Chapter XI (1)

Bristol--Delft Ware--Redcliffe Backs--Richard
Frank--Ring--Flower--Bristol China--William
Cookworthy--Richard Champion--Transference of
Plymouth Works--Extension of Patent--Wedgwood’s
Opposition--“Case” of the Manufacturers--Champion’s
Specification--Champion’s Productions--Edmund Burke--Bristol
Vases--Figures--Marks--Bristol Earthenware--Temple
Backs--Potters’ Songs--Temple and St. Thomas’s
Street Works--Temple Gate--Wilder Street--Bristol
Glass--William Edkins--Salt Glaze--Brislington--Crews
Hole--Westbury--Easton--Weston-super-Mare--Matthews’s Royal
Pottery--Poole--Architectural Pottery Company--Bourne
Valley--Branksea--Kinson.

BRISTOL.

The first record of pot-making in Bristol appears to have been in the reign of Edward I., but it seems certain that vessels were made in the neighbourhood in Saxon and Norman times, as well as in the earlier Celtic and Romano-British periods. Mediæval earthenware vessels of different periods, and probably made in the locality, have now and then been found at Bristol, and during the reign of Elizabeth, there is no doubt, a manufactory of fictile vessels was in operation.

“Six hundred years ago,” says Mr. Owen, “the art of pottery was practised in Bristol, but in what form is beyond our speculation. The record, though authentic, is too terse to give more than the bare fact, and the imagination must be fertile indeed that can supply the details. The Governor of Bristol Castle, under Edward I., in his accounts, preserved in the Pipe Roll for the twelfth year of that reign (1284), has an item--‘_pro terra fodienda ad vasa fictilia facienda_’--which shows that this claim for high antiquity is well founded.” Fragments of some curious pitchers and other mediæval domestic vessels are engraved by Mr. Owen, and appear to be of about the period alluded to.

* * * * *

_The Delft Works._--At the close of the seventeenth century, Delft ware was made here, and continued to be produced until about the time when porcelain began to be produced in the city. Many specimens of Bristol Delft ware have come under my notice, some of which are, fortunately, dated. The earliest dated example I have seen is a plate marked on the rim with the initials S · M · B,

B
and the date 1703, thus--S M. The ware is of a very nice
1703

quality, with a good glaze, and the blue of good colour. The next dated specimen, in chronological order, which has come under my notice is a Delft high-heeled shoe, or choppine, which is dated on the sole 1722, along with the initials M S--thus

M S.
1722

This very good example, which is said to be of Bristol make, was in possession of the late Mr. James, of that city. It is beautifully formed, has a buckle in front, and is flowered and bordered in blue. Two of these Delft stands in the form of high-heeled shoes, formerly belonging to Queen Charlotte, were sold at the Bernal sale. They were of an earlier date, and marked M I 1705. Another example in the same possession is a plate of the year 1740, bearing on its rim the initials R · S · P, thus--

17 P 40.
R S

One of the latest dated examples I have seen is the plate engraved on Fig. 735, which forms part of a set belonging to a descendant of the artist who painted it, and has remained in the family from the time of its manufacture until it came into my hands. It is a plate painted in a somewhat peculiar style, in blue, with a Chinese figure, trees, cattle, and birds, and having on its under side the date 1760, and the initials M · B · E, as shown on Fig. 736. These are the initials of Michael and Betty Edkins, of Bristol, of whom I shall have more to say presently.

Fig. 736.]

It may be well to remark, _en passant_, that this mode of placing initials, which is so usual on traders’ tokens, was the favourite way of arranging the initials of husband and wife, and they were so understood without using the short &. The upper letter was the initial of the surname, and those below of the Christian names of the husband and wife. Thus

E
M B

would read M & B E, and stand for Michael and Betty Edkins.

The Delft ware works were situated on “Redcliffe Backs,” near to the glass works of Messrs. Little and Longman. The names of the first potters are, as usual, lost, but in the early part of last century the works belonged to a Mr. Richard Frank, who seems to have been a man of standing in the place, and who employed, along with other workmen, a Mr. Thomas Patience, and a family of the name of Hope. Richard Frank, who had also works at Brislington, was the son of Thomas Frank, “gallipot maker,” of Bristol, who was married in 1697; he, the “gallipot maker,” is therefore the earliest recorded potter of this place. The goods produced at Richard Frank’s manufactory--who, as well as his father, is described as a “gallipot maker” in 1734–9 and 1754--were principally plates, dishes, and “Dutch tiles” for fire-places, dairies, &c. In the Museum of Practical Geology is a slab composed of twenty-four tiles, on which is painted in blue a view of St. Mary Redcliffe Church, Bristol. These were made by Richard Frank, about 1738–50, and the arms of Bishop Butler appear upon one of them. The tiles were all, of course, painted by hand, and we have it on the authority of Michael Edkins, himself the actual painter of the plate, Fig. 735, that the brushes which he and the other workmen used were made by themselves from the hairs pulled from the nostrils and eyelids of cattle. Michael Edkins, the painter of Delft ware, was, it appears, from Birmingham, where he was apprenticed to a house painter. His master dying before his term expired, he was of course left to shift for himself, and made his way to Bristol, where, becoming acquainted with Patience and Hope, he got employed at Frank’s pottery, where he became a “pot painter,” and continued in that employment till the Delft pottery declined, “when (in 1761) he became a coach and general painter and decorator, and quickly rose to eminence, was employed about most public works in the city, assisted in painting the bas-reliefs to the altar-piece of St. Mary Redcliffe, and also assisted Hogarth in fixing his celebrated pictures in that altar-piece.” He was also a successful actor at the theatre. One branch of his business that he now followed was “enamelling glass ware,” which he did for Little and Longmans, and their successors, Vigor and Stevens, whose glass house adjoined the Delft pottery on Redcliffe Backs. The works stood on what is now, at the time I write, Redcliffe Wharf, occupied by Mr. Cripps, general wharfinger, on the river Avon.

A plate bearing the words “Nugent only 1754,” was in all probability made by Richard Frank, who was a supporter of Nugent at the general election of that year. Another plate, commemorating the same year’s election for Tewkesbury, is supposed to be from the same works; it bears the words “Calvert and Martin For Tukesbury 1754 Sold by Webb.” Among other dated examples of Bristol Delft are the following, which may be from Frank’s pottery. A piece bearing the words “Ye 1^{st} Sept^r 1761 Bowen · fecit;” a pair of plates made for a member of the family of Davis, with the letters

D
T x H
1716

, and others with the following

H U ➕ D ELIZABETH IOHN
S x H 1760 BARNESS SAUNDERS
1751 1738 1754

“Hannah Hopkins Born Sep 17 New Style 1752,” occurs on a christening bowl in the Edkins collection.

A fine plate, painted by Bowen, engraved on Fig. 738, is in possession of Mr. Willet, of Brighton, who also possesses a grand tile picture, consisting of seventy-two tiles, painted with Hogarth’s “March to Finchley.” Mr. Fry has two clever tile pictures of nine tiles each, one representing a cat and the other a dog. On the collar of the latter are the words “_Bristol_, 1752.”

Later on Richard Frank took his son Thomas into partnership, and in 1777 the works were removed to Water Lane, to the manufactory which, in 1775, had been carried on by James Alsop, a brown stoneware potter. The following advertisement, of the year 1777, refers to this change: “Richard Frank & Son, Earthen and Stone Pot Works, are removed from Redcliffe Backs to Water Lane, where they continue the same business in all its branches.”

In 1784, Joseph Ring, rectifier and vinegar maker, who had married Elizabeth, daughter of Richard Frank (and was father of Sarah, the wife of Frederick Cookworthy, nephew of William Cookworthy), purchased the business of Frank and Son for £669 1_s._ 3½_d._ Mr. Owen prints the following extracts from the valuation for this sale. It shows that Richard Frank and Son were general dealers in all kinds of ware, as well as Delft and stone ware makers. The inventory is headed, “The Stock & Utensils in Trade At the Pot House in Water Lane, Bristol, as Appraised as following.” The following are some of the items; the whole of the plant being valued at only ten pounds:--

£ _s._ _d._
“Black Ware 27 6 2½
Red China Ware 3 16 2
Tortoishell Ware 0 18 0
Blue and White Sprig’d Ware 14 15 6
Blue and White Stone Staffordshire Ware 2 18 9½
Dutch Ware, 18 Jugs, one to y^e Warp 0 18 0
Delph Ware 7 5 0
21 Doz. and ½ Copperplate tiles 4 4 0
Best Nottingham Ware 25 16 8½
Blue China Glaz’d Ware 11 3 2½
Enamelled China Glaze Ware 14 8 11½
Common Enamelled Ware 3 13 3
Copperplate Ware 2 0 0
Cream Colour Ware 90 13 4½
White Stone Ware 52 0 9
Brown Stone Ware 159 16 11½
Materials, 27 tons Clay, 2/6 29 0 6
80 bags Sand, 1/2 4 13 4
11 Cut Salt, 5/6 3 0 6
Tools, 324 Pot Boards, 3 Benches, 1 Pounding
Trough, 1 Mixing Trough, 1 Clay Chest, 3
Compleat Wheel and Wheel Frames, with Working
Benches, &c., Moulds and Drums for making 10 0 0
Slugs, Kiln Ladder, Salting Boxes, Lignum
Vitæ blocks and Hand Mill
Old Iron Pot, in the Yard 0 4 6

Richard Frank died in 1785, aged about 73, and was buried in the Quaker’s ground at Redcliffe Pit. “Joseph Ring, successor to Richard Frank in the Pottery Business,” in his address stated that he “continues the manufactory of the Bristol Stone Ware, and sells all other sorts of Queen’s and other Ware wholesale and retail.” This last branch of his business he cultivated considerably, and appears to have traded with most of the manufacturers of the day. In 1786 Mr. Ring determined upon manufacturing Queen’s ware, and to that end engaged Anthony Hassel (or Hassells), a potter of Shelton, in Staffordshire, buying from him his stock and moulds, and removing them to Bristol.

In 1788 Mr. Ring took two partners, Mr. Taylor and Mr. Carter, he bringing in a capital of £3,000, and Messrs. Taylor and Carter £1,500 jointly. “The Stock and Utensils in Trade at the Pot House in Water Lane, as per Inventory taken this day,” January 9th, 1788, were sold by Mr. Ring to himself and partners, “under the firm of Ring and Taylor,” for £2038 1_s._ 10_d._ The manufacture of Delft ware then came to a close.

Another Delft ware potter was Joseph Flower, who, in 1775 lived at No. 2 on the Quay, and in 1777 removed to 3 Corn Street, where he put a sign-board, painted black, with “Flower, Potter,” in gold letters, for the painting of which he paid Michael Edkins 10_s._ 6_d._ Flower’s ware, says Mr. Owen, is thinner and neater in make than most British Delft; the glaze good, and the colour clear and brilliant in tone--indeed, in no respect inferior to Dutch. Fig. 739 is a plate belonging to a dinner service made by Joseph Flower, and now in the possession of his descendant Mr. J. Flower Fussel. It is painted with a Chinese pattern, and bears initial and dates varying from 1742 to 1750. The plate here engraved bears the initials (Fig. 740). In the same hands is a plate dated 1741–2, painted with a view of the river Avon and the old Hotwells House; and two dishes bearing the plan of a battle, and the words “The taking of Chagre in the West Indies by Admiral Vernon.”

BRISTOL CHINA.

The first mention of the making of china in Bristol occurs in a letter of Richard Champion, dated February 26, 1766. In July, 1765, a box of “porcelain earth” “from the internal part of the Cherokee nations, 400 miles from hence (Charles Town), on mountains scarcely accessible,” was consigned to him, by his brother-in-law, to be forwarded to the Worcester china works to be used there in experiments. The letter of advice was dated Charles Town, 1765. At the same time another box of this earth was sent to Champion for the Earl of Hyndford, who desired Champion to open it and try experiments, or give it to Thomas Goldney “who is a very curious gentleman.” In the letter of February 28th Champion, writing to Lloyd, by whom it was consigned, says Mr. Goldney has declined the clay. “I therefore,” he adds, “had it tried at a manufactory set up here some time ago on the principle of the Chinese porcelain; but not being successful is given up.” “The proprietors of the work in Bristol imagined they had discovered in Cornwall all the materials similar to the Chinese; but though they burnt the body part tolerably well, yet there were impurities in the glaze or stone, which were insurmountable even in the greatest fire they could give it, and which was equal to a glass-house heat.” These works he had personally, in November, 1765, spoken of as “a new work just established,” and says, “this new work is from a clay and stone discovered in Cornwall, which answers the description of the Chinese; but in burning there is a deficiency, though the body is perfectly white within but not without, which is always smoaky. This clay is very much like, but not quite so fine as the Cherokee; however there can be no chance of introducing the latter as a manufacture when it can be so easily procured from Cornwall.”[91] This “new work” which had been tried and failed was doubtless connected with Cookworthy of Plymouth. In 1764 he is spoken of as “the first inventor of the Bristol china works.” Champion, at all events, it is clear from the letters, had nothing to do with it, and probably his first idea of making china was got from the fact of the box of porcelain earth being consigned to him for the Worcester works. In March, 1768, Cookworthy, the discoverer of the material, the mainspring in all those matters, and the first to try experiments and bring to a successful issue the manufacture of porcelain from the Cornish materials he had found, took out his patent.[92] Soon after this the manufacture of china was again commenced in Bristol by Richard Champion. In 1771 a china manufactory, carried on by “William Cookworthy & Co.,” appears to have been in operation in Castle Green--the “Co.,” there can be no reasonable doubt, being Richard Champion and others. In May, 1774, William Cookworthy assigned his patent right, &c., to Champion, and the Plymouth manufactory, which had probably been previously removed to Bristol, was finally closed; in the rate-books the firm being, from 1773 to 1780, “Richard Champion & Co.,” in 1781 “Richard Champion” only; and in the following year the premises are stated to have been occupied by a pipe-maker named J. Carey.

“Every circumstance investigated,” says Mr. Owen, in his
valuable work “Ceramic Art in Bristol,” “proves that Champion
first commenced china-making under licence from the patentee
(Cookworthy). Mr. Edward Brice advanced £1,000 in aid of the
work in February, 1768; the partnership in 1768 consisted of
Richard Champion, Joseph Harford, and Thomas Winwood”--Harford
contributing £3,000 to the capital. On the 1st February, 1769,
the partnership was dissolved. Mr. Joseph Fry, without being
a partner, is also stated to have contributed £1,500 to the
scheme. In 1771 an advertisement of “Some beautiful dessert
services, ornamental figures, candlesticks, and many other
valuable articles of the Bristol manufactory,” were advertised
to be on sale “on retail at Taylor’s Hall” in that city.

In 1772, as Mr. Owen incontestably shows, the china works were in full operation in Bristol. On August 15th of that year the following advertisement appeared:--

“China. For Sale by Auction at the Taylors-Hall in Broad Street,
on Tuesday the 1st of September and the following days, Useful
and Ornamental China, The produce of the Bristol Manufactory,
consisting of very elegant Figures, beautiful Vases, Jars, and
beakers, with all kinds of useful China, blue and white and
enamel’d. To be sold without Reserve. J. Stephens, auctioneer.
The whole to be Viewed the Saturday and Monday preceding the
Sale, from Ten in the morning till Two, and from Three till
Six in the Afternoon. The Manufactory is still carried on in
Castle Green, where all persons may be supplied with useful or
ornamental China, Wholesale or Retail.”

In November, 1772, the following still more illustrative advertisement appeared:--

“China. At the Manufactory in Castle Green, Bristol, are sold
various kinds of The True Porcelain, Both Useful and Ornamental,
consisting of a new assortment. The Figures, Vases, Jars, and
Beakers are very elegant, and the useful ware exceedingly good.
As this Manufactory is not at present sufficiently known, it
may not be improper to remark that this Porcelain is wholly
free from the Imperfections in Wearing which the English China
usually has, and that its Composition is equal in fineness to
the East Indian, and will wear as well. The enamell’d Ware,
which is rendered nearly as cheap as the English blue and white,
comes very near and in some Pieces equal to Dresden, which this
work more Particularly imitates. N.B. There is some of the old
Stock, which will be sold very cheap.--Two or three careful Boys
wanted. ☞ Also at CADELL’S Tea and China Shop,
No. 20, in WINE STREET, is to be sold Retail, on the same Terms
as at the Manufactory, a new and elegant Assortment of the above
Porcelain.”

In January, 1773, as again shown by Mr. Owen, to whom the world is much indebted for many years’ laborious searchings into every available source of knowledge, and whom I have to thank for much information, another advertisement appeared as follows:--

“The True Porcelain, both useful and ornamental, Consisting of
a large and elegant assortment (Particularly some beautiful
Imitations of the Dresden) on any low Terms, to induce the
Public to encourage a Manufactory the first of the kind
introduced into England, and now brought to Great Perfection.
Its texture not to be distinguished from East India China, and
will wear equally well. Some of the old Stock selling remarkably
cheap.”

From these it is evident the Bristol works were carried on simultaneously with those of Plymouth in the last few years of those later works, and that, like Plymouth, “vases, jars, and beakers, very elegant,” were produced, as well as the ordinary classes of useful goods. In June, 1773, his prices are advertised as “Complete Tea Sets in the Dresden taste highly ornamented £7 0_s._ 0_d._ to £12 12_s._ 0_d._ and upwards. Tea Sets, 43 pieces, of various prices as low as £2 2_s._ 0_d._ Cups and Saucers from 3_s._ 6_d._ to 5_s._ 6_d._ per half-dozen, and all other sorts of useful Ware proportionately cheap.”

Whatever may have been the position of the manufactory at Bristol, and by whomever--whether “W. Cookworthy & Co.,” “R. Champion & Co.,” or “R. Champion” alone--it was carried on previous to that date, certain it is that (as I have stated) in 1774 Cookworthy sold his patent right, &c., to Champion, closed his Plymouth works, and from that time forth ceased to have any connection with china making.

In 1774, then, “Richard Champion, of Bristol, merchant,” became possessed of Cookworthy’s patent. The deed of assignment of the patent rights, &c., from Cookworthy to Champion, is dated May 6th, 1774, and among other “considerations” it was covenanted that whatever the amount of value of the raw material (the Cornish clay and stone which Cookworthy had discovered and brought into use) Champion used in the course of a year, an equal amount of money should be paid to Cookworthy. For example, if, in the course of a year, Champion paid £1000 for material in Cornwall, he would also have to pay another £1000 to Cookworthy for the privilege of using it, thus doubling the price of the material from that at which Cookworthy had himself worked it. Of this, however, more presently.

Champion was, evidently, a man before his time in Bristol, enthusiastic in everything which could tend to improve that city commercially or otherwise, and ever ready to expend his energies and his money in furtherance of useful schemes and beneficial manufactures. He was, it will have been seen, just the kind of man to enter earnestly, and even enthusiastically, into the scheme of making porcelain on a principle that should employ native materials only, and which bid fair to be a great and lasting benefit, not only to his city, but to the community at large.

I have shown, then, that Richard Champion, in 1774, by deed of assignment from Cookworthy, dated May 6th in that year, became the sole proprietor of the patent right, and everything connected with the china works, for which he covenanted, among other things, to pay to Cookworthy, his heirs, executors, &c., a profit equal to the first cost of the raw material used in his manufactory. The first arrangement was that this royalty was to be perpetual, but it was afterwards restricted to ninety-nine years--the time of the lease for the raw materials. Having thus become proprietor of the concern which had at one time been carried on jointly by Cookworthy, Lord Camelford, and himself (and probably others), he, on the 22nd of the following February, 1775, presented a petition to the House of Commons, praying for the term of patent right to be enlarged for a further period of fourteen years to himself. His petition was referred to a committee, which began its sittings on the 28th of April. The following is the report of the committee of the House of Commons upon the petition:--

“To prove the Allegations of the said petition, His present
Majesty’s Letters Patent, dated 17th March, 1768, granted to
WILLIAM COOKWORTHY, of Plymouth, Chymist, for the sole use and
Exercise of a Discovery of Materials, of the same Nature as
those of which the _Asiatic_ and _Dresden_ Porcelain are made,
were produced to your Committee and read.

“That an Assignment of the said Letters Patent from the said
WILLIAM COOKWORTHY to the petitioner, dated 6th May, 1774, were
also Produced and read; and

“Mr. _John Britain_ being examined, said That he has great
Experience in several China Manufactures, and has made several
Trials upon all those which had been manufactured in _England_,
and finds that all of them, except that of _Bristol_, were
destroyed in the same fire which brings the same Bristol to
Perfection.

“And he produced to your committee several samples of the said
kinds of China, which shewd the effect upon china severally, and
said that they had not been able to bring the _Bristol_ China to
a marketable commodity so as to furnish an order until within
the last Six Months, but that sometimes they succeeded and at
other times not; but that now they can execute any order.

“That they have lately made considerable Improvements in the
said manufacture, and particularly are endeavouring to perfect
the Blue, in which as yet they have not entirely succeeded,
though they have now a Gentleman who has succeeded in a small
way, in which they have been at a considerable expence; that
the witness thinks the manufacture is capable of further
improvements; that they can afford it at a price equal to
Foreign China of equal goodness; and that they have made some
Specimens equal to good _Dresden_; that he had not seen any
_Dresden_ ornamental China equal to the Vases produced to your
committee, nor anything equal to the Biscuit in those Vases
and other Ornaments; that the Gilding stands well; that _Seve_
China differs from this--the Ornamental is more of a cream
colour, but the glaze is so soft that it will not bear using;
that he believes the Enamell of the _Bristol_ China is as hard
as the Dresden and harder than the _Chinese_; that they can
make it of any degree of thickness required; that there is
the difference between the _Bristol_ China and the _Seve_ and
several other kinds, that when they are broke they seem as dry
as a Tobacco Pipe; that this is the case of all the _English_
China; but the _Dresden_, the _Bristol_, and the _Asiatic_
China have when broke a moist and Lucid appearance, in proof
of which he produced Fragments of the several kinds. That the
_Bristol_ China will stand hot water without splitting; that
he has never known an instance of it splitting, though he has
known several pieces of the _Asiatic_ split; that the gold does
not come off the _Bristol_; that there are some china which
frequent use turns brown and cracks, which the Witness thinks
arises from there not being a proper Union between the Body and
the glaze; that the Manufacturers have their Glaze made into a
glass previous to its being applied to the Body, but that that
is not the case with the _Bristol_. That they can make plates,
but have had great Difficulties. That they have not hitherto
much attended to that object, but have applied themselves to
perfecting the body as a Body and the Glaze as a glaze; that
they can render this China in most Articles as cheap as the
_Asiatic_, and much cheaper than the _Dresden_.

“Then the Witness produced to your committee Specimens of
the _Asiatic_ and Chinese materials, and said he found no
difference except that the materials of the _Asiatic_ shrunk in
the Burning One 42d Part more than those of Bristol, and judges
the _Bristol_ materials to be better. Then,

“Mr. _Samuel Hardensydes_ Produced to your committee several
pieces of China which he had lately tried Experiments on in
London; and being examined, said that he had put _India_,
_Dresden_, _Bristol_, and other _English_ China into the fire in
the same Crucible; that the _India_, _Dresden_, and _Bristol_
came out in the same state they were put in; the Bristol was
tried three times and stood it; the Fire moved the Gilding into
Grains, but had no other Effect upon it; in other respects it
was rather better for the Fire.

“_Ordered_, That leave be given to bring in a Bill for enlarging
the Letters patent.

“And that Mr. _Frederick Montagu_, Mr. _Cruger_, Mr. _Harris_,
Mr. _Cooper_, the _Lord Clare_, and Mr. _Eden_, do appear and
bring in the same.”

By this time he had prepared and produced some remarkably fine specimens of china made at his works, for examination by the committee, and it is not too much to say that at this period his productions were of the highest rank. The result of his application was the ultimate passing of an Act of Parliament, by which the patent was accordingly enlarged. This Act, which contains a vast deal of valuable and interesting information, I give _in extenso_, for the benefit of my readers.[93] It was passed in 1775 (15 Geo. III., cap. 52), and is entitled, “An Act for enlarging the term of Letters Patent granted by his present Majesty to William Cookworthy, of Plymouth, Chymist, for the sole use and exercise of a discovery of certain materials for making Porcelain, in order to enable Richard Champion, of Bristol, merchant (to whom the said Letters Patent have been assigned), to carry the said discovery into effectual execution for the benefit of the public.” It is as follows:--

“Whereas his present Majesty King George the Third has been
graciously pleased to grant his Royal Letters Patent under the
Great Seal of Great Britain unto William Cookworthy, Chymist,
in the words, or to the effect, following; that is to say:
George the Third by the grace of God of Great Britain, France,
and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith, and so forth, to all
to whom these presents shall come, greeting: Whereas, William
Cookworthy, of Plymouth, in the County of Devon, Chymist, has
by his petition humbly represented unto us that he hath by a
series of experiments discovered that materials of the same
nature as those of which the Asiatic porcelain is made are to
be found in immense quantities in our island of Great Britain,
which ingredients are distinguished in our two counties of
Devon and Cornwall by the names of _moor stone_, and _growan_,
and _growan clay_; that the ware which he hath prepared from
these materials hath all the character of the true porcelain in
regard to grain, transparency, colour, and infusibility, in a
degree equal to the Chinese or Dresden ware: whereas, all the
manufactures of porcelain hitherto carried on in Great Britain
have been only imitations of the genuine kind, wanting the
beauty of colour, and the smoothness and lustre of grain, and
the great characteristic of genuine porcelain sustaining the
most extreme degree of fire without melting; that this discovery
hath been attended with great labour and expense, and, to the
best of his knowledge and belief in regard to this kingdom, is
new and his own, the materials being, even at this time, applied
to none of the uses of pottery but by him and those under his
direction; and that he verily believes this invention will be of
great advantage to the public. He, therefore, most humbly prayed
us that we should be pleased to grant him our Royal Letters
Patent for the sole making and vending of this new invented
porcelain, composed of moor stone or growan, and growan clay,
within that part of our kingdom of Great Britain called England,
our dominion of Wales, and the town of Berwick-upon-Tweed, for
the space of fourteen years, according to the statute in that
case made and provided: we, being willing to give encouragement
to all arts and inventions which may be for the public good, are
graciously pleased to condescend to the petitioner’s request.
Know ye, therefore, that we, of our especial grace, certain
knowledge, and meet motion, have given and granted, and for
these presents our heirs and successors do give and grant unto
the said William Cookworthy, his executors, administrators, and
assigns, our special licence, full power, sole privilege and
authority, that he, the said William Cookworthy, his executors,
administrators, and assigns, and every of them, by himself and
themselves, or by his or their deputy or deputies, servants,
or agents, or such others as the said William Cookworthy,
his executors, administrators, and assigns shall at any time
agree with, and no others, from time to time, and at all
times hereafter during the term of years herein expressed,
shall, and lawfully may make, use, exercise, and vend his said
invention within that part of Great Britain called England,
our dominion of Wales, and the town of Berwick-upon-Tweed,
and in such a manner as he, the said William Cookworthy, his
executors, administrators, and assigns, or any of them, in their
discretions seem meet; and that the said William Cookworthy, his
executors, administrators, and assigns shall, and lawfully may,
enjoy the whole profit, benefit, commodity, and advantage from
time to time coming, growing, accruing, and arising by reason
of the said invention for and during the term of years herein
mentioned, to have, hold, exercise, and enjoy the said licence,
privileges, and advantages hereinbefore granted, or mentioned
to be granted, to the said William Cookworthy, his executors,
administrators, and assigns, for and during and to the full end
of the term of fourteen years from the date of these presents
next and immediately ensuing, and fully to be completed and
ended according to the statute in such case made and provided,
and to the end that he, the said William Cookworthy, his
executors, administrators, and assigns, and every of them, may
have and enjoy the full benefit and the sole use and exercise
of the said invention, according to our gracious intention
hereinbefore declared; we do by these presents, for us, our
heirs and successors, require and strictly command all and every
person and persons, bodies politic and corporate, and all other
our subjects whatsoever, of what estate, quality, degree, name,
or condition soever they be, within that said part of Great
Britain called England, our dominion of Wales, and our town
of Berwick-upon-Tweed aforesaid, that neither they nor any of
them, at any time during the continuance of the said term of
fourteen years hereby granted, either directly or indirectly,
do make, use, or practise the said invention or any part of
the same so attained unto by the said William Cookworthy as
aforesaid, nor in anywise counterfeit, imitate, or resemble
the same, nor shall make, or cause to be made, any addition
thereunto, or substraction from the same, whereby to pretend
himself or themselves to be the inventor or inventors, deviser
or devisers thereof, without the licence, consent, or agreement
of the said William Cookworthy, his executors, administrators,
or assigns, in writing under his or their hands and seals,
first had and obtained in that behalf, upon such pains and
penalties as can or may be justly inflicted on such offenders
for their contempt of this our Royal command; and further, to
be answerable to the said William Cookworthy, his executors,
administrators, and assigns according to law for his and their
damages thereby occasioned; and moreover, we do by these
presents, for us, our heirs, and successors, will and command
all and singular the justices of the peace, mayors, sheriffs,
bailiffs, constables, head boroughs, and all other officers
and ministers whatsoever, of us, our heirs, and successors for
the time being, that they, or any of them, do not, nor shall
at any time hereafter during the said term hereby granted the
said William Cookworthy, his executors, administrators, or
assigns, or any of them, or his or their deputies, servants, or
agents, in anywise molest, trouble, or hinder the said William
Cookworthy, his executors, administrators, and assigns, or any
of them, or his or their deputies, servants, or agents, in
or about the due and lawful use or exercise of the aforesaid
invention or anything relating thereto: Provided always, and
these our Letters Patent are and shall be upon this condition,
that if at any time during the said term here granted, it shall
be made to appear to us, our heirs, or successors, or any six
or more of our or their Privy Council, that this our grant is
contrary to law, or prejudicial or inconvenient to our subjects
in general, or that if the said invention is not a new invention
as to the public use and exercise thereof, in that part of our
kingdom of Great Britain called England, our dominion of Wales,
and town of Berwick-upon-Tweed aforesaid, or not invented or
found out by the said William Cookworthy as aforesaid, then,
upon signification or declaration thereof, to be made by us,
our heirs and successors, under our or their signet or Privy
Seal, or by the lords of our or their Privy Council, or any
six or more of them under their hand, these our Letters Patent
shall forthwith cease, determine, and be utterly void to all
intents and purposes, anything hereinbefore contained in
anywise notwithstanding. Provided also, that these our Letters
Patent, or anything herein contained, shall not extend to or
be construed to extend to the privileges of the said William
Cookworthy, his executors, administrators, or assigns, or any of
them, to use or imitate any invention or work whatsoever which
has heretofore been found out or invented by any other of our
subjects whatsoever, or publicly used or exercised in that part
of our kingdom of Great Britain called England, our dominion of
Wales, and town of Berwick-upon-Tweed aforesaid, unto whom, the
like Letters Patent or privileges have already been granted for
the sole use, exercise, and benefit thereof, it being our will
and pleasure that the said William Cookworthy, his executors,
administrators, and assigns, and all and every person or persons
to whom the like Letters Patent or privileges have already been
granted as aforesaid, shall distinctly use and practice their
several inventions by them invented and found out, according
to the true intent and meaning of the said Letters Patent and
of these presents. Provided, likewise, nevertheless, and these
our Letters Patent are upon this express condition, that the
said William Cookworthy, his executors, administrators, or
assigns, or any person or persons which shall or may be at any
time or times hereafter, during the continuance of this grant,
have or claim any right, title, or intent, in law or equity,
or of, in, or to the power, privilege, and authority of the
sole use of the said benefit hereby granted, shall make any
transfer or assignment, or pretended transfer or assignment,
of the said liberty and privilege, or any share or shares for
the benefit or profit thereof, or shall declare any trust
thereof to or for any number of persons exceeding the number of
five, or shall open, or cause to be opened, any book or books
for public subscriptions to be made by any number of persons
exceeding the number of five for such or the like intents or
purposes, or shall presume to act as a corporate body, or
shall divide the benefit of these our Letters Patent, or the
liberty and privileges hereby by us granted, into any number
of shares exceeding the number of five, or shall commit or do,
or shall procure to be committed or done, any act, matter, or
thing whatsoever, during the time such person or persons shall
have any right or title, either in law or equity, in or to the
said premises which shall be contrary to the true intent and
meaning of a certain Act of Parliament, made in the sixth year
of the reign of our late royal greatgrandfather King George
the First, entituled, ‘An Act for the better securing certain
powers and privileges, intended to be granted by his Majesty
by two charters, for the Insurance of Ships and Merchandize
by Sea, and for laying money out upon bottoming, and for
restraining several extravagant and unwarrantable practices
therein mentioned,’ or in case the said privilege or authority
shall at any time hereafter become vested in, or in trust for,
any number of more than five persons or their representatives
(reckoning executors or administrators as for the single person
whom they represent, as to such interest as they are or shall be
entitled to in right of such testator or intestate), that then,
and in any of the said cases, these our Letters Patent, and
all liberties and advantages whatsoever hereby granted, shall
utterly cease and become void, anything hereinbefore contained
to the contrary thereof, anywise, notwithstanding. Provided
also, if the said William Cookworthy shall not particularly
describe and ascertain the nature of his invention, and in
what manner the same is to be performed, by an instrument in
writing, under his hand and seal, and cause the same to be
enrolled in our High Court of Chancery within four calendar
months next and immediately after the date of these our Letters
Patent, that then these our Letters Patent, and all liberties
and advantages whatsoever hereby granted, shall utterly cease,
determine, and become void, anything hereinbefore contained to
the contrary thereof in anywise notwithstanding. And, lastly we
do by these presents, for us, our heirs and successors, grant
unto the said William Cookworthy, his executors, administrators,
and assigns, that these, our Letters Patent, or the enrollment
of the exemplification thereof, shall be in and by all things
good, firm, valid, sufficient, and effectual in the law,
according to the true intent and meaning thereof, and shall
be taken, construed, and adjudged in the most favourable and
beneficial sense for the best advantage of the said William
Cookworthy, his executors, administrators, and assigns, as
well in all our Courts of Record as elsewhere, and by all
and singular the officers and ministers whatsoever of us,
our heirs, and successors in that part of the said kingdom
of Great Britain called England, our dominion of Wales, and
town of Berwick-upon-Tweed aforesaid, and amongst all and
every the subjects of us, our heirs, and successors whatsoever
and wheresoever, notwithstanding the not full and certain
describing the nature or quality of the said invention, or
of the materials thereto conducing and belonging, in witness
whereof we have caused these our Letters to be made patent:
witness ourself, at Westminster, the seventeenth day of March,
in the eighth year of our reign.

“And whereas the said William Cookworthy hath by an instrument
in writing, under his hand and seal, described and ascertained
the nature of the said invention,[94] and the manner in which
the same is to be performed, and hath caused the same to be
enrolled in His Majesty’s High Court of Chancery within the
time and in the manner directed by the said Letters Patent; and
whereas by a deed of assignment, bearing date the sixth day
of May, One Thousand Seven Hundred and Seventy-four, the said
William Cookworthy (for the consideration therein mentioned)
hath assigned all his interest, benefit, and property, in the
said Letters Patent and invention, unto RICHARD CHAMPION, of
Bristol, merchant, his executors, administrators, and assigns;
and whereas the said Richard Champion hath been at very
considerable expense and great pains and labour in prosecuting
the said invention, and by reason of the great difficulty
attending the manufacture upon a new principle, hath not been
able to bring the same to perfection until within the last
year, and it will require further pains, labour, and expense,
to render the said invention of public utility, for all which
trouble and expense the said Richard Champion will not be able
to receive an adequate compensation unless the term granted by
the said royal Letters Patent be prolonged. To the end therefore
that the said Richard Champion may be encouraged to prosecute
and complete the said invention, may it please your Majesty (at
the humble petition of the said Richard Champion) that it may be
enacted, and be it enacted by the King’s most excellent Majesty,
by and with the consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal,
and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the
authority of the same, that all and every the powers, liberties,
privileges, authorities, rights, benefits, and advantages,
which in and by the said Letters Patent were originally given
and granted to him the said William Cookworthy, his executors,
administrators, and assigns, and no further or greater than he
or the said Richard Champion would have been entitled to if
this Act had not been made, shall be, and the same are hereby
given and granted, to the said Richard Champion, his executors,
administrators, and assigns, and shall be held, exercised,
and enjoyed by him the said Richard Champion, his executors,
administrators, and assigns, for and during the present term of
fourteen years granted by the said Letters Patent; and from and
after the end and expiration of the said term of fourteen years
thereby granted, for and during the further or additional term
of fourteen years, in as full, ample, and beneficial manner, in
all respects, and to all intents and purposes whatsoever, as
he the said Richard Champion, his executors, administrators,
and assigns, could have held and enjoyed the same under and by
virtue of the said Letters Patent for the term thereby granted,
in case the said Letters Patent had been originally granted by
his Majesty to him the said Richard Champion, his executors,
administrators, and assigns.

“Provided always, and be it further granted and declared by
the authority aforesaid, that if the said Richard Champion
shall not cause to be enrolled in the High Court of Chancery,
within four months after passing this Act, a specification
of the mixture and proportions of the raw materials of which
his porcelain is composed, and likewise of the mixture and
proportions of the raw materials which compose the glaze of the
same (which specification is now in the hands of the Lord High
Chancellor of Great Britain); or if the same shall not be a true
and just specification of the mixture and proportions of the
said materials, then this Act shall cease, determine, and be
absolutely void, anything hereinbefore contained to the contrary
notwithstanding.

“Provided also that nothing in this Act contained shall be
construed to hinder or prevent any Potter or Potters, or any
other person or persons, from making use of any such raw
materials, or any mixture or mixtures thereof (except such
mixture of raw materials, and in such proportions, as are
described in the specification hereinbefore directed to be
enrolled), anything in this Act to the contrary notwithstanding.

“And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, that this
Act shall be adjudged, deemed, and taken to be a public Act,
and shall be judicially taken notice of as such by all judges,
justices, and other persons whomsoever, without specially
pleading the same.”

Between the time, however, of the committee’s sitting and the passing of the Act, Josiah Wedgwood, whose name is always received with reverence by all who study the history of Ceramic Art, ostensibly as the spokesman of the Staffordshire potters, but really at first alone, opposed the grant, on the ground, among others, that the use of the natural productions of the soil ought to be the right of all, and that the restrictions would be detrimental to trade and injurious to the public. In Wedgwood’s “memorial” against the petition of Champion, which he presented to parliament, “Josiah Wedgwood on behalf of himself and the manufacturers of earthenware in Staffordshire,” urges “that the manufacture of earthenware in that county has of late received many essential improvements, and is continually advancing to higher degrees of perfection; that the further improvement of the manufactory must depend upon the application and the _free use_ of the various raw materials that are the natural products of this country; that the raw materials, now secured for a limited time to the petitioner (Champion) may, at the expiration of the patent assigned to him, be of great use to enable the potters throughout Great Britain to improve their manufactures into the finest porcelain, and thereby produce a branch of commerce of more national importance than any of this kind hitherto established;” that Mr. Champion “was not the inventor, but the _purchaser_ only of the unexpired patent granted to another man, who does not appear to have any interest in this application; that the petitioner, therefore, _not being the original discoverer_, and having purchased the remaining term of the patent at a _proportionate price_, can have no right to expect a further extension of a monopoly injurious to the community at large, which neither the ingenious discoverer nor the purchaser, for want perhaps of skill and experience in this particular business, have been able, during the space of seven years already elapsed, to bring to any useful degree of perfection;” and that, if he has brought his discovery to perfection, as alleged, the unexpired term of seven years ought to be enough to enable him to reimburse himself. To this memorial of Josiah Wedgwood’s, Champion presented the following honourable reply:--

“When Mr. Champion presented a petition to the Honourable House
of Commons, praying the aid of parliament for a prolongation
of the term granted by the Patent for making porcelain, he
built his hopes of success on two circumstances: the first,
the apparent utility resulting from such a manufacture carried
to a perfection equal to that of the Dresden and Asiatic. The
second circumstance on which he grounded his expectation was
the sense which he hoped the House would entertain of the
justice of compensating, by some reasonable privilege, the great
labour, expense, and risque which had been incurred, not only
in the invention of the material and composition, but in the
improvement of this important manufacture. He was also almost
certain that no person whatsoever in this kingdom could, on
a supposition of their being prejudiced in their rights in a
similar property, have had any cause of complaint, or pretence
to interfere with him, or to oppose the prayer of his petition.

“Mr. Champion however finds, with some surprise, that Mr.
Wedgwood, who has never hitherto undertaken any similar
manufacture, conceives himself likely to be injured by the
indulgence which Mr. Champion has solicited. He has accordingly
printed a memorial containing his reasons against the granting
the prayer of Mr. Champion’s petition, and is now actually gone
in person into Staffordshire in order to solicit others to
prefer a petition to Parliament against Mr. Champion’s bill.

“Before Mr. Champion replies to Mr. Wedgwood’s observations
or complaints, he begs leave to remark on the time when Mr.
Wedgwood introduces them. Mr. Champion presented his petition
to the Honourable House of Commons on the twenty-second day of
February. The committee to which that petition was referred
did not sit until the twenty-eighth day of April, during which
time Mr. Wedgwood neither made any public application against
Mr. Champion, or gave him any sort of private information
of intended opposition. Neither did any manufacturers in
Staffordshire or elsewhere express any uneasiness or make any
complaint of Mr. Champion’s application, though it is not
improbable that Mr. Wedgwood’s journey thither may be productive
of both.

“Mr. Champion forbore to bring forward his petition before
the committee until he had prepared such specimens of his
manufacture as might give the committee the most striking proofs
of the truths of his allegations, and this could not be done
sooner in a manufacture so very lately, and with such incredible
difficulty, brought to its present perfection. He trusts that
the specimens which he has produced in various kinds will show
that he has been usefully employed, and merits the public
protection.

“Mr. Wedgwood is pleased to represent his memorial on behalf of
himself and the manufacturers of earthenware in Staffordshire.
Mr. Champion says, as has been already hinted, that Mr. Wedgwood
had not any authority from such manufacturers, or any others, to
make any representations in their behalf.

“Mr. Champion most cheerfully joins in the general praise which
is given to Mr. Wedgwood for the many improvements which he has
made in the Staffordshire earthenware, and the great pains and
assiduity with which he has pursued them. He richly deserves the
large fortune he has made from these improvements. But should he
not be content with the rewards he has met with, and not have
the avidity to grasp at a manufacture which another has been
at as great pains as Mr. Wedgwood has employed in his own to
establish?--a manufacture entirely original in this kingdom, and
which all nations in Europe have been desirous to obtain?

“Mr. Wedgwood says the application and free use of the various
raw materials of this country will make a great improvement in
the manufacture of Staffordshire earthenware. Mr. Champion has
no objection to the use which the potters of Staffordshire may
make of his or any other raw materials, provided earthenware
only, as distinguished by that title, is made from it. He wants
to interfere with no manufacture whatever, and is content to
insert any clause to confine him to the invention which he
possesses, and which he has improved. He is contented that Mr.
Wedgwood, and every manufacturer, should reap the fruit of their
labour; all he asks is, such a protection for his own as the
legislature in its wisdom shall think merits.

“Mr. Wedgwood’s remark on the difference of merit betwixt Mr.
Watt and Mr. Champion is ungenerous and unjust: ungenerous, as
Mr. Champion has not, or does not, compare himself to Mr. Watt;
he has not even mentioned his name in any of his applications.
His business is not with comparative or similar merits; it is
his duty to prove the merit of his own manufacture, for which
he solicits the encouragement of the legislature. He hopes that
the specimens which he has produced before the committee are
incontrovertible evidences of it. The remark is unjust, because
he has been many years concerned in this undertaking; nearly
from the time the patent was granted to Mr. Cookworthy, in whose
name it continued till assigned over to Mr. Champion. To deny
the advantage of any part of Mr. Cookworthy’s merits to his
assignee is to deny that advantage to Mr. Cookworthy himself.
One part of the benefit of every work, from whence profit
may be derived, is the power of assignment; and if, in fact,
the manufacture could not be completed, nor the inventor, of
course, derive any profit from it, without the expense, care,
and perseverance of the assignee and once partner, the merit of
that assignee, who both completes the manufacture and rewards
the discoverer, is equal in equity to that of the discoverer
himself--equal in every respect, except the honour that attends
original genius and power of invention.