Part 5

In noticing the bluish-white colour of the foreign article as compared with the cream tint of our own, I must explain that this difference lies in the management of the fire, since in none of them is stain or colour introduced to procure any such result. As my readers must now understand, there is in all clays, pure as they may be, a certain amount of oxide of iron, which, during the firing process, forms silicate of protoxide or peroxide, according to the chemical composition of the atmosphere of the oven in which they stand. On the Continent, to make hard porcelain successfully, the fire must be reductive; while here, on the contrary, it is oxidizing; and it is to the formation of a small quantity of silicate of peroxide of iron disseminated in the mass, that the creamy colour of our Parian is due. Since this new material was introduced by Messrs. Copeland and Messrs. Minton, about twenty-eight years ago, a large quantity of figures, busts, and groups have been sold, and the talent of our most eminent sculptors has been put to contribution to get models adapted for this kind of ware. Parian is generally cast, which accounts for the great contraction it undergoes when fired, and much care is required for propping or supporting the various articles, as neglect or miscalculation in this respect would inevitably ruin them. Otherwise, as this biscuit is made from few materials and takes but one single firing, the simplicity of the manufacture has induced many small makers to undertake it--a fact that we should regret, if we were to take a purely artistic view of this subject. Parian, which was originally sold in biscuit state, has since been glazed, for the purpose of making pieces of decoration. The manufactory at Worcester, several years ago, made a great many coloured and gilt ornaments in the Cinque-cento style, to which it has lately added a highly artistic imitation of the Japanese lacquered ivories, for which great credit is due to the present director, Mr. Binns.

The Belleek manufactory, in Ireland, has obtained a name for coating its glazed Parian with an iridescent lustre, in imitation of a similar article invented by a Frenchman, M. Bianchon.

For richly decorated ornaments, the body of the Parian has been stained with success in many rich colours by Messrs. Minton, their last production in this class being a Parian combining the red colour of the terra cotta, with the advantages of a vitrified porcelain. Their most artistic ware is, however, their _pâte sur pâte_, in the production of which they have been assisted by M. Solon, an eminent artist, who left the Sèvres works to establish this branch of fine art in their manufactory. To carry on this process, advantage is taken of the transparency of the Parian body with which the figures or ornaments introduced in the composition are painted, or rather modelled. As they are laid on a ground of a dark colour, the softness of the shades in the thinner parts gives to the finished pieces a particularly beautiful cameo appearance. The effect may be compared to that of the Limoges enamels, when confined to the white colour. This process has a certain connection with that of Wedgwood for making his jasper ware; but there is this difference, that in the jasper, the figures and ornaments are taken from clay moulds, and may be repeated to any extent, the talent of the artisan consisting in pressing neatly and transferring on the vases the various fragments of decoration, without destroying the sharpness of the impression, while in the _pâte sur pâte_ original works can only be produced by the artist, who must combine the qualifications of designer and modeller. What I say here is not in disparagement of jasper, which, considering the time of its introduction, was far in advance of anything that could be expected. In its production the Wedgwoods never had a rival, and the models of the celebrated Josiah Wedgwood are still worked at their manufactory at Etruria, with the same success. The sulphate and carbonate of barytes were the fluxes originally used to vitrify the body of the jasper ware, and on this account it ought to be classified with the stoneware. Parian, which may be made from purely granitic materials, has a nearer connection with porcelain.

There are three different sorts of porcelain: 1. The Chinese and Japanese, with which may be assimilated the German and French, all of them made of kaolin and felspar, sometimes with an addition of quartz. The principal seat of this manufacture is now in France, with Limoges for its centre. 2. The soft porcelain, of which the most perfect type is the old Sèvres, includes those of Chelsea, Bow, Worcester, and Derby. In all these the transparency, which is the distinctive feature of porcelain, is secured by the introduction of _fritt_, a mixture of sand and alkaline materials thoroughly vitrified, ground and made workable by an addition of plastic clay. The calcareous marl used at Sèvres gave to the French works a superiority over the English, who could only use the clays from our southern counties. The manufacture of the soft porcelain, on account of its difficulties, is almost abandoned. 3. The English porcelain, the body of which is made, like the hard, from kaolin and Cornish stone, but differing from it by the addition of a large proportion of calcined bones. This kind is exclusively English. For the hard porcelain, the glaze is made from felspar containing a variable quantity of quartz, or, as in Germany, from quartz vitrified by an addition of gypsum, the melting of which in both cases requires a very high temperature. For the glazing of the two other classes of porcelain, a soft, vitreous mixture containing silicate of lead and borates is used, the temperature necessary to melt these being much inferior to that required for firing the biscuit.

The most ancient porcelain is, as everyone knows, the Chinese, which, relying on the few authorities that have written on this subject, may have been in existence for two thousand years, and is said to have reached its greatest perfection towards the eleventh century of our era. The Portuguese have the credit of having been the first to introduce it in Europe, in 1520; but it is not improbable that, before they doubled the Cape of Good Hope, some specimens were brought to Europe through India and Persia. This may be inferred from the mention by ancient historians of some extraordinary white vessels, which could hardly correspond to any other kind of ware. The Portuguese and the Dutch, who were the first to explore the Chinese seas, seem to have derived a good trade from the importation of the porcelain into Europe, and, since then, the reproduction of that refined pottery was the ambition of many alchemists, who pursued their experiments in that direction with an eagerness almost equal to that wasted in the search for the philosopher's stone. For a long time, in consequence of the imperfection of their chemical knowledge, their efforts ended in failure. The only successful attempt was that of Francis II., one of the Medicis, who produced a few pieces of soft porcelain recognizable by their mark, representing the dome of Florence.

At the death of this prince, his secret was lost, and it was a long time afterwards, at the end of the seventeenth century, that John Dwight, a potter, of Fulham, in Middlesex, took a patent for what is curiously reported by Dr. Plot as "_the mystery of transparent earthenware commonly knowne by the name of porcelaine and Persian ware_." Made from English materials, it is probable that this was nothing better than a kind of white stoneware, possessing little of those qualities which would entitle it to the name of porcelain. Next to that in date would be the soft porcelain made at the manufactory of St. Cloud, which was said to produce, in 1698, pieces of ware considered very good imitations of the Oriental. This was the origin of the French soft porcelain, which was carried on afterwards with varied success at Chantilly, Vincennes, and other places, till it was definitely settled, in 1756, by King Louis XV. in the royal establishment of Sèvres. At a corresponding period, on this side of the Channel, the efforts of our potters were varied and numerous. If we are to believe Dr. Martyn Lister, a manufactory of porcelain existed at Chelsea as far back as 1698, a fact which would establish for England a claim equal to that of France for the discovery of the soft porcelain. This is not altogether improbable, considering that there was a glass manufactory in that locality before that, and that many people had a notion that porcelain was nothing else than a glass hardened and made opaque. The managers of these glass-works may have experimented on that supposition, and the conjecture is strengthened by the fact, that pounded glass was always used at Chelsea to give the desired transparency. Good specimens are not, however, recorded before 1745, and it is probable that many of the improvements at Chelsea were realized by the Staffordshire potters, who, two years later, went there to apply their industry. The priority in making practically good ware belongs to the works established in 1730 at Stratford-le-Bow, from which the Bow porcelain took its name. It was not perfected there, however, before 1744, when a china, softer than that made at Chelsea, and nearer to that made at Vincennes, was manufactured by a potter named Frye, originally a painter, who seems to have been the promoter and manager of these works, which at one time did not employ less than three hundred people.

Bow was celebrated for its statuettes, and it is said that several of them were modelled by Bacon, the sculptor. The successes of Bow and Chelsea were great but of short duration, for both had ceased to exist in 1775, when their utensils and moulds were sold to Mr. William Dwesbury, and carried to Derby, where this enterprising gentleman had started a manufactory as far back as 1751.

Three generations of Dwesbury continued here the traditions of Chelsea, after which time the works became the property of Robert Bloor, the last owner of repute. I am happy to say that after ceasing to exist for a great many years, this celebrated manufactory is going to be revived under the leadership of Mr. E. Phillips, formerly one of the directors of the Worcester works. In that same year (1761), a man--who for his inquiring turn of mind and artistic knowledge seems to have a great likeness to Josiah Wedgwood--Johu Wall, a doctor and a chemist, began also to make porcelain at Worcester; and if Mr. Binns' assertions are correct as regards the preparation of the fritt used in it, he must have had some knowledge of the Vincennes receipts. The Worcester works have now been celebrated for more than a century, and with them must be associated the names of the various owners, Flight, Barr, and Chamberlain. At Caughley, in Shropshire, a manufactory of soft porcelain was in existence in 1756, and it was employed at one time by the proprietors of the Worcester works to assist in making ware, which was sent back to them to be decorated. The Caughley works were bought by John Rose, a pupil of Turner, the first director, and transferred to Coalport, with which the works of Nantgarw, in South Wales, were also amalgamated. These works have been in the family of John Rose until lately, when they came into the possession of M. Pew, the present owner. For softness and resistance of body, brightness of glaze, and clearness of colour, the Coalport ware is held in great esteem by those who know anything about china. At Swinton, in Yorkshire, soft porcelain was manufactured on the property of the Marquis of Rockingham. Manufactories also existed at other places, so that the reader may here remark, that all exertions to establish the manufacture of china were made outside Staffordshire; and if he has noticed the dates, he will also perceive that all these works were founded, when Wedgwood was too young to render any assistance. This we must say in justice to Dr. Wall, Frye, Dwesbury, and Cookworthy--whose name must not be forgotten as the discoverer of the Cornish clay, which so greatly promoted the ceramic trade of this country. William Cookworthy was a chemist and druggist, at Plymouth, a member of the Society of Friends, and a man of great respectability. Having had the opportunity of seeing some kaolin and felspar from Virginia, that an American friend had shown to him as the very material from which the Chinese porcelain was made, he recognized, several years afterwards, the same in Cornwall, and setting resolutely to work, he began to make his first trials at St. Stephens, on the property of Lord Camelford, and afterwards at Plymouth, where he remained till 1774, when Champion, a merchant of Bristol, bought his patent, and removed the works to the latter place. I must here explain that Cookworthy's ideas of the making of porcelain were correct, inasmuch as he wished to closely imitate the Chinese; consequently he had to work on different principles from those then in favour at Chelsea and other places. He wanted to produce a porcelain without fritt and with a felspathic glaze, and, in succeeding in his attempt, this energetic man is entitled to a great deal of credit, when we consider that, although the processes discovered by Bottger, in 1710, at Meyssen, for making hard porcelain, were also put in practice at Vienna, St. Petersburg, and Berlin, they were kept very secret, and it is most probable that he had no information whatever from those quarters. It would be to rob Cookworthy to admit that the hard porcelain pieces, known by the name of Lowestoft, were made in that locality. I am indeed sorry to differ in this from an eminent critic, who has taken great trouble to collect documents in support of this opinion; but those who are in favour of it know very little about the difficulties attending the organization of such manufacture, and the quality of the materials that it requires. Besides the absence of any information respecting the place whence these materials were taken, the vast quantity of pieces which are met with is such, that it precludes the idea that they have been made in the precincts of such a small establishment. They have every feature of Chinese porcelain, and of one made in large quantities. It is most probable that, after making, or trying to make, soft porcelain for a time, the proprietors of the Lowestoft works found it more profitable to paint and decorate the foreign article, which they could easily get from Holland in the white state.

Most pieces of Cookworthy manufacture were copied from the Chinese, and are still well known by the name of Plymouth porcelain. At Bristol, Champion used the same clay to produce a softer kind of ware, and his materials began to be employed at Bow and other places. The Staffordshire potters soon became anxious to take advantage of the discovery, and in 1777 a company was formed by Jacob Warburton to obtain a licence for their use. This was granted by Champion, but with this singular restriction--that, although they were allowed to use a certain quantity of china clay and china stone, they were not to make porcelain. This restriction, however, did not last long, and Champion himself came for a short time to Shelton to superintend some works. Amongst the names of Warburton's associates, we notice some well known in Staffordshire, such as S. Hollins, of Shelton; Antony Keeling, of Tunstall; Turner, of Lane End, and a few others. To these gentlemen we must give credit for the earliest attempts to introduce the manufacture of china into the Potteries. However, their porcelain was inferior to that made at Worcester and Derby, and it is doubtful whether they would have persisted, if the matter had not been settled by Josiah Spode, the second of that name, who, by adding calcined bones to the body of the ware, made a new kind of porcelain, distinct from the hard or the soft previously made. On that account Spode deserves to be considered as the creator of the English porcelain. There is this peculiarity in the use of bones, that the phosphate of lime which enters into their composition is not decomposed by the silicates with which it is mixed, and, as it is infusible, its admixture in the body allows the ware to stand without injury the temperature at which the felspar is vitrified. This hardening of the bones does not exclude a certain amount of transparency, and they possess, besides, a very great advantage in preventing the oxides of iron which exist in the clays, producing that brownish or imperfect transparency, noticeable in the old Derby or Worcester ware. I have already said that the adaptation of the glaze for each kind of pottery is one of the greatest difficulties that the maker has to overcome; in this case, however, there was very little, and the glazing of English porcelain may be considered as exceptionally easy. Most of the glazes which had been used for the soft porcelain could be adapted to this one, a property which was of great service when the pieces had to be decorated. I have already explained, that when paintings executed on the surface of the ware are submitted to a moderate red heat, if the glaze is soft enough to undergo an incipient fusion, the vitreous colours with which they are executed will sink into it and attain, by their incorporation, an amount of glossiness and brilliancy which cannot be got on the surface of hard glazes. This is particularly illustrated by the old Sèvres ware, which possesses this quality in the highest degree. English porcelain, well-made, has almost all the advantages of the old soft, and its making is not attended with the difficulties experienced in working a body made from fritted substances. For regular use, it is not much inferior to the hard porcelain. When this last began to be made on the Continent, people were so much prejudiced in its favour, on account of the capability of its glaze to resist the scratching of the knife, that this was thought to more than compensate for its inability to combine with the colours. The advantage was, in fact, more apparent than real, for when hard porcelain has been long in use, it becomes as badly scratched as the English. Some people question whether it would not be desirable to revive in England the manufacture of the hard. There are many reasons against this, the principal being, that in case we succeeded, we should have to compete with the French and Germans, who get their labour cheaper, and have a long experience of processes altogether different from ours; and by the change we should lose the advantage of our traditions, and depend, at least for a time, on foreign labour to give a new training to our workmen. Out of the trade, few people seem to know that the price of hard porcelain is generally lower than that given for the English; and, if the experiment were made, it would be soon found that with greater risks we should produce an article of less value, and consequently less remunerative. It is true that the exports of our best china are very small, on account of its price; but with the improvement going on in the public taste, it is likely to increase, and there are signs that eventually our richest articles may find purchasers on the other side of the Atlantic.

In Europe, where the value of the various ceramic productions has been more investigated than in the other parts of the world, there is hardly an amateur who does not recognize the superiority of a soft porcelain for decorated articles, and if the English china is not, properly speaking, as soft as the old Sèvres, it is certainly nearer to it than any other porcelain. This superiority is proved by the test that the various porcelains are undergoing at the present time, and which is rather decisive. We understand by this, the manner in which they have stood the dangerous competition arising from the introduction of artistic faiences or painted majolica. While, in consequence of this, the French manufacturers have seen the production of ornamental articles in hard porcelain collapse to an incredible extent, the quantity of those made in England for similar purposes is fast increasing.