Another variety belonging to Mr. Robinson differs
slightly from these.
[Illustration: Figs. 84 to 89.]
On some services, notably on the royal service, mentioned on page 88,
Mr. Bloor had his name painted in full--
[Illustration:
_Messrs. Robert Bloor & Co.,_
_34, Old Bond Street_,]
on the back of plates, &c. The “Co.” in this instance was Mr. Thomas
Courteney, the London agent, through whom the order was procured.
His place of business was 34, Old Bond Street, and many of the goods
afterwards made for him bore the accompanying mark, Fig. 91. Messrs.
Locker & Co., at the modern King Street works, used the mark, Fig. 92,
and their successors, Stevenson, Sharp, and Co., the next one. The next
firm, Stevenson and Hancock, used, in accordance with my suggestion,
and a sketch I made for them, in 1862, the old Derby mark of the crown,
crossed daggers, dots, and letter [Illustration: _D_], with the
initials of the firm S. H. (for Stevenson and Hancock); this is still
continued by the present sole proprietor, Sampson Hancock--the letters
S. H. being, fortunately, his own initials.
[Illustration: Figs. 91 to 94.]
Of the artists employed at the Derby China Works, the principal
modellers appear to have been Spengler, Stephan, Coffee, Complin,
Hartenberg, Duvivier, Webber, and Dear, and many others, including
Bacon the sculptor, were employed in London, and the models sent down
to the works.
Of the painters, the principal ones were Bowman, who was originally of
Chelsea, afterwards of Derby, and then again of London, and who was
one of the best flower and landscape painters of his day; Billingsley,
who received instruction from Bowman, and whose flower pieces have
certainly never been surpassed, or even equalled; Hill, a famous
painter of landscapes, who delighted in sylvan scenery; Brewer, also
an excellent landscape and figure painter, and whose wife, Bernice
Brewer, was also a painter; Pegg, who surpassed in faithful copying
of nature, in single branches and flowers, and in autumnal borders;
Samuel Keys, a clever ornamentalist, who ended his days in the employ
of Mintons; Steel, who excelled all others in painting fruit; John
Keys, a flower painter; Cotton and Askew, two highly-gifted painters of
figures; Webster, Withers, Hancock (two, uncle and nephew), Bancroft
and others as flower painters; Lowton, clever at hunting and sporting
subjects; and Robertson, at landscapes.[17] But besides these, there
were many other really clever artists employed. It is pleasant, too,
to know, that “Wright, of Derby,” the celebrated portrait painter, the
contemporary and fellow pupil with Reynolds, lent his powerful aid on
some occasions,[18] in supplying drawings and giving advice, as did
also De Boeuff, Bartolozzi, Sanby, Glover, and many others of eminence;
and it is also interesting to add, that one of the Wedgwood family,
Jonathan Wedgwood, was at one time employed at Derby. The draft of
agreement between himself and William Duesbury, dated 1772, is in my
own possession, and by it he binds himself for three years to work at
“the arts of repairing or throwing china or porcelaine ware,” for the
sum of fourteen shillings per week. A few brief notes upon some of the
artists of the Derby works will doubtless be of service to collectors;
I therefore dot down the following memoranda:--
J. J. SPENGLER, a Frenchman, had been occasionally employed in
London by Mr. Duesbury to model figures for him, and in 1790, on
the recommendation of Mr. Vulliamy, entered into an agreement
to come to Derby. Mr. Wallis, in his not very reliable account
of the Derby China Works, to which I have before referred, says
Spengler “was brought to Derby from London by Mr. Kean,” but
this is an error. He was in Derby years before Mr. Kean had any
connection with the works. The original agreements, dated July
13 and September 15th, 1790, are in my own possession (as are
also a number of original letters, accounts, and other documents
connected with him), and is as follows:--
“A COPY.
“A Memorandum. London, July 13, 1790.
“That the Bearer, Mr. J. Spengler, has agreed to come down
to the Manufactory at Derby, to work as Modeller, &c, and to
receive for the first month after the rate of three Guineas per
week, and his expenses paid down by the Coach. His hours of work
is to be from Seven o’clock in the morning till the rest of the
People in the Manufactory give Over work in the Evening. It is
further agreed on, that after the expiration of the first Month,
if the parties like each other and they agree for a fixed time
to come, The bearer, Mr. J. Spengler, is then only to receive
after the rate of two pounds ten shillings per week from the
first day he began to work in the manufactory.
“Witness: (Signed) “For Mr. W. Duesbury.
“B. Vulliamy. “J. Spengler. “J. Lygo.”
He accordingly came to Derby and a more full agreement was drawn
up in September. On the 15th of that month he drew up and signed
a memorandum to the effect that as he knew nothing either
of the laws or language of England, he was to go to London
to cause to be examined the agreement made between himself
and “Monsieur Duesbury Maitre de la fabrique de Porcelaine a
Derbey,” and should it be found right, to return at once to
Derby and sign and execute it; Mr. Duesbury agreeing to pay the
expenses of the journey and half the loss of time at the rate
fixed in the agreement. This memorandum, which is well written,
but in wretched French, is signed by “J. Spengler” and by “Mr.
Duesbury” thus:--
“Sep. 15th, ’90. As far as I can understand the French Language,
I conceive the above to be right.
W^m Duesbury.”
Spengler first went down to Derby in the beginning of August,
1790, soon after the date of the agreement of July 13th (having
just previously modelled a “Figure of Astronomy, in London,”
for which Mr. Duesbury paid him ten guineas, and for extra time
expended over it at Derby, in finishing, an additional two and
a half guineas), and his first pieces of work were “Figure
with a Vase (Morning),” and its companion, a “Figure with a
Vase (Noon),” for each of which he was paid seven guineas; and
the “Three Graces,” for the time expended on which he was paid
six guineas.[19] Before long, unpleasantness arose through
Spengler’s inattention to work, breach of contracts, and
getting into debt, and in 1792 he left Derby surreptitiously.
Proceedings were taken by Mr. Duesbury; his goods (the inventory
of which, dated March 18th, is before me) were sold; and he was
captured at Ramsgate, and placed in the King’s Bench Prison.
The result of law proceedings was that Spengler entered into a
fresh agreement with Mr. Duesbury (I have the draft) by which
he covenanted “Not to lose more time in any one week than half
a day, sickness excepted, under the penalty of paying after
the rate of 7s. per day to Mr. D., Mr. S. to continue to serve
Mr. D. to the best of his skill (without working for any other
person) until he shall have paid Mr. D. the ballance due to him,
and all lawful expences; Mr. D. receiving two-thirds of his
earnings, Spengler to have liberty to attend any number of hours
(that the manufactory is open for others) over and above those
work’d by himself and the rest of the other hands for overtime,
and to receive in the same proportion for such time as for the
regular day’s time,” and so on. He was, evidently, for the
purpose of carrying out the agreement, bailed out of the King’s
Bench by a friend, whose letters I possess, but by November of
the same year had again left his employment.[20]
Spengler was then again in the King’s Bench, from which, on
the 31st of January, after other correspondence, he wrote a
very pathetic letter (in French, as all his letters are) to Mr.
Duesbury, and ultimately it appears that an arrangement was come
to for him to work in London. In 1794, fresh arrangements were
again in progress (Spengler, who was living at Chelsea, in the
meantime having continued to work for Mr. Duesbury), and much
correspondence took place; the result being that in February,
1795, Spengler returned to Derby, under a fresh agreement,
which, as it contains much valuable information as to figures
and groups, and prices for modelling them, I give entire:--
“_Heads of an Agreement to be enterd into between Wm. Duesbury
of Derby in the County of Derby & J. J. Spengler, Modeller,
Viz._:--
“J. J. S. to serve W^m. D. his Ex^s. Adm^s. or Ass^s. in his
Manufactory at Derby for so long as W. D. his Ex^s. Adm^s. or
Ass^s. shall have occasion for the assistance of J. J. S. W. D.
his Ex^s. Adm^s. & Ass^s. reserving to themselves the power of
Terminating this Agreement by giving J. J. S. 1 Month’s notice
at any time. J. J. S. to have the like power of Terminating it
at any time by giving 1 M^s. notice unless he shall not be able
in that time to complete any Set of work he may have undertaken
in which case J. J. S. to stop with W. D. his Ex^s. Adm^s. or
Ass^s. till such work is so finishd if required by W. D. his
Ex^s. Adm^s. or Ass^s.
“W. D. having been a great looser by J. J. S. under a former
Agreement, it is now agreed that W. D. his Ex^s. Adm^s. or
Ass^s. shall have the liberty to pay J. J. S. for his Work
either by the day at four shillings p^r day of 10 hours (to be
the same hours which other Workmen work for a day from time to
time in the Porc^n. Manufactory at Derby) or by the piece as
aftermentiond at their option when any piece of Work shall be
finished.
“The prizes for each Male or Female Human Figure to be Modeld
by J. J. S. from any sketch either on paper or in Clay &c. as
highly finished as the Russian Shepherd Group--Palemon & Lavinia
Group--Blind Beggar & Daughter D^o. modeld for W. D. by J. J. S.
some time since to be
£ _s._ _d._
If 4 Inches high & not exceding 5 In. 6 6
„ 5 „ „ 6 „ 8 0
„ 6 „ „ 7 „ 11 6
„ 7 „ „ 8 „ 13 6
„ 8 „ „ 9 „ 16 0
„ 9 „ „ 10 „ 18 6
„ 10 „ „ 11 „ 1 1 0
„ 11 „ „ 12 „ 1 4 0
„ 12 „ „ 13 „ 1 8 0
„ 13 „ „ 14 „ 1 13 0
„ 14 „ }
„ 15 „ }
„ 16 „ } and so on in proportion.
„ 17 „ }
„ 18 „ }
Intermediate Sizes in proportion.
“J. J. S. to go to Derby at his own expence & to begin work in
28 Days after his signing this Engagement. In the mean time
Mr. Lygo to pay him from the Time he signs this Agreem^t. 5/-
p^r. Week to be repaid by J. J. S. by Weekly Stoppages of Eight
Shillings.
“J. J. S. in all other particulars to work at & be subject to
the same rules, orders, & regulations as the rest of the Workmen
of the Manufactory at Derby.
“All Sketches to be made whether in Clay or on paper, &c., under
the direction of Mr. D. his Ex^s.] Adm^s. or Ass^s]. by the day
without limitation of time. J. J. S. to do the best he can in
this particular to dispatch business.
“J. J. S. & W. D. agree hereby to execute regular articles of
agreements conformable to the above specified heads so soon as
the same can conveniently be prepared, under the Penelty of One
Hundred Pounds. Signd this 10^{th} day of Jan^y 1795.
“SPENGLER
“Witness--JOSEPH LYGO.” “_Modeler._
In a letter dated February 3, 1795, it is said “Spangler will
set off for Derby tomorrow, he intends walking as it will not be
so expensive and he may as well be walking to Derby as stay here
doing nothing.” How long he remained in Derby after this I have
not ascertained but as Mr. Duesbury died the following year,
and things went very awkwardly, it is probable he did not long
remain.
PIERRE STEPHAN, another Frenchman, was for some years a modeller
and china maker at Derby, and produced many lovely groups and
single figures. He removed to Jackfield, where he commenced a
small pot-works, producing not only earthenware, but encaustic
tiles. His son, Mr. Peter Stephan, is, at the time I write, a
skilled modeller at the Coalport China Works. (See page 305,
vol. I.) By articles of agreement entered into on the 17th
September, 1770, “between Peter Stephane of Derby in the County
of Derby, Modeler and China or Porcelaine Repairer of the one
part and William Duesbury of the same place China or Porcelain
Manufacturer of the other part” he binds himself for three
years “to employ himself in the art of Modelling and Repairing
China or Porcelaine Ware” at £2 12_s._ 6_d._ per week. The
agreement is signed “Pierre Stephan” and “William Duesbury,”
and is attested by “Constantine Smith,” “Friederick Decuber,”
and “Thos. Morgan, Junr.”--names which will be found noticed
elsewhere. In 1795 Stephan was at Shelton, and while there
continued to model for and send moulds to Mr. Duesbury.
FIDELE DUVIVIER, a Frenchman, entered into an engagement with
the elder Mr. Duesbury in 1769. The agreement (duly signed by
both Duesbury and Duvivier, and attested by “John Bosher” and
“S. Horrocks,”) is dated 31st October, 1769, and is “between
Fidelle Duvivier of the borough of Derby China or Porcelain
Painter,” and “William Duesbury of the same place China or
Porcelain Manufacturer,” and covenants that the former shall,
for four years from that date, “diligently and faithfully
according to the best and utmost of his skill and knowledge,
exercise and employ himself in the Art of Painting China or
Porcelain Ware,” for the weekly wages of 24_s._; Mr. Duesbury
agreeing, at the end of that time, to give him an additional
five guineas “in case he shall merit the same.” He became the
principal flower painter at the Derby Works, and his style
was much followed by the later painters. Duvivier remained
some years at Derby, and then left, being afterwards employed
at Wedgwood’s and various other places. In 1790, being then
employed at the New Hall Works (which see), he wrote the
following letter to the then Mr. Duesbury, and in consequence, I
believe, he returned for a time to Derby:--“Hanley green, the 1
novebr 1790, Mr. Dousbery, Sir,--take the liberty Adressing you
with a few lines, as mine Engegement in the new Hal Porcelaine
manufatory is Expierd, and the propriotors do not intend to
do much more in the fine line of Painting, therefor think of
Settling in new Castle under lime being engag’d to teech Drowing
in the Boarding School at that place, one School I have at
Stone, so as to have only three days to Spare in the week for
Painting, wich time Could wish to be employ’d by you preferable
to eany other fabricque, because you like and understand good
work, as am inform’d, my painting now to watt I did for your
father is quit diferent but without flatering my Self, Hope to
give you Satisfaction, in Case you Schould like to inploy me,
Sir,--your anser will much oblige your Humble Servant, DUVIVIER
P.S. the conveyance would be much in fevoir for to Send the ware
to and from as ther is a waggon Every week from darby to new
Castle”
WILLIAM J. COFFEE, a modeller, who “made his mark” at Derby,
was the son of William Coffee, who worked either at Hempel’s
or Triquet’s pottery at Chelsea, and afterwards entered into
domestic service in a gentleman’s family. Coffee was, I believe,
brought up to some branch of the business with his father at
these Chelsea works, and was afterwards employed at Coade’s
Lambeth Pottery.[21] He first came down to Derby, I believe,
about the year 1791, and agreements were entered into between
him and Mr. Duesbury. I believe he at first came as a kiln-man.
He does not, as a modeller, seem to have made much head-way at
first, and even in 1794 the London agent wrote, “I do not much
admire Mr. Coffee’s modelling from what I have yet seen. The
figure No. 359 is one of the most stupid looking things I ever
saw, and the figure of Apollo in group No. 379 is very vulgar
about the bosom, for sure never such bubbys was seen and so much
exposed--the design is pretty enough.” Soon after this a fresh
agreement was entered into as to prices to be paid for figures
according to size by the piece, or at day’s wages; Mr. Duesbury
covenanting to have the option of paying him after the rate
of 3_s._ 6_d._ per day for each day of 10 hours that he works
at the manufactory, “or at the rate of 7_s._ for any single
human figure of 6 inches high, whether standing or in any other
action, which if standing would be 6 inches high; and that all
figures shall be roughed out naked in correct proportions before
draped;” three pence for every half inch additional in height
being paid, and so on. On the 30th of January, 1795, a fresh
agreement was entered into:--“Memorandum--Whereas Heads of an
Agreement between Wm. Coffee and Wm. Duesbury were Executed by
W. C. and W. D. wherein 6 Months notice was agreed upon between
them when either wished to close the Agreement--It is hereby
agreed between W. D. and W. C. that the said Agreement shall
be cancell’d, and this Agreement stand in its place viz--W.
C. shall Modell for W. D. untill the 6th of July next at the
prizes which shall be paid by W. D. to the Modeller he has now
engaged to come down who is to have 4_s._ pr. day for such work
as he shall do by the day and various prizes by the piece in
proportion to their value when he works by the piece in lieu of
by the day--NB--This Agreement is not to be construed to imploy
that W. D. has agreed to raise W. C.’s wages by the day above
3_s._ 6_d._ when he shall chuse to imploy W. C. by the day in
preferance to his working by the piece--Signed this 30th of
Jany. 1795. NB--W. C. remarks, that he would wish to know before
he begins any piece of work whether the said work is to be
Executed by him by the day or by the piece, W. D. certifies by
this proviso that such was always his intention--W. COFFEE, W.
DUESBURY, Witness, Charles King.”
In the same year Coffee left Derby, and engaged himself with
Sir Nigel Gresley, Bart., and Mr. Adderley, at their china
works at Burton-on-Trent,[22] and immediately wrote as follows
to Mr. Duesbury:--“Burton on Trent J 4 1795, Sir,--My being
your Debtor makes it my Duty to inform you immediately of my
arrival here and likewise of my engagement with Sir Nigel
Gresley and Mr Adderley lest you should suppose that I had
forgot the Obligation I lie under to you--but am extremely
sorry to understand that you meant to injure me respecting my
Business as that would totally deprive my honest intention of
paying you, the mode of which I shall be happy to submit to
your own satisfaction when I wait on you, I intend as soon as
possible.--I am sir your h servant, W. COFFEE.” To this Mr.
Duesbury returned a manly letter, denying the imputation, asking
for the name of Coffee’s informant, and assuring him that he has
only to make the mode of repayment quite convenient to himself.
In the same year the father of Coffee thus wrote:--“London Sepr
9th 1795, Sir,--My Son since He left you has been at Work near
your Manufactory for Sir Nigel Gresley which He says He inform’d
you of at the time--having finished all there was to do there He
is now return’d to London and out of Employ. As I was very sorry
for his leaving you and severely reflected on Him for it--He
now assures me that He shou’d be extremely happy to serve you
again--for a constancy if you thought proper under an Article
for a Term of Years--at the lower rate of 18 or 17 Shillings pr
week--He gave Sir Nigel the greatest satisaction both in His
behaviour and in His Business--as a proof of which Sir Nigel
has offer’d to give Him the best of Characters at any time it
shou’d be requir’d of Him--therefore Sir you cou’d be satisfied
in that respect at any time you pleas’d--hoping whatever may
have happen’d at any time disagreeable your goodness will
forget--Your condescention in favouring me with an Answer
directly will much oblige Sir Your most humble Servant WILLIAM
COFFEE P.S. He is wiling to repair or do what work you think
proper. I will attend Mr Ligo hopeing your kind Answer.” The
result was that Coffee returned to Derby; worked at the china
factory as of old; and afterwards commenced business on his
own account in Derby. Here he produced terra-cotta figures of
considerable merit and in tolerable variety. Of these, a wolf,
a lion, a dog, and others are strikingly good. He stamped his
productions with his name, “W. COFFEE, DERBY,” and occasionally
the number, or the date. He also gave lessons in modelling, and
turned his attention to oil-painting and sculpture. His statue
of Æsculapius, on the roof of the Infirmary at Derby, was his
principal work. It was executed in or about 1810.
RICHARD ASKEW was employed at the Chelsea works when taken to by
Duesbury, and came from there to Derby in 1772. His name occurs
regularly in the “weekly bills” at Chelsea where he received
4_s._ 2_d._ a-day wages. The following is an account for extra
work done by him:--
£ _s._ _d._
2 Perfume pots in figuars 1 16 0
2 Row wagons in figuars 1 10 0
----------
£3 6 0
Recid. £2 2_s._ ----------
April the 30, 1771. RICHARD ASKEW.
ROBERT ASKEW, his son, was employed at Derby in 1772, and
in that year, along with John Laurence, absconded from his
employment, and was advertised three different times in the
Birmingham newspapers. In 1794 Askew, “enamel painter of
Birmingham,” was living in Birmingham (at 8, Friday Street),
and on the 2nd of August an agreement was drawn up, by which
he bound himself “to work by the piece in lieu of the day, and
at prizes mentioned in the ajoining list;” the subjects to be
executed in the best manner in his power, and not agreeable to
the coffee cans already executed, viz., Duke of York, King and
Queen of France, and Spinning Wheel, &c., but in quality and
effect equal to the Cupids on two flower pots by James Banford
having R. Askew’s name written upon them (to prevent a mistake
in alluding to them) in ink, subscribed this day in presence
of Mr. C. King. The list of prices by the piece, attached to
the draft of the agreement, is of great interest, but too long
to insert. The coffee cans here named were some then recently
painted by Askew, and as the bill for them contains many curious
items and much valuable information on the Art-productions of
that day, I give it entire. This bill, and many others which are
still extant, show that Askew was the principal figure-painter
employed at the Derby China Works. It is headed, “_Mr. Wilm.
Duesbury, Deptur to Rich^d. Askew, July 1794_.”
“a coffe can, with the king of france, one days work 0 5 3
a coffe can, with the Queen of france, one day 0 5 3
a coffe can, with a woman spining, one Day 0 5 3
a coffe can, with the head of the Duke of york, one day 0 5 3
2 coffe cans, with cupeds, tow Days & a half 0 13 1
a cadle cup, with a woman & child, tow days 0 10 6
a cadle cup, with a begar-Girl & child, tow days 0 10 6
a coffe can, a woman holding flowers siting, a day &
half 0 7 10
a flower Pot, with a woman & child, tow days 0 10 6
a cadle cup, with a woman & a Lion, tow days 0 10 6
2 coffe cans, figuors of fath & hope, to days & a half 0 13 1
a cadle cup, with the fourting-teller, three and a
half days 0 18 4
a coffe can, with the head of the Prince of Wails,
tow days 0 10 6
a coffe can, with a Girl & bird, one Day & a half 0 7 10
2 coffee cans, with cupids, tow Days and a half 0 13 1
a cadle cup, with a woman siting at Woark, tow days 0 10 6
a cadle cup, with Doatage and beauty, three days 0 15 9
a cadle cup, with Age and youth, three Days 0 15 9
2 coffe cans, with cupieds, tow Days and a half 0 13 1
a coffe can, with a man & woman offiring to Cuped,
3 days & a half 0 18 4
a coffe can, with cupied chiding Venus, 3 days & a half 0 18 4
2 cadle cups, first & scount lasson of love, Eaght Days 2 2 0
a Plate, with a head, half a Day 0 2 7
a cup & scarcer, with landsceps, one Day 0 5 3
a coffe can, with a Girl & a Rabbet, tow Days 0 10 6
a coffe can, with bebe & Eagle, tow Days 0 10 6
2 coffe cans, with the Prince of Wails & Dutches of
york, 4 days 1 1 0
a coffe can, with maid of Corinth, four Days 1 1 0
a coffe can, with love sleeps, four Days 1 1 0
a coffe can, with sapho & cuped, 3 Days & a half 0 18 4
a coffe can, with a offering to cuped, 3 Days & a half 0 18 4
for Drawings, tow Days & a half 0 13 1
a cup & sacer, in brown, half a day 0 2 7
a coffe can, in brown, half a Day 0 2 7
a Plate, with Plamon & lavinea, 3 Days 0 15 9
2 coffe cans, with single figuars, tow Days 0 10 6
a Plate, with a cupied & Emblems, tow Days & half 0 13 1
12 Tea cups, in brown figuars, three Days & a half 0 18 4
a Plate, with a cupied only, a Day & a half 0 7 10
8 coffe cans, single figuars, Eight Days 2 2 0
2 coffe cans, with figuars, Day & a half Each 1 11 6
4 coffe cans, with the four Elements, 4 Days Each 4 4 0
to three weekes Drawing of cupieds 4 14 6
4 coffe cans, with figuars, a Day & half Each 1 3 7
4 coffe cans, with figuars, a Day & half Each 1 10 6
a coffe can, with the Duke o york, tow Days 0 10 6
a Pair, with figuars, 5 Days 1 6 3
2 chamber Pots, with cupieds in the inside, 4 days 1 1 0
a coffe can, with the Prince of Wails 0 10 6
to Drawing of cupieds, 5 Days 1 6 3
a stand, with cupieds, in Rose couler, Day & half 0 7 10
a cram Pot, in D^o, half a Day 0 2 7
a cram Pot, with figuar in brown, half a Day 0 2 7
4 coffe cans, with dancing figuars, 5 Days 1 6 3
4 coffe cans, with the Elements, 4 Days 4 4 0
a cadle cup, with a woman & children a brakefarst,
3 Days & half 0 18 4
a cadle cup in D^o, at supper, 3 Days & a half 0 18 4
a stand, a tay Pot, 2 coffe cans, a sugar Bason and
cram Pot, work warry heily & neatly finish^d by
Pertickler Desier, 5 weekes 7 17 6
5 cups, in landskips, 2 Days 0 10 6
------------
£61 0 4
------------
the subjects on the stad, 3 womans & cupied tyde to a tree.
on the coffe cans, to woman offereng to Pan & to woman awaking
of cupied.
on the Tea Pot, maid of Corinth & love sleeps.
on the sugar-Bason, Euphorsnay & cuped.
on the crame Pot, a flying cupied.
Dilevered October the 3, 1795.
£ _s._ _d._
1. 2 coffe cans, with the King & Queen of france 0 10 0
2. 1 Do, with the duke of yorke 0 5 0
3. 1 D^o, with the spining weele 0 3 0
4. 2 D^o, with Cupets 0 10 0
5. 1 cadle cup, with a woman & child 0 7 0
6. 1 D^o, with Begar Girl & child 0 7 0
7. 1 coffe cup, with a woman siting 0 5 0
8. a flower Pot, with a woman & cupet 0 9 0
9. a Cadle cup, with Hosea & a Leon 0 7 0
10. 2 coffe cans, with hope & fath 0 10 0
11. a cadle cupe, with the fortin teller 0 14 0
12. a coffe can, with a head of the Prince of Wales 0 7 6
13. a coffe can, with a Girl & bird 0 5 0
14. a cadle cup, with a woman siting at work 0 7 0
15. a cadle cup, with doatage & beauty 0 12 0
16. D^o, with age and youth 0 12 0
17. 2 coffe cans, with cupets 0 10 0
18. 2 cadle cups, first & secont leson of love 1 8 0
19. 2 coffe cans, with venus and cupet &
sacrafise to love 1 10 0
20. a Plate, with hand 0 2 0
21. a cup & saucer, with Landsceps 0 6 0
22. 2 coffe cans, hebe & the child & rabbet 0 18 0
23. 2 coffe cans, with heads of the Prince of
Wales & Dss of York 0 15 0
24. a coffe can, with the maid of corneth 0 15 0
25. a coffe can, with love slepes 0 15 0
26. a coffe can, with sappho to Phaon 0 15 0
27. a coffe can, with offering to cupet 0 15 0
28. for Drawings 0 12 0
Deliverd. November the 26, 94. ------------
RICHARD ASKEW. £15 11 6
------------
WILLIAM BILLINGSLEY, whose name is more intimately mixed up
with the history of porcelain than most of his contemporaries,
was a china painter of unusual excellence, and a practical
maker as well. Like many another man of genius, he was,
however, unstable and erratic in his movements; but to this
very quality we are indebted for the establishment of more than
one eminent manufactory. To him and his practical skill is due
the establishment of china-works at Pinxton, at Mansfield, at
Nantgarw, and at Swansea, and to some extent the improvement
of the ware at Coalport and at Worcester, as well as much of
the high class of decoration at the old Derby Works; and he has
thus “left his mark” on the history of Ceramic Art. Billingsley
was a man of great genius, of extraordinary talent, of extreme
ability as an artist, and of skill as a practical potter; but
wanting stability, he became but a living illustration of the
adage which says “a rolling stone gathers no moss.” He settled
only for a very short time anywhere before he again moved; but
wherever he did remain, if only for a short time, he left the
impress of his name and the most indisputable evidence of his
skill behind him. William Billingsley was the eldest son of
William and Mary Billingsley, of the parish of St. Alkmund,
Derby. He was baptized in that church on the 12th of October,
1758. The following is the entry of his birth:--“1758, Oct.
12, Baptized, William, the son of--Billingsley and--his wife.”
Other entries in the register show that the names of his parents
were “William” and “Mary.” His father died in March, 1770, when
he was only twelve years of age.[23] Four years afterwards,
on the 26th of September, 1774, when sixteen years of age, he
was bound apprentice to William Duesbury. In the indenture he
is described as “William Billingsley, son of Mary Billingsley,
of Derby, in the county of Derby,” and he is bound apprentice
for five years to “William Duesbury, of Derby aforesaid,
China or Porcelain Maker,” to “learn the Art of Painting upon
China or Porcelain Ware.” He was to receive as wages five
shillings per week for the whole time of his servitude; not an
advancing scale year by year as was usual. The indenture is
signed by “William Billingsley,” “Mary Billingsley,” and “Wm.
Duesbury,” in the presence of “Wm. Clarke.” To Mr. Duesbury
he served the full time of his apprenticeship, during which
time he received considerable instruction as a painter, from
Zachariah Boreman,[24] one of the best artists of the old
Chelsea Works, who had removed with those works to Derby. On
the 4th of November, 1780, William Billingsley, then just over
twenty-two years of age, married, at St. Alkmund’s Church,
Derby, Sarah Rigley, of that parish, by whom he had several
children, three of whom were baptised at St. Alkmund’s Church.
On the expiration of his apprenticeship, William Billingsley
continued in the service of Mr. Duesbury, and by his extreme
skill as a flower-painter became the best artist in that line
of decoration. In 1785, Mr. Duesbury died; and the business
was carried on by his son, with whom Billingsley and other
artists remained for some years. Soon after this time some
correspondence having taken place between Mr. Duesbury and Mr.
Coke concerning the properties of a bed of clay at Pinxton,
in Derbyshire, which it was considered would be useful for
the manufacture of china, trials were made, which ultimately
resulted in Billingsley making an arrangement with Mr. Coke for
the establishment of a manufactory at that place (see Pinxton).
Billingsley’s name frequently occurs in papers and memoranda
relating to the Derby China Works in my possession, and certain
patterns and designs in the old pattern-books of the works
are distinguished as “Billingsley’s flowers.” As it is highly
interesting to know what artists and other principal “hands”
were employed at the same time as, and worked along with,
William Billingsley, I give the following copy of a document
relating to the keeping of the men employed on one part of the
works from entering any other part:--“Derby China Manufactory,
23rd Nov., 1787. If any person in Future, either within the
working Hours or at any other time, is seen or discover’d in
the Rooms, Kilns, Apartments, or other Premises of the other
(not having any proper Business relative to his particular
Occupation there) he will positively be fined the sum of five
Shillings. The Fines (if any are incur’d) to be put into the Box
of Donations at pay time, on the Saturday after the detection.
“J. Duesbury.
Boreman.
Smith.
Billingsley.
Stables.
Jno. Yates.
Wm. do.
Longdon.
Tayler.
Blood.
Cooper.
Butler.
Soar.
Dickinson.
Kay.
Fogg.
Webster.
Clarke.
Barton.
Mason.
M. do.
Atkins.
Wedgwood.
Ash.
Morledge.
Watthews.
Lawrence.
Whitaker.
Porter.
T. Moore.
Shipley.
B. Orme.
-----[26]
Wells.
Keen.
Parish.
Spooner.
Son.
Wardle.
Rogers.
Musgrove.
Morrell.
Robins.
Horsley.
Green.
Lovegrove.
Whitiall.
G. Holmes.
Hill.
Farnsworth.
Whitaker.
Laurance.
Atkins.
Morledge.
Wedgwood.
Ash.
Wathews.
Ball.
Thos. Soare.[27]
Jos. Stables.
Wm. Cooper.
Jno. Yates.
Wm. Billingsley.
Jno. Blood.
Wm. Yates.
Wm. Longdon.
Wm. Taylor.
Jno. Buttler.
Wm. Smith.
Z. Boreman.”
Again, in 1788:--
“In November last notice was given that persons of _one_ branch
of the manufactory were not to go into the premises of the
_other_, unless they had real business there relative to theire
_particular occupation_, notwithstanding which the practice
is still by some Individuals continued. Notice is therefore
hereby _finally_ given, that if any person in future (having
received this Notice) shall intrude themselves contrary to this
injunction they will positively be fined 5 shillings.
“Sept. 24th, 88.
“Boreman.
Billingsley.
Jno. Yates.
Wm. do.
Taylor.
Smith.
Borton.
T. Rogers.
T. Simes.
Webster.
Soare.
Stables.
Cooper.
Josph. Doe.
Longdon.
Blood.
Buttler.
Key.
Fogg.
Clarke.
Dickinson.
M. Mason.
Shirley, Arthr.”
The following is also an interesting document, signed by
Billingsley along with other artists:--“From the many injuries
done to the trade by employing Women in Painting of China, &c.,
Particularly not being employ’d in London in any Painting or
Gilding Shop whatsoever, we hope you will not withstand Granting
us the favour of their not being employ’d here.
“Edwd. Withers.
Samuel Keys.
Jno. Brown.
Wm. Cooper.
Wm. Longdon.
Wm. Yates.
Thos. Rogers.
Benj. Brocklesby.
Jos. Stables.
Billingsley.
Soare.
Jno. Yates.
Wm. Taylor.”
In this matter of opposition to the employment of women
Billingsley seems, later on, to have relented, as will be seen
by the following very nice letter from Bernice Banford, one of
the female painters employed, and wife of one of the men:--“Sir,
I hope you will excuse me for takeing the liberty to trouble
you again, as my motive for writeing is to Return you thanks
for the Favour you was pleased to confer in allowing me some
work. I have only painted 4 Dozen and 3 plates, at 3_d._ each,
which I believe is Charged Right, but know not whether I am
so happy to merit your approbation in the Performance. Mr.
John Duesbury would have sent me more work, but Mr. Banford
Declin’d it till your return, as all the men (Mr. Bilinsley and
Mr. Complin Excepted) treated him in a very unbecoming manner,
and even threaten’d him if the work was continu’d to me, which
would at this time be of the greatest service to my Family, and
should be very happy to contribute to its support. Pardon me,
Sir, if I presume to say I am certain one word from you would
ease their Doubts and effectually silence them. I am, Sir, with
the greatest Respect, your Obliged, Humble Servt., BERNICE
BANFORD.--March ye 3.”
Billingsley appears to have been paid from about £1 10_s._ to £2
per week at the Derby China Works, and several of his accounts
and receipts are in my possession. In one of these (September
23rd, 1793), the balance due to him being £34 7_s._ 2_d._, he
asks for “a draft on London for £30 at twenty-one days’ date,”
on account, as usual, and acknowledges to having “lost some
little time, which in some degree differs from our agreement,
but it has been a matter of necessity, not choice;” and states
that as he shall “in the course of a fortnight quit the public
business,”--he at this time, as I gather, being landlord of a
public-house (the “Nottingham Arms” in Bridgegate, Derby)--he
shall be able to make up the time so lost. Again, receipts in
1793–4–5, show that he was still at that time in Mr. Duesbury’s
employ in Derby. It may be well, before proceeding further,
to say that, from a curious draft of an order to the painters
employed at the Derby China Works, in my own possession, William
Billingsley’s number which he was supposed from that time (not
long before he left) to mark on such pieces as he painted was
7. The document is so curious, and will be so interesting to
collectors, that I give it entire. It is as follows, and is in
the second William Duesbury’s own handwriting:--
“Every Painter to mark underneath each Article he may finish,
the number corresponding to his name, and any other mark which
may be required, in such manner as he may be directed (viz.):--
Thos. Soar 1
Jos. Stables 2
Wm. Cooper 3
Wm. Yates 4
Jno. Yates 5
6
William Billingsley 7
Wm. Longdon 8
Wm. Smith 9
Jno. Blood 10
Wm. Taylor (except on blue and white) 11
Jno. Duesbury 12
Jos. Dodd 13
The Painter in fine blue, and in laying grounds to use for his
mark the like colours.
Ditto, in other colours Orange-red.
Ditto, in Gold Purple.
“On omission of the above Injunctions, for the first Offence
(after this public notice), the person so offending shall
forfeit to the Box which contains donations for the Manufactory
at large, one-fourth of the value of the Article or Articles
found to be deficient in marking; for the second, one-half
of the value; and for the third, the whole of the value, and
discharged the Manufactory. And if any Painter is found working
at any hour contrary to those already appointed for Business,
without Permission or Orders, such person shall, for the first
offence forfeit to the Box 6_d._; for the second, 1_s._; for the
third, 2_s._, and so on, doubling each time.”
In 1795 Billingsley determined upon bringing his connection
with the Derby China Works to an end, and for that purpose
gave notice to his employer, Mr. Duesbury. Knowing how ill he
could be spared from the decorative part of the manufactory,
his employer endeavoured to retain his services, and, not
unnaturally, put various obstacles in the way of his leaving
Billingsley; however seems to have determined on the removal,
and much to his credit that that removal should be an honourable
one. The following letter shows his determination:--
“SIR,--From the circumstance that occurr’d when I was last
in Conversation with you, I am induc’d to take this mode of
informing you of my opinion on the subject then in question.
My opinion is, that I have fulfill’d the warning[28] I gave
(my reasons in support of which it is not necessary to advance
at this time). But as I am inform’d that you believe I have
some further time to work for you before the Warning is
fulfill’d--namely, to make up the time I lost in the six months
I was under warning, and as it is my wish to leave no ground
for dissatisfaction, I take this opportunity of informing you
that I am willing to come and Work that time according to that
opinion of the case. If the foregoing is according to your
opinion and desire, your being so kind as to send me advise to
that effect at any time in the course of a week, and likewise
the time I have to work according to the rule and opinion above
stated, I will attend your works accordingly. If I do not hear
from you in the course of the time above stated, I must then
conclude that you are satisfy’d, and the information that I have
receiv’d is without foundation. I am, Sir, your Humble Serv.,
WM. BILLINGSLEY.--Derby, Oct. 14, 1796.”
Shortly before this time Mr. Joseph Lygo, the London agent and
manager of the business of the Derby China Works, wrote to
his employer, Mr. Duesbury:--“I hope you will be able to make
a bargain with Mr. Billingsley for him to continue with you,
for it will be a great loss to lose such a hand, and not only
that, but his going into another factory will put them in the
way of doing flowers in the same way, which they are at present
entirely ignorant of.” Despite all this, Billingsley left the
Derby China Works, where he had been apprenticed, and in which
he had worked for twenty-two years, and in 1796 commenced, for
or with Mr. Coke, a small manufactory at Pinxton, near Alfreton.
Here his practical skill stood him in good service, and the
experiments he had long tried in china bodies were brought
to bear satisfactory results. He succeeded in producing a
granular body (the fracture having much the appearance of fine
loaf-sugar), very soft, but of extreme beauty. Here Billingsley
remained for about four years only, removing in 1800 to
MANSFIELD, where he started a small concern, which he continued
for about three or four years longer. Having once become
unsettled by his removal from Derby, Billingsley does not appear
ever afterwards to have rested long in any one place. In 1804 he
is stated to have commenced, or joined, some small china works
at TORKSEY in Lincolnshire; and a few years later he appears to
have started a china manufactory at WIRKSWORTH in Derbyshire--no
doubt being in part actuated in locating himself there through
the fact of the existence of a beautiful white clay being found
in connection with the lead mines at Brassington and other
places in its neighbourhood. In 1811 Billingsley removed to
Worcester, where he engaged himself with Messrs. Flight and
Barr, of the Worcester China Works. Here, as in some of his
other migrations, he was accompanied by his son-in-law, George
Walker, the husband of his daughter Sarah. Of the engagement of
these two at WORCESTER, Mr. Binns says: “In 1811, Billingsley,
the Derby artist, came to Worcester. As a clever flower-painter,
he was no doubt an acquisition, but that does not appear to have
been the object of his visit. Billingsley knew something of
making porcelain, and was possessed of a receipt which there is
no doubt he valued very highly. From Messrs. Flight and Barr’s
letter to Mr. Dillwyn, it would appear that he had endeavoured
to introduce this special body at Worcester, but we do not think
he was allowed to interfere to any extent in the manufacturing
department. Walker, Billingsley’s companion and son-in-law,
introduced a more important invention to the Worcester Works in
the _reverberating enamel kiln_. These kilns had been in use
in London and at Derby, but were now for the first time built
at Worcester. Up to this time iron muffles were used, but from
their arrangement requiring a preparatory kiln or muffle, after
the same manner as the annealing oven of a glass-house, they
were most objectionable, the ware having to be removed from one
to the other whilst very hot. Previous to this iron muffle, a
more original muffle still was used. The description given
to us quite accords with the engraving in Biancourt, with the
exception of the arrangement of the fire. In the old Worcester
kilns the space between the bricks and the iron case was filled
with small pieces of charcoal, and when the iron cover was
finally placed, it was also covered with charcoal; the fire was
then applied to the centre of the cover, and gradually extended
all over and down the sides until it got to the bottom; the
object of this arrangement was to get an equal heat all over,
which would not have been the case had the bottom been heated
first. The method of building these new enamel kilns was kept
as a great secret, Walker always working by night. He built
them both for Messrs. Flight and Barr and Messrs. Chamberlain.”
After remaining two years only at Worcester, in 1813 Billingsley
and Walker (the former under a name he had for cogent reasons
assumed--that of _Beeley_, this name being a contraction of
his own B[illings]ley, or B’ley, otherwise _Beeley_) left that
place and went to NANTGARW, a small, out-of-the-way village
in Glamorganshire, near Pontypridd, where they established
themselves and commenced making china. From here they sent up a
specimen of their ware to Government,[29] to show their special
body, and to seek Government aid; and the Board of Trade,
through Sir Joseph Banks, requested Mr. Dillwyn, of the Swansea
pot-works, to visit Nantgarw and report on the quality of the
ware. This visit of Mr. Dillwyn’s resulted in his entering
into an arrangement with Billingsley and Walker to transfer
themselves and their works to SWANSEA, where he built a small
manufactory for them, closely adjoining his other works. Not
long after this Mr. Dillwyn received a notice from Messrs.
Flight and Barr, of Worcester, informing him that Billingsley
and Walker “had clandestinely left their service,” and warning
him not to employ them. This occurred, I believe, in about two
years from the time of founding the Swansea China Works, and on
Mr. Dillwyn being assured by Messrs. Flight and Barr that china
with the granulated body could not be made to be commercially
successful, he gave up the manufacture, and dismissed
Billingsley and Walker, who then at once returned to Nantgarw,
where they resumed their manufacture of china, and produced many
beautiful services and pieces, which now fetch remarkably high
prices. The productions of this small manufactory having found
their way into some of the best London dealers’ hands, Mr. Rose,
of the Coalport China Works, feeling that the Nantgarw trade, if
allowed to continue, would seriously affect his business, went
over to Nantgarw, and after some negotiation, made a permanent
engagement with Billingsley and Walker, and bought up from them
at once their stock, their moulds, and their receipt for the
body, and removed them and all their belongings (as he did also
those of Swansea) to COALPORT. Thus the manufacture of Nantgarw
porcelain, just as it was approaching perfection and becoming
known, was, unfortunately, at once and for ever closed.
William Billingsley remained at Coalport[30]--living in a small
cottage a short distance on the Shiffnal Road--for the rest of
his days, which, however, were but few in number. In 1827 or
1828 (I am uncertain which), this remarkable man--one of the
_most_ remarkable in the whole line of English potters, and one
to whose artistic genius the exquisite decorations of some of
the Derby and of the Worcester productions are indebted, and to
whose practical skill and life-long energies so many important
factories owed their origin--passed away in complete obscurity
and in much greater poverty than his talents deserved.
George Walker, after the death of William Billingsley, removed
with his family to America, where he founded and built a
manufactory in New Troy, which he called “Temperance Hill
Pottery,” at which he and his family were, I am enabled to add
from reliable information, working to great advantage a few
years ago, and where, I believe, they still continue.
JONATHAN WEDGWOOD, “of the Borough of Derby, China or Porcelain
Repairer or Thrower,” was employed for some time at the Derby
Works. On the 2nd of December, 1772, articles of agreement[31]
were drawn up between him and William Duesbury, by which he
was to serve Mr. Duesbury for three years “in the Arts of
Repairing or Throwing China or Porcelain Ware,” at the weekly
wages of fourteen shillings “for every whole week” he “shall
work according to the usual hours of Repairing at the said Wm
Duesbury’s Manufactory in Derby aforesaid.” In the contested
election of 1776, a John Wedgwood, son of William Wedgwood, of
St. Peter’s Parish, Derby, claimed, through apprenticeship, to
be admitted and vote as a freeman, and before the Committee of
the House of Commons, was accordingly admitted. By the registers
of St. Alkmund’s, Derby, it appears that a Jonathan Wedgwood was
married on the 12th November, 1785--thirteen years after the
date of this agreement--to Mary Stenson; and that three years
before this time, 22nd Sept. 1782, an Amy Wedgwood was married
to Abijah Tyrrell, both of that parish. The probability is that
the Jonathan Wedgwood whose agreement I have quoted was born at
Ellenborough in 1735; that he migrated to Burslem (where one of
his children was born in 1757), and afterwards to Derby; and the
Jonathan and Amy, whose marriages are noted, were his son and
daughter. His name appears as one of the workmen in 1787.
Other artists, &c., were as follows:--
JOHN ASH, a thrower and presser in 1794.
JOSEPH BANCROFT, who belonged to the old Derbyshire family of
Bancroft, of Swarkestone and elsewhere, was apprenticed at the
Derby Works, and became a proficient in painting flowers, birds,
insects, and shells. He did not remain long after the expiration
of his apprenticeship, but worked for Copelands and others, and
lastly for Minton’s, in whose employ he died.
JAMES BANFORD, of London, a clever painter, was employed from
1790 till 1795. He removed from London to Derby in the middle
of 1790, his wife, Bernice Banford, and family following him
in August of that year. He appears, from penitent letters, to
have been, like many of the other hands, addicted to drinking,
and to have been of improvident habits. In one of his letters
(Feb. 1, 1794) he says, “I cannot help informing you that I
have been dissatisfied some time at the difference of wages
between Mr. Boreman and self. I am not conceited of my work, but
every man knows what he is capable of doing, and in any line of
painting china except landscapes, I have the advantage of Mr. B.
Cannot help observing that in the landscape line, when there is
anything minute or requires neatness, my optic nerves are to be
strained for 18_s._ pr week less, and tim’d to ten hours each
day at the manufactory.”
BERNICE BANFORD, wife of James Banford, china painter, was also
employed as a painter, but at her own house or lodgings. She
had a somewhat unsteady husband and a family to look after,
and seems to have been a great help to them. Here is her first
letter, asking for work, showing that she had been employed at
Wedgwood’s works in London; and another letter by her, when
objection was taken to her being so employed, is given on page
103. “S^{IR}, I beg pardon for addressing you on a Subject which
nesessety oblidge’s me to which is to Solicit the favour of a
little work in the painting way at home, I was brought up to the
business at Mr. Wedgwoods manufactory in London, and flatter
my Self I should be able to do the Slightest paterns on China.
I would S^{ir} very willinly Contribute any thing towards the
Suport of my family, and to assist my Husband to pay Some Debts
which we owe in Derby, which if I Should be so happy to obtain
Such a favour I Doubt not but we Should be soon able to Effect
and do better for our Family than at present. if S^{ir} you
would please to take it into Consideration by Permiting me a
little work, you would for Ever oblidge, S^{ir} your Hume Sert,
BERNICE BANFORD.”
W. BARKER, formerly of London, was employed between six and
seven years at the Derby Works, and left them in March, 1795.
RICHARD BARTON, the manager at Chelsea (it is he who makes out
all the “weekly bills” and receives and pays) was a modeller. In
1773 “Barton, modling 2 small antiquit vauses, £1 1_s._”
JOHN BLOOD was an apprentice at the Derby works, and became a
clever painter.
ROBERT BLORE, a late apprentice at the Derby works, afterwards
for a time produced on his own account small figures, vases,
&c., at a small place in Bridge Gate; he removed into
Staffordshire.
ZACHARIAH BOREMAN, one of the old Chelsea painters, employed by
Spremont, and afterwards by Duesbury, and came down to Derby
on the closing of those works, was for some time employed. In
1784 he left Derby and returned to London; but about 1794 fresh
articles of agreement were entered into, and a supplemental
agreement drawn up same day covenanted that “wherever three
shillings and sixpence per day occurs in the aforesaid
agreement, the words ‘seven shillings’ shall be inserted in Z
Boreman’s agreement, when regularly executed on stamps.” He
was to employ himself in painting, and in improving the enamel
colours, &c. He is said to have died in London in 1810.
R. B. BOWMAN, of Goswell Street, London, was engaged by articles
of agreement, dated May 6th, 1793, to come down to Derby, and
agreed to be there in three weeks from the 12th of that month.
A week afterwards, however, he begged to have the agreement
cancelled, as he had had “a beneficial offer in London, in the
engraving branch,” at 30_s._ a week.
GEORGE BRADBURY, son of William Bradbury, of Little Chester, Labourer,
was bound apprentice on the 10th of March, 1765, for seven years, to
“William Duesbury of Derby aforesaid (altered by the pen to “in the
said county”) China or Porcelain Maker,” “to learn the Art of Repairing
China or Porcelain Ware.” (The indenture is printed on a skin of
parchment; the name “William Duesbury, of Derby, China or Porcelain
[ ],” being printed with the rest, and a blank left for writing in
“maker,” “painter,” or the like.)
THOMAS BRENTNALL, a flower-painter.
JOHN BREWER, an artist of repute in London, who had previously,
as early as 1782, been employed by Mr. Duesbury, was engaged
by him in 1795, and removed with his family to Derby. He was
engaged to paint figures, animals, landscapes, and flowers by
the piece, a schedule of prices being drawn up for that purpose;
and to be assured that he should not have less than a guinea and
a half a week for the first year, and two guineas afterwards.
Until his engagement with Mr. Duesbury he had not painted on
china, and therefore had to make himself acquainted with the art
after his arrival. Brewer later on gave lessons in drawing in
Derby, and in 1811 held an exhibition of his drawings:--
“Mr. Brewer most respectfully informs the Nobility, Gentry,
Clergy, and others in Derby and its vicinity, that he has
arranged for their inspection his Specimens of Water-colour
Paintings as an Exhibition, consisting of more than two
hundred different Subjects, many of them quite new, and the
whole designed and painted by himself, which he hopes during
the interval of time not given to the festival will afford an
agreeable change of amusement. May be viewed from 8 in the
morning until dark at his house near St. Mary’s Bridge, Bridge
Gate, Derby. Admittance--Ladies and Gentlemen 1s., Children half
price. Mr. Brewer’s pupils free, also purchasers of Drawings.”
_Finished from April 29th._
2 Coffee cans and stands, Shipping N 1
6 Plates of plants 2
4 Comports of Landscapes 3
6 Comports of plants 4
2 Comports of plants 5
2 Coffee Cans Moonlight and fire 6
2 Coffee Cans and stands Birds 7
2 Tea pots Landscapes from Gilpin 8
1 Dejuneé of Birds 9
20 Plates of Rose border 10
1 Cream jug of Birds 11
1 Sugar bason Do. 12
2 Cabinet cups 1st and 2d Lesson of Love 13
12 Coffee cups of Landscapes 14
12 Plates of Landscapes 15
3 Comports Do. 16
1 Tea pot of Birds 17
--
83 Pieces to Sept^{br}. 8th.
_In hand._
2 Comports of plants.
4 Plates of do.
4 Coffee Cans of flowers.
1 Dejuneé of Ships.
1 Comport of Landscape, finished.
1 Cream jug Birds
1 Tea pot Do.
12 Saucers Landscapes.
2 Cans shipping.
1 Cream jug Do.
1 Sugar Bason Do.
--
30 Sept. 8th.
JN_o. BREWER.
ROBERT BREWER is stated to have been a brother to John Brewer.
He was a pupil of Paul Sanby. On leaving the Derby works he
commenced practising as a drawing master, and died in 1857.
BENJAMIN BROCKLESBY, son of John Brocklesby, of Derby, labourer,
was apprenticed, for seven years, on the 16th of September,
1783, to learn “the Art or Business of Painting Porcelain or
China Ware.” On the 24th of August, 1787 (Mr. Duesbury, to
whom he had been apprenticed, having died on the 30th October,
1786) he absconded, and on the 13th January, 1789, a warrant
was issued for his apprehension, and endorsed to be executed in
Middlesex and Westminster.
GEORGE BROUGHTON, a painter.
THOMAS BROUGHTON, painter, 1776.
JOSEPH BULLOCK, son of Joseph Bullock, of the borough of Derby,
Framework Knitter, was bound apprentice on the 23rd September,
1765, by the same printed indentures “to learn the Art of
Painting upon China or Porcelain ware.”
SEBASTIAN CLAIS, a Frenchman, was employed as a painter about
1772–9.
JAMES CLARKE, a painter and gilder, was apprenticed, and for
nearly 30 years remained, at the works.
WILLIAM CLEAVEY was also an apprentice, and became a
flower-painter.
GEORGE COCKER, born in Derby in 1794, was apprenticed at the
Derby Works about 1808, as a figure maker, and continued to work
there till 1817, when he removed to Coalport, where he is said
to have been much employed in making raised flowers. He next, in
connection with two partners, also workmen, commenced a small
manufactory at Jackfield, which, however, was closed in a few
months. He then got employment at the Worcester works, and in
1821 returned to Derby and again worked at the Derby China Works
till 1826. In that year he left, and in partnership with another
of the “hands,” Thomas Whitaker, commenced a china manufactory
in Friar Gate, Derby, under the style of “Cocker and Whitaker.”
The following is the announcement of the opening of these
works:--
“DERBY.--NEW CHINA WORKS, _For the Manufacture of Porcelain
Figures, Ornaments, &c._--MESSRS. COCKER and WHITAKER beg
most respectfully to inform the nobility, gentry, and the
public, that they have commenced the above business in FRIAR
GATE, DERBY, where they manufacture, and have now ready for
inspection, and sale, a numerous assortment of Goods in Biscuit
and Enamel, such as they hope will be found not inferior to
anything of the kind at present produced in this kingdom.
“Messrs. C. and W. have also a variety of TEA and DESSERT
SERVICES of modern and approved patterns; and by arrangements
already made, and a strict attention to the orders with which
they may be favoured, they hope to obtain the honor of that
patronage they now venture to solicit, and which it will ever be
their most earnest endeavour to merit.
“N.B.--Ladies or Gentlemen may have Figures, Ornaments, &c.
executed from models or drawings of their own.
“Friar Gate, Derby, Feb. 28, 1826.”
Their place of business was at the bottom of Friar Gate, near
St. Werburgh’s church; Cocker living on the opposite side of
the street, a little higher up, where he erected a kiln and
all the necessary appliances. The business, however, did not
answer well; the partnership with Whitaker was terminated;
and in 1840 Cocker removed with his family to London. Here,
in Chenies Street, Tottenham Court Road, he carried on his
business of china figure making, and had a small shop in
Regent’s Quadrant for their sale. This again not answering, he,
in 1853, obtained an engagement with Messrs. Minton and removed
to Stoke-upon-Trent, where he died, at the age of 74, in 1868,
His figures and busts, of which he produced a goodly variety,
were of small size, and were produced both in biscuit and
painted. They were very clever and meritorious. He also made,
rather extensively, as they met a ready sale, small baskets
of beautifully-formed raised flowers; and brooches and other
trinkets in the same way. In these he was assisted by his sons,
daughters, and nephew. Groups of animals were also produced.
GEORGE COMPLIN was one of the most noted painters at the works,
many of his landscapes being of high character. He must have
been an old man in 1794, for in one of his letters (Sept. 18) of
that year he says, “I think my hair admits of more respect.” In
the same letter he speaks of his employment, “the variety I do,
and the variableness of the work.”
WILLIAM COOPER was a clever flower painter, 1770–76.
WILLIAM COOPER, son of Sarah Cooper, of Derby, was apprenticed
for seven years on the 1st of January, 1777, to learn the “Art
of Painting upon China or Porcelain Ware.” His father also,
I believe, had been employed at the works about 1770, to his
death, in 1776.
WILLIAM CORDEN, born at Ashbourne, 28th Nov. 1797, and was
apprenticed to the Derby China Works in 1811. He remained some
time after the conclusion of his apprenticeship, and then
commenced as a miniature and portrait painter. In 1829 he was
employed in painting portraits at Windsor Castle, and from that
time continued to receive royal commissions. In 1843 he was
employed to paint by the Queen, and in the following year was
sent by the Prince Consort to the Castle of Rosenau, in Coburg,
to copy family portraits for him. He died at Nottingham, 18th
June 1867. A workman named Corden was also connected with the
Liverpool pot-works.
WILLIAM COTTON, a painter of landscapes and rural scenes, in the
early part of this century.
WILLIAM CRESSWELL, a flower-painter.
J. DEARE was a modeller of considerable note, in London, and was
employed by Duesbury to model various groups and figures in 1784.
WILLIAM DEXTER, a fruit, flower, and bird painter; became a
noted enamel painter and draughtsman. He died in 1860, and
his wife--Mrs. Dexter--was the celebrated costume lecturer on
“Bloomerism.”
RICHARD DODSON, a clever painter of birds, was the son of
William Dodson, one of the late foremen.
WILLIAM DIXON, a painter of humorous figure subjects.
JOHN DUESBURY, overlooker and private timekeeper.
ELIN was a painter and gilder from 1786 to 1795.
J. FARNSWORTH was an apprentice, and remained when out of his
time. He died in 1822.
JOHN FROST, son of William Frost, of Nottingham, was bound
apprentice to Edward Phillips, “China or Porcelain Painter,”
on the 16th of April, for seven years, “to learn the art of
Painting upon Porcelain ware,” and on the 25th of February
in the following year (1771) he was transferred, by fresh
indenture, to Mr. Duesbury.
WILLIAM GADSBY, of Little Chester, mould maker, bound himself
by agreement, dated September 2, 1772, for four years (“in the
Art of Making Molds”), at ten shillings per week; Mr. Duesbury,
in addition, agreeing “to give William Gadsby a Waggon Load of
Coals at the end of every year.”
WILLIAM HALL, a flower-painter.
JOHN HANCOCK, son of George Hancock, of Derby, was bound
apprentice for seven years, on the 29th of September, 1769,
“to learn the Art of Painting upon China or Porcelain or China
Ware;” to receive 1_s._ 6_d._ a week for the first year, 2_s._
for the second, 2_s._ 6_d._ for the third, 3_s._ for the fourth,
4_s._ for the fifth, 5_s._ for the sixth, and 6_s._ for the
seventh year. He became a very clever and successful flower
painter. From Derby he is said to have gone to Swansea for
a time, and from thence to have removed into Staffordshire.
In 1786–7, he was settled at Hanley, where he seems to have
remained many years, and occasionally supplied Mr. Duesbury
with enamel colours. He had a brother (probably George Hancock)
working for Mr. Duesbury in 1790. To him is due the invention
of gold, silver, and steel lustre, which, according to his own
account, written when at the age of 89, he first put in practice
at Spode’s manufactory. After working at many places--Spode’s,
Turner’s, and others--Hancock, about 1816, was engaged by
Messrs. Wedgwood as colour-maker and manager of one of the
departments of their works. He died in 1847, in the 90th year
of his age. Some receipts of his and of Aaron Hancock are given
in Shaw’s Chemistry. His five sons were all brought up to their
father’s business.
J. HANCOCK, jun. There appears to have been a second J. Hancock,
who was an apprentice and who absconded. He is described as “5
ft. 5½ inches high; dark brown long hair; between 18 and 19
years of age; had on a dark blue coat with yellow metal buttons
(rather too short for him), velvet breeches, and either a
striped velvet waistcoat, or red and white washing waistcoat.”
GEORGE HANCOCK, second son of John Hancock, removed to Derby
in 1819, and became a painter at the Derby works; and in 1820
his elder brother, John, also was there engaged as a colour
maker and painter. He died in 1840. George Hancock is said for
a time to have been employed by Billingsley at Pinxton and at
Mansfield. In 1835 he removed to Burton-on-Trent, having been
engaged by Mr. Edwards for those works. After many changes he
died in 1850. These two were uncles of Mr. Sampson Hancock, the
proprietor of the present Derby China works, whose father was
James Hancock. William Hancock, a son of the younger John, was
one of the last apprentices at the Derby works, and is now one
of the most successful designers in the potteries.
WILLIAM HAND, a handler and presser.
FRANCOIS HARDENBURG (lodged with a Mrs. Johnson), as he spelled
it himself, or Heartenburg, as it was spelled by Mr. Duesbury,
was a modeller in Derby in 1788 and 1789; having previously been
employed at Caughley. On the 8th of December in the latter year,
he was dismissed through repeated “idleness and ignorance.”
“Brosley, February 16th, 1789. Hon^d Sir, I take the Libberty of
wrightng to you not knowing aney other Name to truble in what
I ham going to aske I am a pirson in bunisness was a frend and
trusted Frances Hartinbirg. When at Mr. Turners Manufactory it
was not in His power to pay me before he Left, but Promised to
returne some as soon as he got worke as it is more than I Can
afford to loose Shall Esteeme it as a great favor if you will be
so good as to give leafe for one of your Servants to answer this
to let me know if he is there or not as he is not so gratfull to
answer aney letter That is sent to him. And ham Sir your Most
Obed. and Humbe. Sarvt., ANN OAKES. P.S. plest to Direct for Me
at the Tirkes armes, near Jacfield in Brosley, Shropshire.” He
afterwards resided in London.
JOHN HASLEM, a very late painter of flowers, figures, and
animals.
JOHN HENSON, one of the last apprentices, became a partner with
Mr. Hancock, in the present works in King Street; he died in
1873.
HICKEY,--“A Mons^r Mons^r Hickey, pres l’Hotel d’Angleterre a
Bruxelles,”--entered into negotiations with Mr. Duesbury in
1792; the correspondence having gone on since 1789. He was “a
native of Ireland,” “a man of reputation,” and a clever painter,
and “the first china burner in the world, who understands the
whole from the beginning to the end; if he (Mr. Duesbury) would
establish a Saxon manufactory,” &c.
HILL, a native of Warwickshire (commonly known by the
soubriquets of “Jockey Hill,” and “The Flying Painter,” through
his partiality for horses and horse-racing), a landscape and
flower painter of considerable note. After leaving Derby he
settled in London as a buyer and seller of old Government
stores, and died there about 1827.
JAMES HILL, one of the latest apprentices, became a clever
flower-painter. At the close of the works he became one of the
partners at the King Street works, and died in 1854.
HOLLAND, a flower painter.
WILLIAM HOLMES, a modeller of small animals.
WILLIAM HORSLEY, kiln man or labourer, and private
timekeeper, 1794.
DAVID KEEN, }
JOSEPH HALL, } “Fire-men,” all bound themselves by agreement
JACOB SPOONER, } for three years each, on the 2nd September,
ROBERT WOODWARD, } 1772, to employ “themselves in glazing and
THOMAS WARDLE, } burning of Porcelain, or in such other branch
SAMUEL WEAVER, } of the business” as Mr. Duesbury might think
WILLIAM WHITEHALL,} proper to employ them in, at six shillings
JOHN BUTLER, } per week each.
WILLAM YATES, }
SAMUEL KEY, son of Thomas Key, of Derby, who let out horses for
hire, was, in 1785, apprenticed to Mr. Duesbury, and died in
1850, in his 80th year. He was a painter of considerable skill,
especially in the fashionable Dresden style. After leaving
Derby, he worked for Minton’s at Stoke-upon-Trent. He drew up
a MS. account of the old Derby China Works, from memory, in
1837, of which he seems to have made two or three copies; one
of these is in my own possession. Three of his sons, John, a
flower-painter; Edward, a modeller; and Samuel, also a modeller;
were apprenticed at the works. The latter became a famous
modeller, and his statuettes of theatrical celebrities and
others were of a high order and became popular. He removed into
Staffordshire.
JOHN KEY, son of Samuel Key, also an apprentice, was a clever
painter of flowers, and afterwards a teacher of drawing, but
died young. His brother Samuel is a clever modeller.
JOSEPH LAKIN was employed in 1789.
JOHN LAWRENCE, “repairer,” was one of the earlier hands, and
in 1772 he, along with Robert Askew the younger, absconded
while under articles of agreement, and was advertised in the
Birmingham papers. On April 11, 1790, he wrote, “I now am in
employ for Mr. Turner, the Salop china manufactory.” This was
after he left Derby. In July of the same year, dating from
“Broasley, July 12, 1790,” he desires letters to be addressed to
him “at the China Works, near Bridgnorth, Shropshire.”
STEPHEN LAWRENCE was a clever moulder of ornamental ware.
CUTHBERT LAWTON, or LOWTON, was a painter of figures and general
subjects, including hunting scenes, which are said to have been
his forte.
LEONARD LEAD, of Belper, “wood collier,” executed articles of
agreement on the 20th May, 1790, by which he bound himself to
“burn, manufacture, and convert into charcoal in a good and
workmanlike manner, all the cord wood which he the said William
Duesbury shall have occasion to have converted into charcoal;”
not to work for any one else when he has any in hand for him;
and to be paid 7_d._ a quarter for every quarter of charcoal so
made. In this he continued till 1795, when Mr. Duesbury finally
gave up the use of charcoal. In a letter of Lead’s he says that
“for generations back, both of father’s side and mother’s, have
followed the above-mentioned business” of “coaling and cording
line”--_i.e._, charcoal burning. A son of his, of the same name,
was, I believe, apprenticed at the works as a flower-painter.
WILLIAM LONGDON, sen., was a china painter of considerable note
at the Derby Works.
WILLIAM LONGDON, jun., son of William Longdon, sen., china
painter, became an apprentice to Mr. Duesbury, July 5th, 1790,
“for painting or embellishing porcelain or earthenware.” In an
order in bastardy in 1799, he is described as a “china-painter.”
JOHN LOVEGROVE (the same as named on page 58 in my notice of the
Cock-pit Hill Works), EDMUND HOPKINSON, and JOSEPH KIRKLAND,
gilders.
WILLIAM LOVEGROVE entered into an agreement to work for Duesbury.
DANIEL LUCAS, a landscape and general painter, died in 1867. His
sons, John, William, and Daniel, were all apprenticed at the
Derby works.
MACLACHLAN, a painter of landscapes.
THOMAS MASON, of Derby, “China or Porcelain repairer,” bound
himself by an agreement, dated September 2, 1772, for four years
to Mr. Duesbury, at one guinea per week; Mr. Duesbury, by an
additional clause, promising “to make Thomas Mason a present
of five guineas at the end of each year over and above what is
specified in the articles (according to his service).” Later on
a Thomas Mason was a timekeeper.
M. MASON was an apprentice to Mr. Duesbury as a painter. He left
Derby and engaged himself to Mr. Barr of Worcester, in October,
1792.
GEORGE MELLOR, whose forte was painting flowers and insects, was
an apprentice but left and went to Pinxton. After that he was
employed at Coalport, and then in Staffordshire, but returned to
the Derby works. He died in 1861. His son, George Mellor (now
of London), was also a painter and gilder, as likewise was his
daughter Sarah.
WILLIAM MOORE, EDWARD BELFIELD, JOHN MORLEDGE, THOMAS TRUNDELL,
and JOSEPH SHIPLEY, were throwers in 1774–6.
JOHN MORLIDGE, son of William Morlidge, of Derby, hatter, was
apprenticed for seven years, on the 21st August, 1777, “to learn
the Art of Repairing of China or Porcelain Ware.”
MULLINS, a figure and landscape painter, was engaged for one
year certain to come down from London in 1795, to paint in
enamel on porcelain by the piece, at a fixed scale of charges,
on which for the first month he was to have 20 per cent., and
the second month 10 per cent. additional. The prices, in the
original list in my possession, are very curious.
JOHN MUSGROVE, kiln man and labourer about 1796.
WILLIAM PEGG, a Quaker, was a remarkable man in more ways than
one. He was a tolerably clever painter, but of a very erratic
and changeable character, and a religious enthusiast; indeed,
judging from his writings, there can be but little doubt that
he was not in all things perfectly sane. He wrote a singular
account of himself, “Traits in the singular life of that
persecuted man, for his obedience to the Truth, W_{m} Pegg, who
joined the Society of the People called Quakers in the year
1800,” in which he traced his descent from Abraham, “who is
said to be the Father of the Faithful,” because his family were
of the seed of Esau, red; and that on his mother’s side he was
descended from Ishmael, because she (his mother) and “all her
kin are swarthy and marked with a brown freckle.” William Pegg
was the son of Thomas Pegg, of Etwall, near Derby, who was a
gardener at Etwall Hall, and a member of the parish choir, where
he played the hautboy; from here he removed to Whitmore, in
the Staffordshire pottery district. William Pegg was born in
1775, and two years afterwards his father removed to Shelton,
where, at the age of ten, William Pegg was sent to work at a
pottery. At fourteen he was put to learn the painting on china
and earthenware, and when of age removed to Derby, and engaged
himself at the china works till he was twenty-three, when he
gave it up, and took to the stocking frame, at which he worked
at one place or other for twelve years. He then, in 1812,
returned to his old occupation, “making drawings and pictures
and painting china,” till 1820, when he again gave it up, and
commenced a small shop. He married Anne Hendley of Derby in
1814, and died in 1851. Pegg was a clever painter of flowers,
and his productions had the merit of being, in almost every
instance, painted from nature.
THOMAS PEGG, a brother of William Pegg, was one of the gilders
for many years.
WILLIAM PEGG, of a different family, was an apprentice at the
works in the beginning at the present century, but left, and
became a clever designer for calico printers.
ROBERT PENNINGTON, painter, 1775.
EDWARD PHILLIPS, of Derby, “China or Porcelain Painter,” by
agreement entered into September 2, 1772, bound himself as a
china painter, at twenty-five shillings per week. He afterwards,
I believe, removed into Staffordshire, where he carried on
business on his own account.
JOHN PORTER, son of Elizabeth Porter, of Spoondon, widow, was
apprenticed for seven years, on the 7th of April, 1777, “to
learn the Art of Painting upon China or Porcelain Ware.”
HENRY L. PRATT, a landscape painter, was apprenticed at the
Derby works, and afterwards, employed in Staffordshire. He
became a clever artist in oil, and died in 1873.
E. PRINCE, a landscape painter.
RICHARD ROBERTS, one of the Chelsea workmen, under Duesbury at
Chelsea, was a soldier and pensioner at Chelsea Hospital, and
was allowed occasional furlough to paint at Derby. Mr. Duesbury
endeavoured to procure his discharge, so that he might remain
with him. Here is one of the orders regarding him: “By Order of
Sir George Howard, K.B., General of His Majesty’s Forces, and
Governor of the Royal Hospital at Chelsea. Permit the Bearer,
Richard Roberts, a pensioner in the above-said Hospital to pass
from hence to Darby in Darbyshire, for the space of Two Months
from the Date hereof, and then to return to the above-said
Hospital. He behaving as becomeith. Given under my hand this
first Day of Dec^r. 1781. “L. GRANT, Adj^t.”
GEORGE ROBERTSON, a landscape painter, died in 1835.
ROBINSON, a landscape painter.
JOHN ROCKLEY, labourer; agreement for three years, from 1795 and
forward, at 9_s._ per week to be employed in the kilns, or in
any other manner.
THOMAS RODGERS was employed, at all events, from 1778 in which
year his wages were raised a shilling per week. He received this
addition for three years (£7 16s.) in January, 1782, after that,
till 1793, he received an addition of 3s. a week.
THOMAS ROGERS, timekeeper and labourer, 1780–95.
JONATHAN ROSE, a painter, came from London to Derby in 1780, and
was employed some time.
JAMES ROWSE, a late flower-painter. Now employed at the King
Street Works.
SARTINE was a modeller in London, employed by Duesbury in 1790,
on the recommendation of Vulliamy, to model figures.
CHARLES SHEEN, a clever thrower and presser, formerly of
Worcester, and in 1791, at the New Hall works at Shelton, was
engaged for Derby.
THOMAS SIMES (or SIMS) was an apprentice, from the age of 11 to
21, to Mr. Duesbury; in 1792 he absconded, and a warrant was
issued for his apprehension, and endorsed for the county of
Stafford.
MUNDY SIMPSON, a gilder and general painter.
WILLIAM SLATER, born at South Normanton, was an apprentice at
the Pinxton works, but came to Derby in 1813. He was a good
general painter. He died in Staffordshire in 1867. Two of
his sons, William and Joseph, were apprenticed at the Derby
works. They and their sons rank among the best painters in the
Staffordshire potteries.
CONSTANTINE SMITH, of Derby, in the county of Derby, preparer of
colours and porcelain painter and enameller, was one of the best
“hands” at the Derby works. On the 28th of October, 1773, his
son William Smith was bound apprentice to him.
WILLIAM SMITH, who had on the 28th October, 1773, been bound
apprentice to his father, Constantine Smith, to learn “the art
of preparing colours, and Painting and Enameling Porcelain,”
agreed with Mr. Duesbury, to whom he had “finished his time,”
and been since employed, in 1790, to employ himself “in
preparing enamel colours, painting china, or otherwise at
the discretion of Mr. Duesbury.” Up to this time he had been
receiving a guinea a week, but on the signing of this fresh
agreement Duesbury was to pay him £10 down, and to raise his
wages to 25_s._
JOSEPH SMITH was a landscape painter; he had 7_s._ a dozen for
painting teas No. 115 in 1792.
WILLIAM SMITH, son of Hannah Smith, of Derby, agreed “to make
colours for painting on china or porcelain ware,” and by
covenant entered into on the 23rd of November, 1778, agreed
as follows:--“I do hereby promise to pay to my mother, Hannah
Smith, weekly, and every week, out of the wages I may get under
Mess^{rs} Duesbury & Co., the sum of eighteen shillings, to
commence from this date and expire the 28th October, 1780.
Witness my hand, this 23_{d} Nov^r 1778.--W. SMITH.”
THOMAS SOARE was an apprentice to Duesbury, and afterwards
employed by him. He was son of ---- Soare, of Little Chester,
and was a clever gilder and arabesque painter. After leaving
the China Works, Thomas Soare commenced, in 1810, a small
business on his own account. The following is his advertisement,
copied from the “Derby Mercury” of April 5th, 1810:--“Enamelled
China.--Thomas Soare, with the greatest respect, begs to inform
the Nobility, Gentry, and Public at large that he enamels
Dessert, Breakfast, and Tea Services with Arms, Crests, Cyphers,
&c., in the most elegant manner and on the most reasonable
terms. His long experience in the Derby Porcelain Manufactory
encourages him to look with confidence for support, which it
will be his study to deserve and his pride to acknowledge.
N.B.--Ladies instructed to Paint china at their own apartments,
on reasonable terms. Navigation Row, near St. Mary’s Bridge,
Derby.”
THOMAS SOUTHALL, “son of Humphrey Southall, of the Borough
of Derby, Pincher,” was apprenticed on the 25th of December
(Christmas Day) 1772, for seven years “to learn the Art of
Painting upon China or Porcelain Ware.”
J. STABLES, a clever gilder, was employed for very many years.
JOHN STANESBY, a flower painter in the latter days of the works.
THOMAS STEELE, one of the later and more celebrated painters of
flowers and fruit, in the latter of which he excelled. He died
in 1850, in his 79th year. Three of his sons, Edwin, Horatio,
and Thomas, were apprenticed at the works.
MARTIN STEPHENS, then of Duke Street, St. James’s, London,
signed articles of agreement in 1794.
FRANCIS STONE, a skilled workman, was employed at all events
from 1770 to 1772, and probably much longer.
JOSEPH and THOMAS TATLOW were late apprentices and became clever
painters.
TAYLOR, at first a blue painter, afterwards became a clever
arabesque and Indian pattern painter. He painted the centres of
a service of plates for Mr. Digby in 1784.
JAMES TURNER, a late flower-painter.
S. or J. VIDAL, a painter, who, in August, 1793 till May,
1795, was living at “No. 1, Grosvenor Row, near the Bun-house,
Chelsea,” arranged, in the latter year, to leave London for
Derby “for six months every year, from June to January.” In
1793, he had sent specimens of his flower-painting to Mr.
Duesbury, and in doing so said, “As I have not painted anything
on china in this country, I am for that reason induced to show
what I am capable of doing in that line, being perfectly master
of the employment and direction of employing the colors, having
painted for about eleven years in the Porcelaine line,” &c.
JOHN WARDLE, “china painter” in 1800 (so described in an
affiliation order).
WATHEWS, a thrower and presser, was employed in 1787–90.
WILLIAM WATSON, a general painter.
H. WEBBER, a noted modeller, was employed in London by Mr.
Duesbury, and afterwards, in 1795, removed to Derby; the terms
of his engagement being shown in a letter from which the
following is an extract:--“London, Wed_{y}, July 15, 95.
{ N^o 4, Lisson Grove,
{ near Lisson Green.
“DEAR SIR,--When I had the pleasure of seeing you in Town, I
understood (or rather misunderstood) you was about to depart
for the Lakes; not for Derby: Therefore I had no intention
of writing to you ’till I shou’d have heard of your return
home;--But a call from M_{r} Lygo has set me right on that
head, and I lose no time to perform my promise; which I think
was, that as soon as I cou’d make up my mind on the matters
spoken of, to communicate it to you. Permit me then Sir briefly
to say, that the terms you propose--namely £100 pr. An^m. I
accept; with the allowance of a months vacation in the year
without deduction. But I find many obstacles arise which I am
sorry for--the detail of which I will not trouble you with;
but only beg leave to point out one of them,--which is--how to
get a tenant for the house I live in, and what relates to it.
However, I have requested the favor of M^r. Lygo to speak of
it to any friend he may suppose wou’d wish such a thing, and
have also spoken to other acquaintances and friends; and you
may rest assur’d Sir, that as soon as I can get rid of this
Stumbling-block (_which is indeed the principal_), I shall not
fail to use the utmost diligence in doing away every other in
hope to realize the pleasure I anticipate of paying my respects
to you at Derby. I am Sir, with Deference and Regard, Your Most
obed^t and very Humble Servant, H. WEBBER.”
MOSES WEBSTER, a flower-painter, was an apprentice, and
afterwards employed at the works. He was afterwards a teacher of
drawing, and died in 1870.
JOHN WELLS, a labourer, to be employed in any part of the
manufacture of china; fresh articles of agreement dated 1794.
WILLIAM WHEELDON (whose mother was a sister of the wife of
William Billingsley), was a clever flower painter.
JOHN WHITAKER, one of the workmen, in partnership with Mr.
Cocker, began in February, 1826, a china manufactory in
Friargate, Derby, but he failed in the same year. His son,
John Whitaker, began to work at the Derby China Works in 1818,
when only eleven years old, and in 1821 (Feb. 23rd) was bound
apprentice to Mr. Blore. In 1831 he became overlooker, and so
continued until the close of the works. Later on he was employed
at Minton’s and other places. He died in 1874.
RICHARD WHITAKER, a thrower and presser, employed in the
ornamental department, in which he was very clever, from about
1769 till 1786, when he died.
WILLIAM WINGFIELD, apprenticed at the works, was a clever
modeller, but died young.
JOHN WINROW, son of John Winrow, of Duffield, Innholder, was
apprenticed, by the same printed indentures, for seven years, on
the 6th of June, 1766, “to learn the Art of Painting on China or
Porcelain ware.”
EDWARD WITHERS, “of London, porcelain or china painter,” entered
into an agreement with Mr. Duesbury, on the 8th of May, 1789,
engaging himself for three years from the 27th of September
in that year “as a painter on porcelain” at the rate of 3_s._
6_d._ per day. It is said that he had previously been employed
at Derby, and from thence removed into Staffordshire, where he
worked as a china painter; then to Birmingham, where he worked
as a painter of japanned tea-trays. He is stated to have died in
Bridge Gate, Derby. A William Withers, potter, residing in 1778
at Rotherham, was in that year a voter at Derby.
WILLIAM YATES, a gilder.
JOHN YATES, general and flower painter and gilder, apprenticed
to, and afterwards employed by Duesbury about 1772. He is said
to have excelled in hunting subjects and flowers.
In 1876, while this chapter is passing through the press, new China
Works, on a large scale, are about to be established on the Osmaston
Road, Derby, by Mr. Edward Phillips, one of the proprietors of the
Royal Porcelain Works at Worcester; there is therefore at last the
pleasant prospect of one of the old staple trades of the town, that of
porcelain, being brought back in all its integrity, and carried on with
vigour and enlightenment.