CHAPTER III.

Derby—Cock-pit Hill—Mayer—Heath—Derby China—Andrew Planché—Duesbury and Heath—William Duesbury—Purchase of the Chelsea Works—Weekly Bills—Show Rooms in London—Sales by Candle—Changes in Proprietorship—Bloor—Locker—Stevenson & Co.—Hancock—Painters and Modellers—Spengler—Coffee—Askew—Billingsley—Pinxton—Nantgarw—Swansea—Other Artists employed at Derby—Cocker and Whitaker’s China Works, &c., &c.

Cock-pit Hill.—There is nothing yet known as to the time when these works were first established. It is certain that at a tolerably early period coarse brown ware was made here, of much the same general character as that made at Tickenhall and by the Tofts, but researches have as yet failed to bring to light any particulars regarding them. There is a positive certainty that the Mayer or Mier family were potters in Derby for more than one generation. A John Mier—an ancestor probably of the Mayers or Meers, of Staffordshire—was a pot-maker in 1721. Some vessels bearing his name are extant. One of these, a posset-pot, bears the wordsIOHN MIER MADE THIS CUP 1721. Another has been described as “a three-handled pot that holds about two gallons, which is said to have been made at these pot works.” It is of coarse brown ware, glazed, and bears the words:—

“Drink be merry and maryGod Bles creae George & Queen annJohn Mier made this cup 1708.”

“Drink be merry and mary

God Bles creae George & Queen ann

John Mier made this cup 1708.”

Another, a large pitcher in my own possession, traditionally said to have been made in Derby, bears the initials I S between the date 1720 (Fig.42), and below theI Sthe letters D F, about which it is perhaps scarcely worth hazarding a conjecture. It is 16½ inches in height, and is of dark brown glazed ware. The namebest known in connection with these works is that of Heath, and they were carried on by this family for a considerable number of years. How, or when, the works came into the hands of the Heaths, remains to be discovered. In 1772, in some very curious and unique MS. “Lists of Gent., &c., in Derby, 1772,” in my own possession, occurs in one, under “Cock-pitt Hill,” “Mayer Mr..... pott merchant,” and in another, “Cock-pitt Hill,” “Mr. Mayer ..... pott merchant.” In the same list, dealers are put down as keeping a “pott shop,” while Mayer is returned as a “pott merchant.” In this same list “John Heath” is entered as an “Alderman;” and “Mr. Chris. Heath” as a “Comon Council Man.”

I S 2DFFig. 42.

I S 2DF

Fig. 42.

On the 1st of January, 1756, a draft of an agreement was drawn up “between John Heath, of Derby, in the County of Derby, gentleman; Andrew Planche, of ye same place, china maker; and Wm. Duesberry, of Longton, in ye County of Stafford, enameller,” by which they became “co-partners together as well in ye art of making English china as also in buying and selling of all sorts of wares belonging to ye art of making china” for ten years, with power on Heath’s part to extend for another ten years. In this agreement, the original MS. of which is in my own possession, Heath (who, it will be seen, is described as a “gentleman,” while the others are respectively described by their trades of “china maker” and “enameller”) agrees to pay in £1,000 to the concern, as his share “as stock,” “to be used and employ’d in common between them for ye carrying on ye said art of making china wares,”[7]for which he was to receive one-third of the profits till the principal sum of £1,000 be paid back.

One of the clauses in this agreement is as follows:—“Also it is agreed between ye sd parties to these Presents that ye sd Copartnersshall not at any time hereafter use or follow ye Trade aforesaid or any other Trade whatsoeverduring ye sd Term to their private Benefit and advantage.” From this it would seemthat John Heath could not at that time be carrying on the Cock-pit Hill Works. There is nothing to show that this deed was ever legally executed, and two years later—in 1758—I find him named as one of the proprietors of the Cock-pit Hill Works, along with two partners, “William Butts, gentleman,” and “Thomas Rivett, Esquire”—Butts, I presume, being the practical man of the concern. The document in which this appears is in my own possession, and is a commitment of a man named John Lovegrove, one of the workmen “at their pottery in the said Borough of Derby,” for running away from his said service. The commitment is as follows:—

“Borough of Derby.“To the constables of the said borough of Derby and to each and every of them and also to the Keeper of the House of Correction for the said borough.“WhereasInformation and complaint hath been made before me Samuel Crompton Esquire Mayor and one of his Majesties Justices of the peace for the said Borough by William Butts of the said Borough Gent upon his oath that John Lovegrove was on the Thirteenth day of January last duly hired as a Labourer and Servant to the said William Butts and to Thomas Rivett Esquire and John Heath Gent for one year then next ensuing to work at their Pottery in the said Borough of Derby and that the said John Lovegrove hath departed and run away from his said service, his said year not being expired, And Whereas in pursuance of the Statute in that case made and provided, I have had the said William Butts and John Lovegrove before me and have duly examined the Proofs and allegations of both the said parties touching the matter of the said Complaint and upon due consideration had thereof have adjudged and determined and do hereby adjudge and determine the said Complaint to be true. These are therefore to Command you the said constables and each and every of you forthwith to convey the said John Lovegrove to the said House of Correction for the said Borough of Derby and to Deliver him to the Keeper thereof together with this warrant. And I do hereby Command you the said Keeper to receive the said John Lovegrove into your Custody in the said House of Correction there to remain and be corrected and held to hard Labour for the space of from the Date hereof and for your so doing this shall be your sufficient Warrent Given under my Hand and seal the .”

“Borough of Derby.

“To the constables of the said borough of Derby and to each and every of them and also to the Keeper of the House of Correction for the said borough.

“WhereasInformation and complaint hath been made before me Samuel Crompton Esquire Mayor and one of his Majesties Justices of the peace for the said Borough by William Butts of the said Borough Gent upon his oath that John Lovegrove was on the Thirteenth day of January last duly hired as a Labourer and Servant to the said William Butts and to Thomas Rivett Esquire and John Heath Gent for one year then next ensuing to work at their Pottery in the said Borough of Derby and that the said John Lovegrove hath departed and run away from his said service, his said year not being expired, And Whereas in pursuance of the Statute in that case made and provided, I have had the said William Butts and John Lovegrove before me and have duly examined the Proofs and allegations of both the said parties touching the matter of the said Complaint and upon due consideration had thereof have adjudged and determined and do hereby adjudge and determine the said Complaint to be true. These are therefore to Command you the said constables and each and every of you forthwith to convey the said John Lovegrove to the said House of Correction for the said Borough of Derby and to Deliver him to the Keeper thereof together with this warrant. And I do hereby Command you the said Keeper to receive the said John Lovegrove into your Custody in the said House of Correction there to remain and be corrected and held to hard Labour for the space of from the Date hereof and for your so doing this shall be your sufficient Warrent Given under my Hand and seal the .”

It will be seen that this commitment is not dated, but I am enabled to fix it with certainty to 1758. Samuel Crompton was Mayor of Derby in 1758, 1767, 1777 (to complete the year of office of Robert Hope, deceased), 1782, and 1788, and High Sheriff of the County in 1768, while holding office as Mayor. There is nothing in the commitment to show to which of these years of Crompton’s Mayoralty it can be assigned, but as Thomas Rivett, one of the partners named in it, died in 1763, it leaves no doubt that 1758 is the correct date. This Thomas Rivett, one of the partners, was Mayor of Derby in 1715 and 1761, and High Sheriff of the County in 1757. In 1747 he was elected Member of Parliament for the Borough of Derby in room of John Stanhope, deceased, and served till 1754. He died in 1763, and was buried in All Saints’ Church.John Heath was Mayor in 1763 and 1772, and his son, Christopher Heath, was Mayor in 1774.

The works were situated on Cock-pit Hill, at the commencement of Siddal’s Lane. The site is still known as the “Pot Yard.” It is distinctly marked on some of the old maps of Derby, and appears to have stood immediately opposite the “Cock-pit” itself—an octagonal building, with a spire-roof terminated with a vane. Buildings existed on this spot as early as 1610, and at that time probably were employed for the making of the rough ware of the period. In the last century they seem to have formed three sides of a quadrangle, and to have been of considerable extent. In 1772 it is thus spoken of in “A Short Tour in the Midland Counties;” after speaking of the china works, the writer says:—“Here is also a pottery, and I was showed an imitation of the Queen’s ware, but it does not come up to the original, the produce of Staffordshire.”

In 1780, in consequence of the failure of the Heaths (who were bankers and men of property, besides one of them being at one time the partner of Duesbury, and, later, the owners of these pot works), the Cock-pit Hill Pottery sold off its stock of goods. The following is one of the announcements of this sale.—

“To the Merchants, Traders, and Dealers in Earthenware.“To be Sold without Reserve (and considerably under the usual wholesale prices) at the Derby Pot Manufactory a large quantity of Earthenware, being the whole stock in trade of that great and extensive Factory commonly known by the name of the Derby Pot Works, consisting of an assortment of Enamelled, and Blue and White useful China, a large quantity of Enamelled Creamware and plain Cream Tea-table-ware, a great quantity of White Stone and Brown ware.“N.B.—The aforesaid Earthenware, &c., will be opened for sale on the 4th and 6th of April and continued every Tuesday and Thursday until the whole is disposed of; on which days (but no other in the week) a proper person will attend the sale. The Earthenware will be sold in different lots, and is well worth the notice of Pot Carriers in and about the neighbourhood of Coleorton Moor. No less a quantity than two horse loads will be sold to any one person.”

“To the Merchants, Traders, and Dealers in Earthenware.

“To be Sold without Reserve (and considerably under the usual wholesale prices) at the Derby Pot Manufactory a large quantity of Earthenware, being the whole stock in trade of that great and extensive Factory commonly known by the name of the Derby Pot Works, consisting of an assortment of Enamelled, and Blue and White useful China, a large quantity of Enamelled Creamware and plain Cream Tea-table-ware, a great quantity of White Stone and Brown ware.

“N.B.—The aforesaid Earthenware, &c., will be opened for sale on the 4th and 6th of April and continued every Tuesday and Thursday until the whole is disposed of; on which days (but no other in the week) a proper person will attend the sale. The Earthenware will be sold in different lots, and is well worth the notice of Pot Carriers in and about the neighbourhood of Coleorton Moor. No less a quantity than two horse loads will be sold to any one person.”

In the same year, 1780, a sale of “a large quantity of earthern and china ware from the Pot Works on Cock-pit Hill, in Derby, being the stock-in-trade of Messrs. John and Christopher Heath, of Derby, bankrupts,” was advertised to take place by auction at the King’s Head Inn, Derby. The works were carried on for a year or two by the assignees of Messrs. Heath, but in 1782 “a lease of the Pot Works situate on Cock-pit Hill, in Derby, twelve years after which have yet to come, and unexpired, at Lady Day next, at the yearly rent of £6, and the lessee has a right by the lease to take away the buildings (except only leaving a fence-wall), andexcept a barn that was built on the premises before the lease was granted,” was advertised for sale by auction, along with other property, by the Heaths, “at the house of Mr. George Wallis (being the New Inn, in Derby), on Tuesday, 12th March.” The lease, however, does not seem to have found a purchaser, for in theDerby Mercuryof March, 1785, another sale is announced “in Messrs. Heath’s bankruptcy,” in lots, of “the materials of some buildings at the late Pot Works on Cock-pit Hill, in Derby, consisting of brick, tile, and timber; also some old iron, old lead, Hopton stone, a quantity of deal boards, and some lumber.”

Although these works were very extensive, and produced a large quantity of goods of various kinds during the Heaths’ time, but few specimens can, unfortunately, be correctly appropriated. This, of course, is owing to the fact that no mark was used by the owners of the works, and therefore, doubtless, scores of examples pass as “early Staffordshire,” and as the productions of other places. Three or four well-authenticated pieces, however, may be named. The first is a jug in my own possession. It is of the “imitation of the Queen’s ware,” alluded to in a previous page, and bears on one side, within a border of foliage, the quaint and characteristic drinking inscription, “One Pot more and then, why what then, why another Pot.” On the other side and front, within one continuous border, is a blacksmith busy at his forge, working the immense bellows with his left hand, and holding the iron in the fire with his right; while in front is a youth standing by the anvil waiting, as a “striker”; tools and other things lying about; and the inscription, “Thos. Burton, Winster, 1778.” This jug was made at the Cock-pit Hill Works, for Mr. Thomas Burton, a blacksmith, of Winster, whose name it bears, and who is represented at his forge, and from his family passed into my own hands. It is engraved, Fig.43.

Fig. 43.

Another excellent example belonged to my friend, the late Mr. Lucas. It is a teapot, of the same kind of ware, and bears on one side the words, “Harper for ever fow play and now fair dealing”—probably in commemoration of the contested election of 1768, when Sir Henry Harpur was defeated by Godfrey Clarke, Esq.

It is no little thing to say of Derby that the town in which the silk manufacture of England first took its rise—for here the first silk-mill ever built in this kingdom was erected by John Lombe; in which the cotton trade made its first gigantic stride—for here Arkwright and Strutt completed their invention for spinning, and within a few miles erected the first cotton-mill in England; in which the hosiery trade was first brought to perfection—for here Strutt invented his famed “Derby Ribbed Stocking Machine,” and carried on his manufacture of those articles; and in which many other branches of manufacture have also had their rise—should likewise have been one of the few places, and one of thefirst, in which the manufacture of porcelain was matured, and in which the biscuit was first invented. But so it is, and it is no little for Derby to be proud of, that these branches of industry, which are among the most important in the kingdom, should have had their birth, and in their infancy been carefully nurtured, within its boundaries. The stories of Lombe and his silk, Arkwright and Strutt and their cotton, and Jedediah Strutt and his stockings, have been often told, and will bear telling again and again; but that of Duesbury and his china has never been fully told, and it was only by the most laborious research that I was enabled, in 1862, to tell it, and to show to what an extent the manufacture, under the care of three generations of one family, was carried. That information I now, after many years of patient research, considerably amplify. Alas! that so important, so beautiful a branch of Art should ever have been allowed to decay in the town by which it has so long been fostered.

One of the earliest printed notices of the Derby China Works occurs in a scarce old book, “A Short Tour in the Midland Counties of England performed in the summer of 1772, together with an account of a similar excursion undertaken September, 1774.” It is as follows:—

“The manufacture of porcelain employs, in all, near a hundred men and boys; several of the painters earn a guinea and a half per week. Mr. Duesbury (who has also bought the manufactory at Chelsea) is every day bringing the art nearer to that perfection at which it has arrived in other countries. Derby porcelain is at present by no means contemptible: figures and other ornaments are among their most capital articles. Here is also a pottery, and I was showed an imitation of the Queen’s ware, but it does not come up to the original, the produce of Staffordshire.”

In the “Poll Book” of 1775, when Christopher Heath was Mayor of Derby, the following names occur:—

Bakewell, Thomas, Derby, Pot-man.Dewsberry, William, Derby, China-man.Hill, Joseph, Derby, China-man.Needham, Henry, Derby, Pipe-maker.Simpson, Moses, Derby, Potter.Strong, Benjamin, Derby, Pipe-maker.Wood, William, London, China-man.Withers, Robert, Rotherham, Potter.Mosley, Thomas, Derby, Potter.

Bray, who wrote his “Tour” in the year 1777, says, speaking of Derby:—

“The china manufactory is not less worthy of notice. Under the care of Mr. Duesberry it does honour to this country. Indefatigable in his attention, he has brought the gold and blue to a degree of beauty never before obtained in England, and the drawing and coloring of the flowers are truly elegant. About one hundred [this number is in his second edition corrected to seventy] hands are employed in it, and happily many, very young, are enabled to earn a livelihood in the business.”

Dr. Johnson visited the Derby China Works in 1777, and the following is Boswell’s note on the visit:—

“When we arrived at Derby Dr. Butter accompanied us to see the manufactory of China there. I admired the ingenuity and delicate art with which a man fashioned clay into a cup, a saucer, or a teapot, while a boy turned round a wheel to give the mass rotundity. I thought this as excellent in its species of power as making good verses in its species. Yet I had no respect for this potter. Neither, indeed, has a man of any extent of thinking for a mere verse-maker, in whose numbers, however perfect, there is no poetry, no mind. The china was beautiful; but Dr. Johnson justly observed it was too dear; for that he could have vessels of silver of the same size, as cheap as what were here made of porcelain.”

Pilkington, in his “View of the Present State of Derbyshire,” published in 1789, says:—

“About forty years ago the manufacture of porcelain was begun by the late Mr. Duesbury. This ingenious artist brought it to such perfection as, in some respects, to equal the best foreign china. The ornamental part of the business was at first almost solely attended to. But the foreign demand being much interrupted by the last war, the proprietor turned his thoughts to the manufacture of useful porcelain. At this work a very rich and elegant dessert service, consisting of one hundred and twenty pieces, was lately made for His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales. The number of hands at present employed by Mr. Duesbury is seventy-two, and the manufacture is in a flourishing state.”

William Hutton, the historian of his native town and of Birmingham, who wrote his “History of Derby” in 1791, says:—

“Porcelain began about the year 1750. There is only one manufactory, which employs about seventy people. The clay is not of equal fineness with the foreign, but the workmanship exceeds it. The arts of drawing and engraving have much improved within these last thirty years. The improvements of the porcelain have kept pace with these. They adhere to nature in their designs, to which the Chinese have not attained. A dessert service of one hundred and twenty pieces was recently fabricated here for the Prince of Wales. The spot upon which this elegant building stands, which is internally replete with taste and utility, was once the freehold of my family. It cost £35, but the purchaser, my grandfather’s brother, being unable to raise more than £28, mortgaged it for £7. Infirmity, age, and poverty,obliged him to neglect the interest, when, in 1743, it fell into the hands of my father as heir-at-law, who, being neither able nor anxious to redeem it, conveyed away his right to the mortgagee for a guinea.”

And again, in his MS. “History of the Hutton Family,” 1799,[8]he says, speaking of John Hutton:—

“He was the man who purchased the house east of St. Mary’s Bridge, now the China Works, for £35, but being master of only £28, mortgaged the premises to Mr. Crompton, a banker, for the other seven. He becoming old and poor, and inheriting the supineness of the Hutton family, suffered the trifling interest to remain unpaid till the mortgagee seized the premises. The freehold in 1743 fell into the hands of my father, as heir-at-law, who assigned over his interest to Mr. Crompton for a guinea.”

The manufactory was situated on the Nottingham Road, near St. Mary’s Bridge, in a locality then named Suthrick, or Southwark. On its site, in 1845–6, the Roman Catholic nunnery of St. Marie, designed by Pugin, was erected, but this has now, like the China Works, become “a thing of the past”—the nunnery having been purchased by the Midland Railway Company, and taken down in 1863. Hutton’s remark as to this site being his patrimony, is very curious, and adds an increased interest to the locality. The very premises he speaks of were those first occupied for the making of porcelain, and, curiously enough, they were opposite to Lombe’s silk-mill, from which they were divided by the road and the broad expanse of water of the River Derwent.

It is generally believed that in 1750, perhaps a little earlier, the manufacture of china first sprang into existence in Derby—about a year or so before the works at Worcester were established; and there is a tradition that the first maker was a Frenchman, who lived in a small house in Lodge Lane, and who modelled and made small articles in china, principally animals—cats, dogs, lambs, sheep, &c.—which he fired in a pipe-maker’s oven in the neighbourhood, belonging to a man named Woodward. There were, at this time, as I have shown, some pot works on Cock-pit Hill, which afterwards belonged to Alderman Heath, a banker; and the productions of this French refugee, or rather son of a French refugee, having attracted notice, an arrangement was made between him and Heath and Duesbury, by which the manufacture of porcelain was to be carried on jointly. This man’s name, to whom I take it belongs the absolute honour of commencing the Derby China Works, was Andrew Planché; and I am enabled to arrive at this conclusion by means of a draft of a deed now in mypossession, by which a partnership for ten years was entered into by the three already named. In this arrangement I apprehend Planché found the knowledge of mixing bodies and glazes, Heath the money (£1,000), and Duesbury the will, ability, and skill to carry out the scheme. These articles of agreement are as follows:—

“Articles of Agreementbetween John Heath of Derby in the County of Derby Gentleman, Andrew Planche of yesame Place China Maker & WmDuesberry of Longton in yeCounty of Stafford Enamellor. Made and enter’d into the 1stof Jany1756.“First it is agreedby yesaid John Heath Andrew Planche & WmDuesberry to be Copartners together as well in yeArt of making English China as also in buying and selling of all sorts of Wares belonging to yeArt of making China wchsaid Copartnership is to continue between them from the Date of these Presents for & during yeTerm of Ten years from thence & then fully to be compleated & ended And to that end He yesaid John Heath hath yeday of yedate of these Presents deliver’d in as a Stock yesum of One Thousand Pounds to be used & employ’d in Common between them for yecarrying on yesdArt of making China Wares And that one third share of Profits arising therefrom It is mutually agreed between all yesdparties shall be receiv’d by & paid to yesaid John Heath till yesaid PrinlSum of £1000 be paid inAlsoit is agreed between yesdparties to these Presents that yesdCopartners shall not at any time hereafter use or follow yeTrade aforesaid or any other Trade whatsoever during yesdTerm to their private Benefit and advantage. And also that yesdCopartners shall during yesaid Term pay and discharge equally and proportionably between them all expenses they shall be at in managing yeArt and Trade aforesaid[F1: period?] And also that all Gain or Profit that shall arise from yeArt & Trade aforesaid during yesaid Term shall be divided between them yesdCopartners Share and Share alike And likewise that all such Losses as shall happen by bad Debts Ill Commodities or otherwise shall be borne equally between themAndit is further agreed by yesdParties that there shall be kept during yesdTerm Just & True Books of Accounts to wchsdBooks any of yesdCopartners shall have free access without Interruption of yeotherAndit is further agreed that at any time hereafter at yerequest of yesaid John Heath New Articles shall be made & an additional Term of years not less than Ten shall be added with such alterations and additions as may be found necessaryAndthat yesaid Copartners shall from time to time communicate to each other every Secret of yesaid ArtAndthat yesaid John Heath shall have it in his power to appoint any other Person to Act for him if he should chuse so to do wchPerson shall be as fully impowered to Act with regard to all Covenants herein contained as yesdJohn Heath himself.Witness our handsthe Day & Year above written.”

“First it is agreedby yesaid John Heath Andrew Planche & WmDuesberry to be Copartners together as well in yeArt of making English China as also in buying and selling of all sorts of Wares belonging to yeArt of making China wchsaid Copartnership is to continue between them from the Date of these Presents for & during yeTerm of Ten years from thence & then fully to be compleated & ended And to that end He yesaid John Heath hath yeday of yedate of these Presents deliver’d in as a Stock yesum of One Thousand Pounds to be used & employ’d in Common between them for yecarrying on yesdArt of making China Wares And that one third share of Profits arising therefrom It is mutually agreed between all yesdparties shall be receiv’d by & paid to yesaid John Heath till yesaid PrinlSum of £1000 be paid inAlsoit is agreed between yesdparties to these Presents that yesdCopartners shall not at any time hereafter use or follow yeTrade aforesaid or any other Trade whatsoever during yesdTerm to their private Benefit and advantage. And also that yesdCopartners shall during yesaid Term pay and discharge equally and proportionably between them all expenses they shall be at in managing yeArt and Trade aforesaid[F1: period?] And also that all Gain or Profit that shall arise from yeArt & Trade aforesaid during yesaid Term shall be divided between them yesdCopartners Share and Share alike And likewise that all such Losses as shall happen by bad Debts Ill Commodities or otherwise shall be borne equally between themAndit is further agreed by yesdParties that there shall be kept during yesdTerm Just & True Books of Accounts to wchsdBooks any of yesdCopartners shall have free access without Interruption of yeotherAndit is further agreed that at any time hereafter at yerequest of yesaid John Heath New Articles shall be made & an additional Term of years not less than Ten shall be added with such alterations and additions as may be found necessaryAndthat yesaid Copartners shall from time to time communicate to each other every Secret of yesaid ArtAndthat yesaid John Heath shall have it in his power to appoint any other Person to Act for him if he should chuse so to do wchPerson shall be as fully impowered to Act with regard to all Covenants herein contained as yesdJohn Heath himself.Witness our handsthe Day & Year above written.”

These articles are not signed, and as in no instance which has come under my notice the name of Planché again appears—and as I can only trace the firm as that of “Duesbury and Heath”—I fear one is driven to the inference that the usual fate of clever men awaited Andrew Planché, and that when his knowledge was fully imparted, he was, from some cause or other, discarded by those who had taken him in hand. At all events, this is the only instance in which his name appears in any of the papers connected with the works which I have examined. Of Planché, however, whom I was the first to discover and note in 1862, but who, despite all I had written, was spoken of by Mr. A. Wallis, eight yearslater, as “an apocryphal French refugee,”[9]I am enabled to give some additional particulars.

Andrew Planché was one of the five sons of Paul Planché, a French refugee, by his first wife, Marie Anne Fournier, also a refugee, whom he married in 1723. Andrew was born on the 14th, and baptized on the 24th, of March, 1727–8, and his youngest brother was Jacques Planché (born in 1734), who married his cousin (the only daughter of Antoine Planché by his wife Mary, daughter of Herr Abraham Thomas and his wife Catherine), and was father of my old and valued friend, J. R. Planché, F.S.A., the well-known dramatist and antiquary. This fact I brought to his knowledge in 1862, and again when he was writing his interesting “Recollections,” in which he has embodied some of the information I supplied him with. Through the re-marriage of their father, the two boys, Andrew and Jacques, had early to shift for themselves; the latter made his way to Geneva, where he learned the business of watch-making, and the former, I believe, went into Saxony, and there learned the art of making porcelain at Dresden. How he came to Derby is at present a mystery, but he was there at all events as early as, if not earlier than, 1751. This is proved, as I shall presently show, by the birth of one of his sons. In 1751 he would be 23 years of age, and was living in the parish of St. Alkmund, in Derby. The following entries are extracted from the parish register of St. Alkmund’s:—

That Andrew Planché was not very strict in his morals is revealed by these extracts, which show that in 1756 he had two sons baptised within four months of each other, the first by a young woman named Margaret Burroughs, and the second by his wife. This was the year, 1756, in which the articles of agreement were drawn up. What became of Planché after he left Derby is not known. He appears to have been a very erratic individual, and his whereabouts uncertain. He was living at Bath at the ripe age of 76, in 1804, and died there soon afterwards. At all events,I have proof that he was in Derby eight years—how much longer I know not—and I have also, as will be seen, indisputable proof that William Duesbury had no connection with Derby till 1755–6, the date of the deed I have printed above.

When Duesbury, whether in conjunction with Planché and Heath or not, commenced business, it appears to have been in the small premises which had not long before been relinquished for a guinea by the father of William Hutton; and in them was thus commenced, in a very small way, that manufacture of porcelain which afterwards grew to so immense an extent. In the year 1756 the draft of agreement was drawn up, and the ware made at the manufactory must soon have found a ready sale, for in the course of a very few years Mr. Duesbury was carrying on a good trade, had a London house for the sale of his productions, and became a thriving and well-to-do man.

William Duesbury was of Longton Hall, in the county of Stafford, and was the son of William Duesbury, currier, of Cannock, in the same county, who in 1755, as is evidenced by the original deed in my possession, made over to him his household furniture, leather, implements of trade, and other effects, on condition that he should find him “during the term of his natural life, good and sufficient meat, drink, washing, and lodging, wearing apparel, and all other necessaries whatsoever.” The following is a verbatim copy of this curious deed, from the original. It is fully stamped, signed, and attested, and runs as follows:—

“This Indenturemade the Twenty-seventh day of September in the twenty-ninth Year of the reign of King George the second over Great Britain and so forth and in the Year of our Lord One Thousand Seven Hundred and fifty-fiveBetweenWilliam Duesbury of Cannock in the County of Stafford Currier of the one part and William Duesbury of Longton Hall in the Parish of Stoke-upon-Trent in the said County of Stafford Son of the said William Duesbury of the other partWitnesseththat for and in Consideration of the natural Love and affection which he the said William Duesbury hath and beareth to the said William Duesbury the younger And of the Covenant or Agreement hereinafter contained on the part and behalf of the said William Duesbury the younger to be done and performed and of the Sum of Five Shillings of lawful British Money to the said William Duesbury in hand paid by the said William Duesbury the younger at or before the execution of these presents the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged He the said William Duesbury Hath given granted bargained and sold and by these presentsDothgive grant bargain and sell unto the said William Duesbury the younger All and singular the Household Goods Leather Implements of Trade and all other the goods Chattles and Personal Estate of him the said William Duesbury situate and being at Cannock aforesaid or elsewhere in the said County of Stafford and every of them and every part thereof And all the Estate right title Interest & property claim and demand whatsoever both in Law and Equity of the said William Duesbury of in or unto the same every or any part thereofTo have and To holdtake retain and enjoy the said Household Goods Leather Implements of Trade and every of them And all other the goods Chattles and personal Estate above given granted bargained and sold or mentioned and intended so to be with their appurtenances unto the saidWilliam Duesbury the younger his Extors. admors. & assigns from henceforth absolutely and for ever to his and their own Use and benefit And the said William Duesbury for himself his Extors. & admors. doth covenant promise and grant to and with the said William Duesbury the younger his Extors. admors. & assigns that he the said William Duesbury his Extors. & admors or some of them All and singular the said Goods Chattles and personal Estate above given granted bargained and sold or mentioned & intended so to be to the said William Duesbury the younger his Extors. & admors. against all Men shall and will warrant & for ever defend And the said William Duesbury hath put the said William Duesbury the younger into possion. of all & singular the said Goods and Chattles by delivering him one Pewter Plate in the name of all and singular the said Goods and Chattles at the execution of these presentsAnd This Indenture further witnessethAnd the said William Duesbury the younger in Consideration of the Premises for himself his Heirs Extors. & admors. doth covenant promise grant and agree to and with the said William Duesbury his Extors. & admors. That he the said William Duesbury the younger his Heirs Extors. and admors. or some of them shall and will from time to time and at all times hereafter find and provide for the said William Duesbury during the term of his natural Life good & sufficient meat drink washing and Lodging wearing apparel and all other necessaries whatsoever at the proper Costs and Charges of him the said William Duesbury the younger his Heirs Extors. Admors. or assignsIn witnesswhereof the said Parties to these presents have hereunto set their Hands and Seals the day & year first above written.Sealed and deliveredin the presence ofWilliam Duesbury.Mary Knight.Jo: Knight.William Duesbury.

Sealed and delivered

in the presence of

William Duesbury.

Mary Knight.

Jo: Knight.

William Duesbury.

I next find William Duesbury, the enameller, of Longton, entering into partnership with Heath and Planché on the first January in the year following his executing this deed for the maintenance of his father; and entries in the family Bible prove that at this time he removed to Derby, to carry on his newly-acquired business “in ye art of making English china, as also in buying and selling of all sorts of wares belonging to ye art of making china.” The partnership deed bearing date the first of January, 1756, shows that the negotiations must have been made in the previous year, 1755, and as the deed of gift from his father is dated September 27th of that year, it is evident that the one was consequent on the other, and that the arrangement with his father was the result of his determination to come to Derby. The father lived until 1768, and died and was buried in Derby. In the parish register is the entry, “1768. Buried, Mr. Duesbrie, March 17.”

William Duesbury was born on the 7th of September, 1725, and married Sarah James, of Shrewsbury (who was born on the 12th of August, 1724). In 1755 he was residing at Longton, as an enameller on china ware, &c., and in 1756 removed to Derby to carry on the porcelain works there. By his wife Sarah, who died on the 14th of September, 1780, and was buried at St. Alkmund’s Church, Derby, he had several children. These were, so far as I have been able to ascertain, William, born in Londonin 1752, and died there in infancy; Anne, born at Longton, Oct. 3, 1754, who became the wife of Richard Egan, linendraper, of London, and afterwards china, earthenware, and glass dealer, of Bath; Mary, born in London, in 1753, but baptised at St. Alkmund’s, Derby, who died in infancy; another Mary, born at Derby, Nov., 1756, and died in 1783; Sarah, born in 1758, and died an infant; another Sarah, born in 1759, and buried in 1767; Dorothea, born in 1761, who married the Rev. John Chawner, of Church Broughton, in 1786; William, born in 1763, who succeeded his father; and James, born in 1765, who, after an erratic and evidently misunderstood and unfortunate life, died in obscurity. Mr. Duesbury himself, after a long and useful life, in the course of which he not only established the Derby China Works, but became the purchaser of those of Chelsea, Bow, Vauxhall, and Kentish Town, died at Derby, and was buried at St. Alkmund’s Church, in that town, on the 2nd of November, 1786.

William Duesbury, son and successor of the last named, was born at Derby, and baptised at St. Alkmund’s Church there, March 1, 1763. On the 4th of January, 1787, he married Elizabeth, daughter of William Edwards, Esq., solicitor, of Derby, the lady having three days before completed her twentieth year. By her he had issue three sons—William, who succeeded him; Nathaniel, who died in 1809, aged 19; and Frederick, who became an eminent physician in London—and two daughters, viz., Sarah, who remained unmarried, and died in 1875; and Anne Elizabeth, who became the wife of Francis Jessop, Esq., solicitor, of Derby. So far it has been necessary to summarise this bit of family genealogy, but the remainder will form a part of the thread of the history of the works.

The manufacture of china under the first William Duesbury must have rapidly risen into eminence, for in 1763, in an account of “goods sent to London,” no less than forty-two large boxes appear at one time to have been despatched to the metropolis, and the proceeds, I presume, of the sale of a part of them, on the 2nd of May, in that year, amounted to no less a sum than £666 17s.6d.It is very interesting, at this early period of the art, to be enabled to say of what varieties of goods the consignment to London consisted, and I therefore give the list of contents of some of the boxes entire, and also a few items from others. I do this the more readily because it has been recently said by the writer to whom I have already alluded, “We doubt very much whether the higher sorts of fine porcelain (figures, vases, &c.) weremade upon the Nottingham Road until the purchase of the Chelsea Works in 1769 and the commencement of what is called the Chelsea-Derby period, which lasted until 1785 or 1786.”

Box No. 41 contained—

Box No. 31—

Box No. 29—

Box No.11—

There were also, of various sizes, blue fluted boats, Mosaic boats, sage-leaf boats, potting pots, caudle cups, blue strawberry pots, fig-leaf sauce boats, octagon fruit plates, vine-leaf plates, coffee cups, flower vases, standing sheep, feeding sheep, cats, sunflower blows, pedestals, honeycomb jars, coffee pots, blue guglets and basins to ditto; butter tubs, Chelsea jars, tea pots, honeycomb pots, figures of Mars and Minerva, sets of the Elements, Spanish shepherds, Neptune, the Muses, bucks, tumblers, roses, Jupiter, Diana, boys, garland shepherd, Spaniards, Chelsea-pattern candlesticks, Dresden ditto, jars and beakers, polyanthus pots, &c., &c.

It is worthy of note that at this time, although much within the ten years stipulated for the partnership, the name of William Duesbury alone usually occurs. It is true that in some instances “Duesbury and Co.,” and “Duesbury and Heath,” are met with, but these are the exception. The works at Derby continued now rapidly to extend, and fresh articles and subjects were being continually added to those already made. The best available talent was got together, apprentices were taken to the modelling, the painting, the making or “repairing” of china, and other parts of the manufacture, and it was soon found advisable to have a regular warehouse in London.

The mark used in the earliest days of the works is not certain, but I believe, and I have reason for that belief, that it was simplythe letter, which, would stand either for “Duesbury” or for “Derby;” probably in gold. The figures and groups, too, were numbered and registered for reproduction.

On the 17th of August, 1769, Mr. Duesbury arranged for the purchase of the Chelsea China Works, their purchase being completed on the 5th of February, 1770, when a payment of £400, in part of the purchase-money, was made by Mr. Duesbury, who thus, as the proprietor of the Derby and the Chelsea Works, became the largest manufacturer in the kingdom.[10]The history of the Chelsea Works has already been fully given in the first volume of this work, and therefore it is only necessary here to say, that in 1862, in my paper on the Derby China Works, in theArt Journal, I was for the first time enabled to state the fact that Mr. Duesbury purchased “the Chelsea Porcelain Manufactory, and its appurtenances and lease thereof,” on the 5th of February, 1770, and that it was covenanted to be assigned over to him on or before the 8th of that month; the date of the arrangement to purchase being August 17th, 1769. For some few years, then, Mr. Duesbury carried on both establishments, and subsequently removed the models and some of the workmen to Derby, where also he removed such of the models, &c., from Bow, which had likewise come into his possession. The purchase of the Chelsea Works soon entailed upon him the commencement of some heavy law proceedings which lasted many years. The cause of these proceedings was the attempt at recovery of a quantity of goods claimed by Duesbury as a part of his purchase, being goods made by Spremont, and of his material, but which were afterwards sold, it was said, wrongfully, by Francis Thomas, to a person named Burnsall. The action was commenced in 1770, and in 1771 Mr. Spremont, the old proprietor of the Chelsea Works, died. The proceedings, however, continued for several years.

During the time Mr. Duesbury carried on the Chelsea Works, from February 1770 to 1773, the “weekly bills” are now in my possession, and are particularly interesting as showing the nature of the articles then made, and the names of the painters and others employed, and the amount of wages they earned. The following examples will be read with interest. The first I giveis quite one of the early ones—of the same month in which the works were delivered over to Duesbury:—

1770.A Weekly Bill at Chelsea from the 24 of March to the 31.

Work done this Week at Chelsea—

Back to Index Next