Chapter 8

Figs. 47 to 50.—From the Museum of Practical Geology.

A few months before Mr. Duesbury’s death—which, as I have stated, took place in November, 1786—he took his son William into partnership, and the business was carried on under the styleof “Messrs. William Duesbury and Son.” It thus appears upon the title-pages of the sale catalogue of 22nd September in that year, but is altered back to “Mr. William Duesbury” alone in that for 21st December following. For some years before the death of his father the younger Mr. William Duesbury had devoted himself untiringly to the advancement of the works. No man could have been more highly respected, both by his workmen and by all who knew or had dealings with him at home and abroad, than was this second William Duesbury, and under his care the works continued to grow in importance with an astonishing rapidity, and soon became by far the most prosperous and most successful in the kingdom. The connection which had previously been formed with the principal families, from royalty downwards, spread and increased, and among the hundreds of names of purchasers on the sale sheets and other papers, I come across, at random, those of the King, the Queen, the Prince of Wales (afterwards George IV.), who was a large customer for dessert, tea, coffee, and other services; the Duchess of Devonshire, William Pitt, Sir Hugh Pallisser, the Margravine of Anspach, the Duke of Northumberland, Lord Howe, and indeed almost every title then in the peerage. Besides this, several ladies of distinction painted groups of flowers and other pictures on porcelain, supplied to them for the purpose by Mr. Duesbury, who afterwards fired and finished them for their own special use. Of these ladies, Lady Margaret Fordyce, Lady Plymouth, and Lady Aubrey executed some beautiful drawings, which probably may still remain in their families. Lord Lonsdale also had twenty-four plates painted with landscapes inCumberland, from his own sketches, and many other noblemen and gentlemen did the same; many sets of china being painted with views of different parts of the estates of those for whom they were manufactured. Bronze figures of horses—probably originally belonging to the famous Duke of Newcastle, whose work on Horsemanship is the finest ever produced—were lent to Mr. Duesbury from Welbeck Abbey; and Lady Spencer also sent some choice moulds for working from. Altogether the Derby works, during the latter part of the first Mr. Duesbury’s time, and during the life of his son, were, as I have said, the most successful, the best conducted, and the most fashionable establishment of the kind in the kingdom.

Fig. 51.—“King’s vase,” Museum of Practical Geology.

Constant application to business, and the wear and tear of the brain from incessant anxieties, about 1795 made such fearful inroads on the health of Mr. Duesbury, that he was induced by his friends to take into partnership a Mr. Michael Kean, a very clever miniature painter, an Irishman by birth, who brought his talents to bear on the works, and by his skill in designing and drawing added much to the beauty of the articles manufactured. His connection however, seems to have been a source of still greater anxiety to Mr. Duesbury, whose mind gradually gave way under his load of care. In 1796 Mr. Duesbury died, and after a time Mr. Kean (who had for a time the management of the business for the widow and her young family) married the widow, but not long after, from reasons into which it is needless to enter, as they do not affect the narrative, withdrew hastily from the concern, and the works were then continued for, and afterwards by, the third William Duesbury. Mrs. Duesbury, by hersecond marriage (with Michael Kean) had a family of five children. She died in 1829, after having passed a not altogether happy life. This third William Duesbury (grandson of the founder of the works) was the eldest son of William Duesbury by his wife, Elizabeth Edwards. He was born in 1787, and on the 26th September, 1808, married Annabella, daughter of William E. Sheffield, Esq., of the Polygon, Somers Town, London, and for a time the concern was carried on under the firm of “Duesbury and Sheffield.”

In 1815, Mr. Duesbury leased the premises to Mr. Robert Bloor, who had been a clerk to his father, and had carried on the business during Mr. Duesbury’s minority, and the entire concern ultimately passed into his hands, and was carried on by him for the first few years with much judgment and skill.

Fig. 52.

Before Mr. Bloor’s time it had been the constant plan of the Duesburys—so worthily tenacious were they of their reputation, and of keeping up the high and unblemished character of their works—to allow none butperfectgoods to leave their premises, and no matter how costly the article, or how trivial the fault (frequently so trivial as to be only perceptible to the most practised eye), all goods which were not perfect were stowed away in rooms in the factory, and had accumulated to an enormous extent. When Mr. Bloor took the concern, this stock of seconds goods became an almost exhaustless mine of wealth to him. Having to pay the purchase money by instalments, he found the easiest method of doing so was to finish up these goods, take them to different large towns, and there sell them by auction, and also to have sales at the manufactory; one of these sales, in 1822, continued twenty-five days. By this means Mr. Bloor amassed large sums of money, as the “Derby china” found ready and liberal purchasers wherever it was thus offered. This system, however, though it had a temporary good, produced a lasting evil. The temptation to produce large quantities of goods specially for auction sale was so great as not to be withstood, and as by this meansthey were disposed of “with all their imperfections thick upon them,” less care was devoted to their manufacture, and the decline of the works, principally from this cause, commenced.

Mr. Robert Bloor was assisted in his works by his brother Joseph, by whom the “mixing” was mainly done, and from 1828, when Mr. Robert Bloor’s health began to fail, they were carried on for him by a manager named Thomason. The two brothers died within a short time of each other. Robert, who had lost his mind for many years before his decease, died in 1845, and Joseph the year following. The works then passed into the hands of Mr. Thomas Clarke, who had married a grand-daughter of Robert Bloor’s, who discontinued them, and sold most of the models, &c., to the Staffordshire manufacturers—the greater bulk going into the hands of Mr. Boyle, a manufacturer, of Fenton, who was son of Mr. John Boyle, and for a short time before his death a partner with the Wedgwoods. The final dissolution of the old works took place in 1848, when a number of the workmen naturally migrated into Staffordshire and Worcestershire.

At this time, however, several of the old hands—actuated by the laudable desire of securing the continuance of a business which for a century had been so successfully carried on, and of continuing it as one of the trades of their native town—clubbed together (to use a characteristic expression), and commenced business on their own account. They each and all threw into the common stock what knowledge, experience, money, and tools, &c, they possessed, took premises in King Street (on the site of old St. Helen’s Nunnery), and under the name of “Locker and Co.” commenced making “Derby china,” and adopted, very properly, a distinctive mark, which shows this epoch in the works. It is a somewhat curious circumstance, that on the site of the old china works the modern Roman Catholic nunnery of S. Marie was erected; while on the site of the old nunnery of St. Helen, the present china works are now carried on. Great difficulties were encountered by this band of workmen, but their zeal and determination overcame them.

Mr. Locker (who was a native of Blackfordby, and had been clerk and warehouseman at the old works in the latter part of their existence) died in 1859, and the works were next conducted under the style of “Stevenson and Co.,” and “Stevenson, Sharp, and Co.,” till the death of Mr. Stevenson, when the style was changed to that of “Hancock and Co.,” and the works are nowcontinued by Mr. Sampson Hancock, and bid fair, if not to rival the early glory and success of the works, at least to do credit to the town of Derby, in which they are situated. Some of the productions are highly creditable to the taste and skill of the men, and show that “ye art of making English china,” imparted to William Duesbury in 1756, is not forgotten, but remains with his successors to the present day.

One of the last large services made by Bloor was a magnificent dessert made for her present Majesty, and some large additions to that set, and pieces for replacing, have been from time to time made by the present owners of the works, which are still therefore as fully entitled to the name of “Royal” works as any of their predecessors. The marks used by these later firms will be found engraved on page 93; I give them to complete the chronological series. The name of Courtney, which appears on one of these marks, was Bloor’s agent.

Having now gone through theHistoryof the works, it only remains to speak of the artists employed, and of one branch of the manufacture, that of “Biscuit,” which requires more than a passing notice. This material was a discovery of, and quite peculiar to, the Derby Works, and the secret of its composition is still preserved. To it the beautiful material Parian thus owes its origin. One of the Derby workmen having engaged himself to Mr. Copeland, was trying experiments to recover the secret of the biscuit composition, when instead of it he produced accidentally that which has been named “Parian,” and in which all the exquisitely beautiful figures and groups that characterise their, and other equally admirable, productions have since, with modifications and improvements, been worked. It is pleasant thus to know, that although the art of making Derby biscuit figures has been discontinued, the Parian has sprung from it, and was first produced by a Derby man. Nothing could exceed the sharpness and beauty of the biscuit figures as produced in the best days of the Derby Works, and some examples, for delicacy and fineness of modelling, and for sharpness of touch, have never, in any ceramic material, been surpassed, or scarcely equalled.

Transfer printing on china appears to have been introduced at Derby in 1764—some years before even Wedgwood printed his own ware, but while he was in the habit of sending it off to Liverpool to be printed by Messrs. Sadler and Green. The process, however, didnot obtain much favour at Derby, and Mr. Duesbury evidently found it better, and more satisfactory, to adhere to hand-work in all his goods. The person who introduced the process, and whom he engaged to carry it on, was Richard Holdship, of Worcester, who, by deed, covenanted for the sum of £100 paid down, and a yearly sum of £30 so long as the works continued on his process, to impart in writing to Messrs. Duesbury and Heath his secret process for making china according to proofs already made by him at the Derby Works; to supply them with all sufficient quantities of soapy rock at fair prices; and to print all the china or porcelain ware which might have occasion to be printed. The engagement with Holdship lasted, at all events, many years, but during that time the printing evidently was not much followed, as in his letters to his employers he is constantly complaining of having no work for his presses, and in having no goods made according to his process. He had an assistant named William Underwood, and in one of his letters he values his press at ten guineas in cash, and his copper-plates at a large amount, while he says “for his process for Printing Enamell and Blew, he hath been offered several Hundred Pounds.” His stock of enamel colours, 151 lbs. in weight, he offers to sell for £35. It is needless to write more in this place of Holdship’s connection with Derby, as I have already given more full particulars in the first volume, page 232. At one time John Lodge, the eminent engraver, engraved some plates for printing at Derby. The following is his bill for some engraving done in 1771:—

Mr.DeusberryDr. toJohn Lodge,

Sept. 28, 1771.

Recd. the Contents in full of all demands,John Lodge.

Fruit dishes, and other articles were at one time made with open-work reticulated rims or sides; a raised “Dresden” flowerbeing placed on each of the outer sections in much the same manner as was characteristic of one period of Worcester work. These were made both in blue and white, and in enamel; they are somewhat scarce.

Fig. 53.

In 1789 Mr. Duesbury endeavoured to introduce batt-printing into his manufactory, and for that purpose prevailed on his former assistant, J. Hancock, then in Staffordshire, to inquire into and describe to him the process. I must not omit to say that earthen ware, called the “Cream Ware,” very closely resembling Wedgwood’s celebrated “Queen’s Ware,” was made at Derby for a short time, and was of great beauty. Specimens of this ware are of great rarity.

In 1790 Mr. Duesbury invented a machine for exhibiting the contraction of earthen bodies when in the fire; this he had constructed by Spooner and Son.

Figs. 56 to 58.

The marks used at the Derby China Works may be thus briefly summarised. The simple writing letteris said to have been the first mark used by William Duesbury. The, which stands either as the initial of Derby or of Duesbury, conjoined with the anchor of Chelseais the distinctive mark of the Chelsea-Derby period—the period when William Duesbury, who had purchased the Chelsea works, carried on both the manufactories, and, later, produced goods at Derby from the Chelsea moulds. Two or three varieties of this mark, according to the taste or whim of the workmen, occur (see Figs.56, 57, and 58).

Figs. 59 to 61.

Two other marks, the one asurmounted by a crown, and the other an anchor, similarly surmounted, are said to have denoted respectively the articles made at this period at Derby and at Chelsea (Figs.59to63). Now and then the first of these is met with in connection with the anchor (Fig. 63).

Figs. 62 to 67.

The most usual mark is that of the letter D, with crossed swords, dots, and crown, of which several varieties occur. Sometimes the initial is the writing letter, and sometimes a Roman capital D, and the crown also varies according to the caprice of the painter. Figs.64 to 67show some of the varieties.

Fig. 68.

A variety of this, in which aand aare conjoined, denotes the period when the works, in their later days, were carried on by Duesbury and Kean. It was, however, only very sparsely used. For some years, at all events up to about 1825 or 1830, Mr. Bloor continued to use the old mark of the Duesburys—the crown, cross daggers with dots, and D beneath—but about that period discontinued it, and adopted instead a mark with his own name (Fig.68). It is well to note, that down to the discontinuance of the old mark, it had invariably been done with the pencil,by hand, but that those adopted by Mr. Bloor wereprintedones. The first printed mark I believe to be Fig.69, and somewhat later the same was used, but slightly larger in size (Fig.71). Other marks are shown on the engravings. Figs.74 and 75have an old Englishsurmounted by a crown; another (Fig.76) a crown, with a riband bearing the word DERBY in Roman capitals beneath it.

Figs. 69 to 73.

Figs. 74 to 78.

Other marks, said to have been for one purpose or other—of course as imitations—used at Derby, are the following:—

Figs. 79 to 84.

In my own possession is a design, in pencil, by Mr. Duesbury, by his own hand, for a mark, which I engrave on Fig.84, although I believe it was never adopted. At all events I have failed in discovering a single specimen so marked. Mrs. Palliser, however, engraves a mark as occurring on a cup and saucer, which somewhat assimilates to it. She also gives, from a specimen in her own possession, the wordin writing letters. This, she states, occurs “in black on a biscuit statuette;” but I fear the mark has been added at a later date. Another mark, which has been described to me, but of which I have not seen an example, is very similar to Fig.84, but has the cross daggers and crown added, with the encircling words “DUESBURY, DERBY,” Fig.85. It may be well,en passant, to notice a mark which appears on one of the copper-plates of the Caughley works (see Vol. I., p.273). It is an anchor over the word “Derby.” As the initials RH conjoined also appear along with the anchor and word “Worcester,” and may mean either R. Hancock or Richard Holdship, the probability is they belong to the latter (who was connected with the Derby works), and that theanchorwas adopted in allusion to his name,hold ship—a very clever and ingenious device. Another variety belonging to Mr. Robinson differs slightly from these.

Figs. 84 to 89.

On some services, notably on the royal service, mentioned on page 88, Mr. Bloor had his name painted in full—

Messrs. Robert Bloor & Co.,34, Old Bond Street,

on the back of plates, &c. The “Co.” in this instance was Mr.Thomas Courteney, the London agent, through whom the order was procured. His place of business was 34, Old Bond Street, and many of the goods afterwards made for him bore the accompanying mark, Fig.91. Messrs. Locker & Co., at the modern King Street works, used the mark, Fig.92, and their successors, Stevenson, Sharp, and Co., the next one. The next firm, Stevenson and Hancock, used, in accordance with my suggestion, and a sketch I made for them, in 1862, the old Derby mark of the crown, crossed daggers, dots, and letter, with the initials of the firm S. H. (for Stevenson and Hancock); this is still continued by the present sole proprietor, Sampson Hancock—the letters S. H. being, fortunately, his own initials.

Figs. 91 to 94.

Of the artists employed at the Derby China Works, the principal modellers appear to have been Spengler, Stephan, Coffee, Complin, Hartenberg, Duvivier, Webber, and Dear, and many others, including Bacon the sculptor, were employed in London, and the models sent down to the works.

Of the painters, the principal ones were Bowman, who was originally of Chelsea, afterwards of Derby, and then again of London, and who was one of the best flower and landscape painters of his day; Billingsley, who received instruction from Bowman, and whose flower pieces have certainly never been surpassed, or even equalled; Hill, a famous painter of landscapes, who delighted in sylvan scenery; Brewer, also an excellent landscape and figure painter, and whose wife, Bernice Brewer, was also a painter; Pegg, who surpassed in faithful copying of nature, in single branches and flowers, and in autumnal borders; Samuel Keys, a clever ornamentalist, who ended his days in the employ of Mintons; Steel, who excelled all others in painting fruit; John Keys, a flower painter; Cotton and Askew, two highly-gifted painters of figures; Webster, Withers, Hancock (two, uncle andnephew), Bancroft and others as flower painters; Lowton, clever at hunting and sporting subjects; and Robertson, at landscapes.[17]But besides these, there were many other really clever artists employed. It is pleasant, too, to know, that “Wright, of Derby,” the celebrated portrait painter, the contemporary and fellow pupil with Reynolds, lent his powerful aid on some occasions,[18]in supplying drawings and giving advice, as did also De Boeuff, Bartolozzi, Sanby, Glover, and many others of eminence; and it is also interesting to add, that one of the Wedgwood family, Jonathan Wedgwood, was at one time employed at Derby. The draft of agreement between himself and William Duesbury, dated 1772, is in my own possession, and by it he binds himself for three years to work at “the arts of repairing or throwing china or porcelaine ware,” for the sum of fourteen shillings per week. A few brief notes upon some of the artists of the Derby works will doubtless be of service to collectors; I therefore dot down the following memoranda:—

J. J. Spengler, a Frenchman, had been occasionally employed in London by Mr. Duesbury to model figures for him, and in 1790, on the recommendation of Mr. Vulliamy, entered into an agreement to come to Derby. Mr. Wallis, in his not very reliable account of the Derby China Works, to which I have before referred, says Spengler “was brought to Derby from London by Mr. Kean,” but this is an error. He was in Derby years before Mr. Kean had any connection with the works. The original agreements, dated July 13 and September 15th, 1790, are in my own possession (as are also a number of original letters, accounts, and other documents connected with him), and is as follows:—“A Copy.“A Memorandum.London, July 13, 1790.“That the Bearer, Mr. J. Spengler, has agreed to come down to the Manufactory at Derby, to work as Modeller, &c, and to receive for the first month after the rate of three Guineas per week, and his expenses paid down by the Coach. His hours of work is to be from Seven o’clock in the morning till the rest of the People in the Manufactory give Over work in the Evening. It is further agreed on, that after the expiration of the first Month, if the parties like each other and they agree for a fixed time to come, The bearer, Mr. J. Spengler, is then only to receive after the rate of two pounds ten shillings per week from the first day he began to work in the manufactory.“Witness: (Signed) “For Mr. W. Duesbury.“B. Vulliamy. “J. Spengler. “J. Lygo.”He accordingly came to Derby and a more full agreement was drawn up in September. On the 15th of that month he drew up and signed a memorandum to the effect that as he knewnothing either of the laws or language of England, he was to go to London to cause to be examined the agreement made between himself and “Monsieur Duesbury Maitre de la fabrique de Porcelaine a Derbey,” and should it be found right, to return at once to Derby and sign and execute it; Mr. Duesbury agreeing to pay the expenses of the journey and half the loss of time at the rate fixed in the agreement. This memorandum, which is well written, but in wretched French, is signed by “J. Spengler” and by “Mr. Duesbury” thus:—“Sep. 15th, ’90. As far as I can understand the French Language, I conceive the above to be right.WmDuesbury.”Spengler first went down to Derby in the beginning of August, 1790, soon after the date of the agreement of July 13th (having just previously modelled a “Figure of Astronomy, in London,” for which Mr. Duesbury paid him ten guineas, and for extra time expended over it at Derby, in finishing, an additional two and a half guineas), and his first pieces of work were “Figure with a Vase (Morning),” and its companion, a “Figure with a Vase (Noon),” for each of which he was paid seven guineas; and the “Three Graces,” for the time expended on which he was paid six guineas.[19]Before long, unpleasantness arose through Spengler’s inattention to work, breach of contracts, and getting into debt, and in 1792 he left Derby surreptitiously. Proceedings were taken by Mr. Duesbury; his goods (the inventory of which, dated March 18th, is before me) were sold; and he was captured at Ramsgate, and placed in the King’s Bench Prison. The result of law proceedings was that Spengler entered into a fresh agreement with Mr. Duesbury (I have the draft) by which he covenanted “Not to lose more time in any one week than half a day, sickness excepted, under the penalty of paying after the rate of 7s. per day to Mr. D., Mr. S. to continue to serve Mr. D. to the best of his skill (without working for any other person) until he shall have paid Mr. D. the ballance due to him, and all lawful expences; Mr. D. receiving two-thirds of his earnings, Spengler to have liberty to attend any number of hours (that the manufactory is open for others) over and above those work’d by himself and the rest of the other hands for overtime, and to receive in the same proportion for such time as for the regular day’s time,” and so on. He was, evidently, for the purpose of carrying out the agreement, bailed out of the King’s Bench by a friend, whose letters I possess, but by November of the same year had again left his employment.[20]Spengler was then again in the King’s Bench, from which, on the 31st of January, after other correspondence, he wrote a very pathetic letter (in French, as all his letters are) to Mr. Duesbury, and ultimately it appears that an arrangement was come to for him to work in London. In 1794, fresh arrangements were again in progress (Spengler, who was living at Chelsea, in the meantime having continued to work for Mr. Duesbury), and much correspondence took place; the result being that in February, 1795, Spengler returned to Derby, under a fresh agreement, which, as it contains much valuable information as to figures and groups, and prices for modelling them, I give entire:—“Heads of an Agreement to be enterd into between Wm. Duesbury of Derby in the County of Derby & J. J. Spengler, Modeller, Viz.:—“J. J. S. to serve Wm. D. his Exs. Adms. or Asss. in his Manufactory at Derby for so long as W. D. his Exs. Adms. or Asss. shall have occasion for the assistance of J. J. S. W. D. his Exs. Adms. & Asss. reserving to themselves the power of Terminating this Agreement by giving J. J. S. 1 Month’s notice at any time. J. J. S. to have the like power of Terminating it at any time by giving 1 Ms. notice unless he shall not be able in that time to complete any Set of work he may have undertaken in which case J. J. S. to stop with W. D. his Exs. Adms. or Asss. till such work is so finishd if required by W. D. his Exs. Adms. or Asss.“W. D. having been a great looser by J. J. S. under a former Agreement, it is now agreed that W. D. his Exs. Adms. or Asss. shall have the liberty to pay J. J. S. for his Work either by the day at four shillings prday of 10 hours (to be the same hours which other Workmen work for a day from time to time in the Porcn. Manufactory at Derby) or by the piece as aftermentiond at their option when any piece of Work shall be finished.“The prizes for each Male or Female Human Figure to be Modeld by J. J. S. from any sketch either on paper or in Clay &c. as highly finished as the Russian Shepherd Group—Palemon & Lavinia Group—Blind Beggar & Daughter Do. modeld for W. D. by J. J. S. some time since to be

“A Copy.

“A Memorandum.

London, July 13, 1790.

“That the Bearer, Mr. J. Spengler, has agreed to come down to the Manufactory at Derby, to work as Modeller, &c, and to receive for the first month after the rate of three Guineas per week, and his expenses paid down by the Coach. His hours of work is to be from Seven o’clock in the morning till the rest of the People in the Manufactory give Over work in the Evening. It is further agreed on, that after the expiration of the first Month, if the parties like each other and they agree for a fixed time to come, The bearer, Mr. J. Spengler, is then only to receive after the rate of two pounds ten shillings per week from the first day he began to work in the manufactory.

“Witness: (Signed) “For Mr. W. Duesbury.

“B. Vulliamy. “J. Spengler. “J. Lygo.”

He accordingly came to Derby and a more full agreement was drawn up in September. On the 15th of that month he drew up and signed a memorandum to the effect that as he knewnothing either of the laws or language of England, he was to go to London to cause to be examined the agreement made between himself and “Monsieur Duesbury Maitre de la fabrique de Porcelaine a Derbey,” and should it be found right, to return at once to Derby and sign and execute it; Mr. Duesbury agreeing to pay the expenses of the journey and half the loss of time at the rate fixed in the agreement. This memorandum, which is well written, but in wretched French, is signed by “J. Spengler” and by “Mr. Duesbury” thus:—

“Sep. 15th, ’90. As far as I can understand the French Language, I conceive the above to be right.

WmDuesbury.”

Spengler first went down to Derby in the beginning of August, 1790, soon after the date of the agreement of July 13th (having just previously modelled a “Figure of Astronomy, in London,” for which Mr. Duesbury paid him ten guineas, and for extra time expended over it at Derby, in finishing, an additional two and a half guineas), and his first pieces of work were “Figure with a Vase (Morning),” and its companion, a “Figure with a Vase (Noon),” for each of which he was paid seven guineas; and the “Three Graces,” for the time expended on which he was paid six guineas.[19]Before long, unpleasantness arose through Spengler’s inattention to work, breach of contracts, and getting into debt, and in 1792 he left Derby surreptitiously. Proceedings were taken by Mr. Duesbury; his goods (the inventory of which, dated March 18th, is before me) were sold; and he was captured at Ramsgate, and placed in the King’s Bench Prison. The result of law proceedings was that Spengler entered into a fresh agreement with Mr. Duesbury (I have the draft) by which he covenanted “Not to lose more time in any one week than half a day, sickness excepted, under the penalty of paying after the rate of 7s. per day to Mr. D., Mr. S. to continue to serve Mr. D. to the best of his skill (without working for any other person) until he shall have paid Mr. D. the ballance due to him, and all lawful expences; Mr. D. receiving two-thirds of his earnings, Spengler to have liberty to attend any number of hours (that the manufactory is open for others) over and above those work’d by himself and the rest of the other hands for overtime, and to receive in the same proportion for such time as for the regular day’s time,” and so on. He was, evidently, for the purpose of carrying out the agreement, bailed out of the King’s Bench by a friend, whose letters I possess, but by November of the same year had again left his employment.[20]

Spengler was then again in the King’s Bench, from which, on the 31st of January, after other correspondence, he wrote a very pathetic letter (in French, as all his letters are) to Mr. Duesbury, and ultimately it appears that an arrangement was come to for him to work in London. In 1794, fresh arrangements were again in progress (Spengler, who was living at Chelsea, in the meantime having continued to work for Mr. Duesbury), and much correspondence took place; the result being that in February, 1795, Spengler returned to Derby, under a fresh agreement, which, as it contains much valuable information as to figures and groups, and prices for modelling them, I give entire:—

“Heads of an Agreement to be enterd into between Wm. Duesbury of Derby in the County of Derby & J. J. Spengler, Modeller, Viz.:—

“J. J. S. to serve Wm. D. his Exs. Adms. or Asss. in his Manufactory at Derby for so long as W. D. his Exs. Adms. or Asss. shall have occasion for the assistance of J. J. S. W. D. his Exs. Adms. & Asss. reserving to themselves the power of Terminating this Agreement by giving J. J. S. 1 Month’s notice at any time. J. J. S. to have the like power of Terminating it at any time by giving 1 Ms. notice unless he shall not be able in that time to complete any Set of work he may have undertaken in which case J. J. S. to stop with W. D. his Exs. Adms. or Asss. till such work is so finishd if required by W. D. his Exs. Adms. or Asss.

“W. D. having been a great looser by J. J. S. under a former Agreement, it is now agreed that W. D. his Exs. Adms. or Asss. shall have the liberty to pay J. J. S. for his Work either by the day at four shillings prday of 10 hours (to be the same hours which other Workmen work for a day from time to time in the Porcn. Manufactory at Derby) or by the piece as aftermentiond at their option when any piece of Work shall be finished.

“The prizes for each Male or Female Human Figure to be Modeld by J. J. S. from any sketch either on paper or in Clay &c. as highly finished as the Russian Shepherd Group—Palemon & Lavinia Group—Blind Beggar & Daughter Do. modeld for W. D. by J. J. S. some time since to be

“J. J. S. to go to Derby at his own expence & to begin work in 28 Days after his signing this Engagement. In the mean time Mr. Lygo to pay him from the Time he signs this Agreemt. 5/- pr. Week to be repaid by J. J. S. by Weekly Stoppages of Eight Shillings.“J. J. S. in all other particulars to work at & be subject to the same rules, orders, & regulations as the rest of the Workmen of the Manufactory at Derby.“All Sketches to be made whether in Clay or on paper, &c., under the direction of Mr. D. his Exs.] Adms. or Asss]. by the day without limitation of time. J. J. S. to do the best he can in this particular to dispatch business.“J. J. S. & W. D. agree hereby to execute regular articles of agreements conformable to the above specified heads so soon as the same can conveniently be prepared, under the Penelty of One Hundred Pounds. Signd this 10thday of Jany1795.“SPENGLER“Witness—Joseph Lygo.”“Modeler.In a letter dated February 3, 1795, it is said “Spangler will set off for Derby tomorrow, he intends walking as it will not be so expensive and he may as well be walking to Derby as stay here doing nothing.” How long he remained in Derby after this I have not ascertainedbut as Mr. Duesbury died the following year, and things went very awkwardly, it is probable he did not long remain.Pierre Stephan, another Frenchman, was for some years a modeller and china maker at Derby, and produced many lovely groups and single figures. He removed to Jackfield, where he commenced a small pot-works, producing not only earthenware, but encaustic tiles. His son, Mr. Peter Stephan, is, at the time I write, a skilled modeller at the Coalport China Works. (See page 305, vol.I.) By articles of agreement entered into on the 17th September, 1770, “between Peter Stephane of Derby in the County of Derby, Modeler and China or Porcelaine Repairer of the one part and William Duesbury of the same place China or Porcelain Manufacturer of the other part” he binds himself for three years “to employ himself in the art of Modelling and Repairing China or Porcelaine Ware” at £2 12s.6d.per week. The agreement is signed “Pierre Stephan” and “William Duesbury,” and is attested by “Constantine Smith,” “Friederick Decuber,” and “Thos. Morgan, Junr.”—names which will be found noticed elsewhere. In 1795 Stephan was at Shelton, and while there continued to model for and send moulds to Mr. Duesbury.Fidele Duvivier, a Frenchman, entered into an engagement with the elder Mr. Duesbury in 1769. The agreement (duly signed by both Duesbury and Duvivier, and attested by “John Bosher” and “S. Horrocks,”) is dated 31st October, 1769, and is “between Fidelle Duvivier of the borough of Derby China or Porcelain Painter,” and “William Duesbury of the same place China or Porcelain Manufacturer,” and covenants that the former shall, for four years from that date, “diligently and faithfully according to the best and utmost of his skill and knowledge, exercise and employ himself in the Art of Painting China or Porcelain Ware,” for the weekly wages of 24s.; Mr. Duesbury agreeing, at the end of that time, to give him an additional five guineas “in case he shall merit the same.” He became the principal flower painter at the Derby Works, and his style was much followed by the later painters. Duvivier remained some years at Derby, and then left, being afterwards employed at Wedgwood’s and various other places. In 1790, being then employed at the New Hall Works (which see), he wrote the following letter to the then Mr. Duesbury, and in consequence, I believe, he returned for a time to Derby:—“Hanley green, the 1 novebr 1790, Mr. Dousbery, Sir,—take the liberty Adressing you with a few lines, as mine Engegement in the new Hal Porcelaine manufatory is Expierd, and the propriotors do not intend to do much more in the fine line of Painting, therefor think of Settling in new Castle under lime being engag’d to teech Drowing in the Boarding School at that place, one School I have at Stone, so as to have only three days to Spare in the week for Painting, wich time Could wish to be employ’d by you preferable to eany other fabricque, because you like and understand good work, as am inform’d, my painting now to watt I did for your father is quit diferent but without flatering my Self, Hope to give you Satisfaction, in Case you Schould like to inploy me, Sir,—your anser will much oblige your Humble Servant,DuvivierP.S. the conveyance would be much in fevoir for to Send the ware to and from as ther is a waggon Every week from darby to new Castle”William J. Coffee, a modeller, who “made his mark” at Derby, was the son of William Coffee, who worked either at Hempel’s or Triquet’s pottery at Chelsea, and afterwards entered into domestic service in a gentleman’s family. Coffee was, I believe, brought up to some branch of the business with his father at these Chelsea works, and was afterwards employed at Coade’s Lambeth Pottery.[21]He first came down to Derby, I believe, about the year 1791, and agreements were entered into between him and Mr. Duesbury. I believe he at first came as a kiln-man. He does not, as a modeller, seem to have made much head-way at first, and even in 1794 the London agent wrote, “I do not much admire Mr. Coffee’s modelling from what I have yet seen. The figure No. 359 is one of the most stupid looking things I ever saw, and the figure of Apollo in group No. 379 is very vulgar about the bosom, for sure never such bubbys was seen and so much exposed—the design is pretty enough.” Soon after this a fresh agreement was entered into as to prices to be paid for figures according to size by the piece, or at day’s wages; Mr. Duesbury covenanting to have the option of paying him after the rate of 3s.6d.per day for each day of 10 hours that he works at the manufactory, “or at the rate of 7s.for any single human figure of 6 inches high, whether standing or in any other action, which if standing would be 6 inches high; and that all figures shall be roughed out naked in correct proportions before draped;” three pence for every half inch additional in height beingpaid, and so on. On the 30th of January, 1795, a fresh agreement was entered into:—“Memorandum—Whereas Heads of an Agreement between Wm. Coffee and Wm. Duesbury were Executed by W. C. and W. D. wherein 6 Months notice was agreed upon between them when either wished to close the Agreement—It is hereby agreed between W. D. and W. C. that the said Agreement shall be cancell’d, and this Agreement stand in its place viz—W. C. shall Modell for W. D. untill the 6th of July next at the prizes which shall be paid by W. D. to the Modeller he has now engaged to come down who is to have 4s.pr. day for such work as he shall do by the day and various prizes by the piece in proportion to their value when he works by the piece in lieu of by the day—NB—This Agreement is not to be construed to imploy that W. D. has agreed to raise W. C.’s wages by the day above 3s.6d.when he shall chuse to imploy W. C. by the day in preferance to his working by the piece—Signed this 30th of Jany. 1795. NB—W. C. remarks, that he would wish to know before he begins any piece of work whether the said work is to be Executed by him by the day or by the piece, W. D. certifies by this proviso that such was always his intention—W. Coffee,W. Duesbury, Witness, Charles King.”In the same year Coffee left Derby, and engaged himself with Sir Nigel Gresley, Bart., and Mr. Adderley, at their china works at Burton-on-Trent,[22]and immediately wrote as follows to Mr. Duesbury:—“Burton on Trent J 4 1795, Sir,—My being your Debtor makes it my Duty to inform you immediately of my arrival here and likewise of my engagement with Sir Nigel Gresley and Mr Adderley lest you should suppose that I had forgot the Obligation I lie under to you—but am extremely sorry to understand that you meant to injure me respecting my Business as that would totally deprive my honest intention of paying you, the mode of which I shall be happy to submit to your own satisfaction when I wait on you, I intend as soon as possible.—I am sir your h servant,W. Coffee.” To this Mr. Duesbury returned a manly letter, denying the imputation, asking for the name of Coffee’s informant, and assuring him that he has only to make the mode of repayment quite convenient to himself. In the same year the father of Coffee thus wrote:—“London Sepr 9th 1795, Sir,—My Son since He left you has been at Work near your Manufactory for Sir Nigel Gresley which He says He inform’d you of at the time—having finished all there was to do there He is now return’d to London and out of Employ. As I was very sorry for his leaving you and severely reflected on Him for it—He now assures me that He shou’d be extremely happy to serve you again—for a constancy if you thought proper under an Article for a Term of Years—at the lower rate of 18 or 17 Shillings pr week—He gave Sir Nigel the greatest satisaction both in His behaviour and in His Business—as a proof of which Sir Nigel has offer’d to give Him the best of Characters at any time it shou’d be requir’d of Him—therefore Sir you cou’d be satisfied in that respect at any time you pleas’d—hoping whatever may have happen’d at any time disagreeable your goodness will forget—Your condescention in favouring me with an Answer directly will much oblige Sir Your most humble ServantWilliam CoffeeP.S. He is wiling to repair or do what work you think proper. I will attend Mr Ligo hopeing your kind Answer.” The result was that Coffee returned to Derby; worked at the china factory as of old; and afterwards commenced business on his own account in Derby. Here he produced terra-cotta figures of considerable merit and in tolerable variety. Of these, a wolf, a lion, a dog, and others are strikingly good. He stamped his productions with his name, “W. COFFEE, DERBY,” and occasionally the number, or the date. He also gave lessons in modelling, and turned his attention to oil-painting and sculpture. His statue of Æsculapius, on the roof of the Infirmary at Derby, was his principal work. It was executed in or about 1810.Richard Askewwas employed at the Chelsea works when taken to by Duesbury, and came from there to Derby in 1772. His name occurs regularly in the “weekly bills” at Chelsea where he received 4s.2d.a-day wages. The following is an account for extra work done by him:—

“J. J. S. in all other particulars to work at & be subject to the same rules, orders, & regulations as the rest of the Workmen of the Manufactory at Derby.

“All Sketches to be made whether in Clay or on paper, &c., under the direction of Mr. D. his Exs.] Adms. or Asss]. by the day without limitation of time. J. J. S. to do the best he can in this particular to dispatch business.

“J. J. S. & W. D. agree hereby to execute regular articles of agreements conformable to the above specified heads so soon as the same can conveniently be prepared, under the Penelty of One Hundred Pounds. Signd this 10thday of Jany1795.

“SPENGLER

“Witness—Joseph Lygo.”

“Modeler.

In a letter dated February 3, 1795, it is said “Spangler will set off for Derby tomorrow, he intends walking as it will not be so expensive and he may as well be walking to Derby as stay here doing nothing.” How long he remained in Derby after this I have not ascertainedbut as Mr. Duesbury died the following year, and things went very awkwardly, it is probable he did not long remain.

Pierre Stephan, another Frenchman, was for some years a modeller and china maker at Derby, and produced many lovely groups and single figures. He removed to Jackfield, where he commenced a small pot-works, producing not only earthenware, but encaustic tiles. His son, Mr. Peter Stephan, is, at the time I write, a skilled modeller at the Coalport China Works. (See page 305, vol.I.) By articles of agreement entered into on the 17th September, 1770, “between Peter Stephane of Derby in the County of Derby, Modeler and China or Porcelaine Repairer of the one part and William Duesbury of the same place China or Porcelain Manufacturer of the other part” he binds himself for three years “to employ himself in the art of Modelling and Repairing China or Porcelaine Ware” at £2 12s.6d.per week. The agreement is signed “Pierre Stephan” and “William Duesbury,” and is attested by “Constantine Smith,” “Friederick Decuber,” and “Thos. Morgan, Junr.”—names which will be found noticed elsewhere. In 1795 Stephan was at Shelton, and while there continued to model for and send moulds to Mr. Duesbury.

Fidele Duvivier, a Frenchman, entered into an engagement with the elder Mr. Duesbury in 1769. The agreement (duly signed by both Duesbury and Duvivier, and attested by “John Bosher” and “S. Horrocks,”) is dated 31st October, 1769, and is “between Fidelle Duvivier of the borough of Derby China or Porcelain Painter,” and “William Duesbury of the same place China or Porcelain Manufacturer,” and covenants that the former shall, for four years from that date, “diligently and faithfully according to the best and utmost of his skill and knowledge, exercise and employ himself in the Art of Painting China or Porcelain Ware,” for the weekly wages of 24s.; Mr. Duesbury agreeing, at the end of that time, to give him an additional five guineas “in case he shall merit the same.” He became the principal flower painter at the Derby Works, and his style was much followed by the later painters. Duvivier remained some years at Derby, and then left, being afterwards employed at Wedgwood’s and various other places. In 1790, being then employed at the New Hall Works (which see), he wrote the following letter to the then Mr. Duesbury, and in consequence, I believe, he returned for a time to Derby:—“Hanley green, the 1 novebr 1790, Mr. Dousbery, Sir,—take the liberty Adressing you with a few lines, as mine Engegement in the new Hal Porcelaine manufatory is Expierd, and the propriotors do not intend to do much more in the fine line of Painting, therefor think of Settling in new Castle under lime being engag’d to teech Drowing in the Boarding School at that place, one School I have at Stone, so as to have only three days to Spare in the week for Painting, wich time Could wish to be employ’d by you preferable to eany other fabricque, because you like and understand good work, as am inform’d, my painting now to watt I did for your father is quit diferent but without flatering my Self, Hope to give you Satisfaction, in Case you Schould like to inploy me, Sir,—your anser will much oblige your Humble Servant,DuvivierP.S. the conveyance would be much in fevoir for to Send the ware to and from as ther is a waggon Every week from darby to new Castle”

William J. Coffee, a modeller, who “made his mark” at Derby, was the son of William Coffee, who worked either at Hempel’s or Triquet’s pottery at Chelsea, and afterwards entered into domestic service in a gentleman’s family. Coffee was, I believe, brought up to some branch of the business with his father at these Chelsea works, and was afterwards employed at Coade’s Lambeth Pottery.[21]He first came down to Derby, I believe, about the year 1791, and agreements were entered into between him and Mr. Duesbury. I believe he at first came as a kiln-man. He does not, as a modeller, seem to have made much head-way at first, and even in 1794 the London agent wrote, “I do not much admire Mr. Coffee’s modelling from what I have yet seen. The figure No. 359 is one of the most stupid looking things I ever saw, and the figure of Apollo in group No. 379 is very vulgar about the bosom, for sure never such bubbys was seen and so much exposed—the design is pretty enough.” Soon after this a fresh agreement was entered into as to prices to be paid for figures according to size by the piece, or at day’s wages; Mr. Duesbury covenanting to have the option of paying him after the rate of 3s.6d.per day for each day of 10 hours that he works at the manufactory, “or at the rate of 7s.for any single human figure of 6 inches high, whether standing or in any other action, which if standing would be 6 inches high; and that all figures shall be roughed out naked in correct proportions before draped;” three pence for every half inch additional in height beingpaid, and so on. On the 30th of January, 1795, a fresh agreement was entered into:—“Memorandum—Whereas Heads of an Agreement between Wm. Coffee and Wm. Duesbury were Executed by W. C. and W. D. wherein 6 Months notice was agreed upon between them when either wished to close the Agreement—It is hereby agreed between W. D. and W. C. that the said Agreement shall be cancell’d, and this Agreement stand in its place viz—W. C. shall Modell for W. D. untill the 6th of July next at the prizes which shall be paid by W. D. to the Modeller he has now engaged to come down who is to have 4s.pr. day for such work as he shall do by the day and various prizes by the piece in proportion to their value when he works by the piece in lieu of by the day—NB—This Agreement is not to be construed to imploy that W. D. has agreed to raise W. C.’s wages by the day above 3s.6d.when he shall chuse to imploy W. C. by the day in preferance to his working by the piece—Signed this 30th of Jany. 1795. NB—W. C. remarks, that he would wish to know before he begins any piece of work whether the said work is to be Executed by him by the day or by the piece, W. D. certifies by this proviso that such was always his intention—W. Coffee,W. Duesbury, Witness, Charles King.”

In the same year Coffee left Derby, and engaged himself with Sir Nigel Gresley, Bart., and Mr. Adderley, at their china works at Burton-on-Trent,[22]and immediately wrote as follows to Mr. Duesbury:—“Burton on Trent J 4 1795, Sir,—My being your Debtor makes it my Duty to inform you immediately of my arrival here and likewise of my engagement with Sir Nigel Gresley and Mr Adderley lest you should suppose that I had forgot the Obligation I lie under to you—but am extremely sorry to understand that you meant to injure me respecting my Business as that would totally deprive my honest intention of paying you, the mode of which I shall be happy to submit to your own satisfaction when I wait on you, I intend as soon as possible.—I am sir your h servant,W. Coffee.” To this Mr. Duesbury returned a manly letter, denying the imputation, asking for the name of Coffee’s informant, and assuring him that he has only to make the mode of repayment quite convenient to himself. In the same year the father of Coffee thus wrote:—“London Sepr 9th 1795, Sir,—My Son since He left you has been at Work near your Manufactory for Sir Nigel Gresley which He says He inform’d you of at the time—having finished all there was to do there He is now return’d to London and out of Employ. As I was very sorry for his leaving you and severely reflected on Him for it—He now assures me that He shou’d be extremely happy to serve you again—for a constancy if you thought proper under an Article for a Term of Years—at the lower rate of 18 or 17 Shillings pr week—He gave Sir Nigel the greatest satisaction both in His behaviour and in His Business—as a proof of which Sir Nigel has offer’d to give Him the best of Characters at any time it shou’d be requir’d of Him—therefore Sir you cou’d be satisfied in that respect at any time you pleas’d—hoping whatever may have happen’d at any time disagreeable your goodness will forget—Your condescention in favouring me with an Answer directly will much oblige Sir Your most humble ServantWilliam CoffeeP.S. He is wiling to repair or do what work you think proper. I will attend Mr Ligo hopeing your kind Answer.” The result was that Coffee returned to Derby; worked at the china factory as of old; and afterwards commenced business on his own account in Derby. Here he produced terra-cotta figures of considerable merit and in tolerable variety. Of these, a wolf, a lion, a dog, and others are strikingly good. He stamped his productions with his name, “W. COFFEE, DERBY,” and occasionally the number, or the date. He also gave lessons in modelling, and turned his attention to oil-painting and sculpture. His statue of Æsculapius, on the roof of the Infirmary at Derby, was his principal work. It was executed in or about 1810.

Richard Askewwas employed at the Chelsea works when taken to by Duesbury, and came from there to Derby in 1772. His name occurs regularly in the “weekly bills” at Chelsea where he received 4s.2d.a-day wages. The following is an account for extra work done by him:—

Recid. £2 2s.

April the 30, 1771.

Richard Askew.

Back to Index Next