The Pendock Barry Porcelain Service: A Forensic Evaluation 9783031258121, 9783031258138

Citation preview

Rachel L. Denyer Morgan C. T. Denyer Howell G. M. Edwards

The Pendock Barry Porcelain Service A Forensic Evaluation

The Pendock Barry Porcelain Service

Rachel L. Denyer · Morgan C. T. Denyer · Howell G. M. Edwards

The Pendock Barry Porcelain Service A Forensic Evaluation

Rachel L. Denyer Bradford, West Yorkshire, UK

Morgan C. T. Denyer Bradford, West Yorkshire, UK

Howell G. M. Edwards Shipley, West Yorkshire, UK

ISBN 978-3-031-25812-1 ISBN 978-3-031-25813-8 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-25813-8 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

Preface

This book provides a case study based on the Pendock Barry armorial double dessert service. The service was unknown and undocumented until its appearance at auction in 1894, when it attracted considerable interest. The book considers the service from different perspectives, exploring its commission by Pendock Neale Barry, its attribution as a Derby service and the attribution of William Billingsley as its decorator. The holistic approach adopted in this book brings together the historical documentation regarding the commissioning patron, Pendock Neale Barry, the preliminary scientific analyses that have been carried out on Derby porcelain, and an assessment of the floral decorators associated with the Derby factory at the time of the service’s commission and manufacture. The authors have a shared, deep interest in the history of the production of early ceramics in England and Wales. They have applied their scientific and historical expertise to consider the questions of commission, attribution and decoration of this service. Whilst there have been many scholarly works written on the Old China Works at Derby, none have focused on the attribution of a single armorial dessert service to the factory and the identification of its decorator. A novel aspect of this book is the research and identification of the patron who commissioned the service, and the exploration of the service commission within its historical context. Research into the composition of the paste used to manufacture the service provides insight into the technical processes and composition of Derby porcelain in the Michael Kean period and supports the attribution of a date around 1805 for its manufacture. The book also sheds light on how the porcelain manufactories were run in the early 1800s, with artist enamellers moving between factories, setting up their own businesses, collaborating and cooperating with each other at this time of significant innovation within ceramic manufacture. Technological advances enabled the start-up of numerous small porcelain manufactories from the 1740s onwards. These factories produced a soft paste porcelain, and a hard paste porcelain was made at Plymouth and Bristol from the late 1760s onwards. The decoration of these early pieces followed the patterns familiar from Chinese export porcelain. Depiction of armorials on porcelain was undertaken for specific commissions from individuals who had the right to bear arms: royalty, the v

vi

Preface

aristocracy and the landed gentry. Commissions were often made at a significant time in the patron’s life, such as a marriage or the receipt of new honours. Identifying the commissioning patron and researching into their life can play a significant role in the date attribution of a service, particularly when factory pattern books and other records are lost or incomplete. In the case of a service such as the Pendock Barry armorial service, the armorials are significant in dating the service, as the patron received the right to bear the Barry surname and armorials by Royal Licence in 1811. This led to a tentative estimate of around 1811 for its commission by earlier ceramic historians as it was in line with this award. New historical research has cast fresh light on when Pendock Neale Barry acquired his family pedigree, which brings the date forward to around 1805. Scientific analysis concurs with an earlier date for the production of this service than 1811, not least because 1811 would place the service into the Bloor period of ownership of the Derby works, and the characteristics of the paste and glaze of the service plus the shape and style of the pieces do not match the Bloor period. This in turn allows a fresh appraisal of the Derby factory flower painters between 1800 and 1810 who were available to paint the Pendock Barry service at its estimated time of manufacture, which indicates William Billingsley as the most likely decorating artist. The service commissioned by Pendock Neale Barry is often called the Barry Barry service; however, it should more properly be called the Pendock Barry service, after the commissioning patron. The Barry Barry nomenclature stems partly from the lack of documentation at the Derby factory regarding the commissioning of the service, but predominantly from the way the service first came to attention. The service was unknown until it appeared at auction in 1894 as part of the estate of Miss Elizabeth Jones, and it was described as having belonged to the late Mr. Pendock Barry Barry of Roclaveston Manor, Tollerton. The rarity of an unknown, complete, Derby armorial dessert service appearing at auction, plus the price it achieved, resulted in prominent coverage in both the local and national press. Reports repeated the Barry Barry name attributed by the auction house, and this nomenclature has remained. William Bemrose purchased a pair of dessert plates at the service’s dispersal auction, and he loaned them to the Derby Corporation Art Gallery where they were put on exhibition in May 1894 (Derby Mercury, 30 May 1894 p. 2). His plates were subsequently sold in his estate sale in 1909 which repeated the Barry Barry reference. The next significant appearance of pieces from the service was the 1947 sale in New York, which again repeated the Barry Barry name as its title and provenance. The earliest research article dedicated to this service was written in 1983 by Swain. She entitled her work Pendock Barry and his Derby Dessert Service, and she made the point that the service should more properly be called the Pendock Barry service as it was the father of Barry Barry who had originally commissioned it (Swain, “Pendock Barry and his Derby Dessert Service” Antique Collectors Guide Sept 1984 pp. 68– 72). Derby authors such as W. D. John followed the original convention and referred to it as the Barry Barry service in their works; however, this is the first full-length study on the service; therefore, the convention of naming the service after the person

Preface

vii

who commissioned it is followed, and the service will be referred to throughout the text as the Pendock Barry service. The authors would like to record their grateful thanks and appreciation to several friends and colleagues who have supported them in their research: to Prof. Peter Vandenablee (University of Ghent), Dr. Alex Surtees (University of Bradford), Spencer Bailey, Collections Manager at Derby City Museum, and Bryan Bowden Antiques, Harrogate, North Yorkshire. Finally, the authors most sincerely acknowledge their families and all the support and encouragement they have provided over the years. In particular, Howell would like to acknowledge his daughter Kate and late wife Gill; Morgan and Rachel would like to acknowledge Sarah, Ian, Rachel, Verity, Tris and Gail. Bradford, UK Bradford, UK Shipley, UK

Rachel L. Denyer Morgan C. T. Denyer Howell G. M. Edwards

Contents

1 The Origins of Heraldic Porcelain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1 The Origins of Heraldry and Coats-Of-Arms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2 Components of Armorial Bearings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3 What Constitutes an Armorial Porcelain Service? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4 Earliest Examples of English Porcelain Armorials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1 1 3 6 8 12

2 The Gentry and Heraldic Device Display . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1 Origins of Heraldic Display . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2 College of Arms and the Visitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3 Heraldic Display for Status and Possessions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4 Public Display Within Private Spaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5 Churches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.6 Luxury Products and Goods in the Eighteenth Century . . . . . . . . . . 2.7 Armorials on Ceramics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.8 Armorials on Services Manufactured in England and Wales 1740–1810 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.9 Social Mobility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.10 Armorials as Decorative Art . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.11 Armorials by Royal Licence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.12 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

15 15 16 16 17 18 18 20

3 The Development of Armorial Porcelains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1 Porcelain as Diplomatic Gifts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2 Early European Armorial Porcelains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.1 Medici Porcelain, Florence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.2 Rouen Porcelain, France . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.3 Early English Manufactories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3 Armorial Artefacts at the Georgian Dinner Table . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4 Difficulties in Production of an Armorial Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5 Named Porcelain Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

27 27 30 30 31 33 33 36 39 41

21 21 22 23 24 25

ix

x

Contents

4 Case History: The Commissioning of the Pendock Barry Service . . . . 4.1 Biography: Pendock Neale Barry (1757–1833) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2 Family Connection to the Barry Surname and Armorials . . . . . . . . 4.3 The Pendock Family . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4 The Neale Family . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5 Dynastic Ambition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.6 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

43 43 45 45 47 49 52 53

5 Manufacture of the Pendock Barry Dessert Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1 The Origin of Derby Porcelain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2 Date of Manufacture of the Pendock Barry Dessert Service . . . . . . 5.3 Composition of the Derby Paste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4 The Raw Materials of Ceramics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5 Mineral Formation Identified at the Kiln Temperatures . . . . . . . . . . 5.6 Chemical Reactions that Occur in Raw Material Mixtures at Elevated Temperatures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.7 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

57 57 59 66 70 78 79 85 86

6 Pendock Barry Service: Attribution of the Decoration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 6.1 The Basis of Uncertainty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 6.2 Candidate Decorators of the Pendock Barry Service . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 6.3 Reappraisal of Billingsley as Decorator of the Pendock Barry Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 6.4 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 7 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.1 Heraldic Armorials on Porcelain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2 Pendock Neale Barry and His Armorials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.3 Pendock Barry Service Rediscovered . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.4 Derby Attribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.5 Dating the Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.6 The Decorator of the Pendock Barry Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.7 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

105 105 107 108 109 109 111 113

Appendix A: The Pendock Barry Dessert Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 Appendix B: The Attendees at Pendock Barry Barry’s Masked Ball, Argylle Rooms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119 Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131 Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135

About the Authors

Rachel L. Denyer M.A., MBCS read History at The University College of North Wales in Bangor, Gwynedd. Since graduating she has worked in IT at a number of blue-chip companies before setting up her own Quality Assurance consultancy. Rachel is a cofounder of Penrose Antiques Ltd., established 2010, which specialises in English and Welsh ceramics, silverware and furniture. Between 2014 and 2018, she was one of four Directors of Rose Antiques Fairs, which organised a specialist annual antiques fair in York. In 2016, she began studying Art History and was awarded a Masters degree in 2018. Her research led to the publication A Century of Art: Clitheroe Artists Elijah and Frederick Cawthorne (18473–1940). She was a contributing author to The Billingsley Collection Including Derby, Pinxton, Worcester, Swansea, Nantgarw and Coalport, published in 2019. She has a strong interest in genealogical research and social history and published A Cocken Family History: The Descendants of William Cocken (born c1695) to 1920, in 2020. A specialist interest in the history and development of food preparation and presentation, dining and social entertaining led to 1900s Store Cupboard Recipes for Cakes and Biscuits published in 2021. Dr. Morgan C. T. Denyer B.Sc., Ph.D. was born in Yeovil, Somerset and was brought up in Carmarthenshire, South West Wales. He was educated at The University College of North Wales Bangor, Gwynedd, where he gained a B.Sc. in Zoology and Ph.D. in Neuroscience. He then worked as Research Scientist at The University of Glasgow and as Research Fellow at RIKEN (Institute of Physical and Chemical Research), Wako, Saitama, Japan, before becoming a Lecturer at The University of Bradford. During this time, Morgan published over 60 peer-reviewed papers and patents. In 2010, he cofounded Penrose Antiques Ltd. and later cofounded Rose Antiques Fairs. Morgan has published a number of works as author or editor, including: Charles Horner: Short Guides (2016); William Billingsley—The Enigmatic Porcelain Artist, Decorator and Manufacturer (2016); Nantgarw Porcelain—The Pursuit of Perfection (2017); Swansea Porcelain—The Duck-Egg Translucent Vision of Lewis Dillwyn (2017); Derby Porcelain: The Golden Years, 1780–1830 (2018); A Century of Art: Clitheroe Artists Elijah and Frederick Cawthorne (1843–1940) (2019). Morgan xi

xii

About the Authors

combines working in the antiques trade with a role as an Assistant Professor at The University of Bradford. Professor Howell G. M. Edwards M.A., B.Sc., D.Phil., C.Chem., FRSC is Professor Emeritus of Molecular Spectroscopy at the University of Bradford. He read Chemistry at Jesus College in the University of Oxford, and after completing his B.A. and B.Sc. degrees, he studied for his doctorate in Raman spectroscopy at Oxford and then became Research Fellow at Jesus College, University of Cambridge. He joined the University of Bradford as Lecturer in Structural and Inorganic Chemistry, becoming Head of the Department of Chemical and Forensic Sciences, and was awarded a Personal Chair in Molecular Spectroscopy in 1996. He has received several international awards (Sir Harold Thompson Award; Charles Mann Award; Emanuel Boricky Medal; Norman Sheppard Award) in a spectroscopic career which has resulted in the publication of almost 1400 research papers in Raman spectroscopy and the characterisation of materials, along with six books on the application of this analytical technique to art, archaeology and forensic science. He has had a lifelong interest in the porcelains of William Billingsley, especially those from the Derby, Nantgarw and Swansea factories and has authored six books on porcelain: Swansea and Nantgarw Porcelains: A Scientific Reappraisal, Nantgarw and Swansea Porcelains: An Analytical Perspective, Porcelain to Silica Bricks: The Extreme Ceramics of William Weston Young, 1776–1847, 18th and 19th Century Porcelain Analysis: A Forensic Provenancing Assessment, Porcelain Analysis and Its Role in the Forensic Attribution of Ceramic Specimens, and Welsh Armorial Porcelains: Nantgarw and Swansea Crested China, published by Springer Publishing, Dordrecht, The Netherlands. He has also produced several monographs: William Billingsley—The Enigmatic Porcelain Artist, Decorator and Manufacturer, Nantgarw Porcelain—The Pursuit of Perfection, Swansea Porcelain—The Duck-Egg Translucent Vision of Lewis Dillwyn and Derby Porcelain: The Golden Years, 1780–1830. Howell Edwards is Honorary Scientific Adviser to the de Brecy Trust on the scientific evaluation of their artworks and paintings.

Chapter 1

The Origins of Heraldic Porcelain

Abstract For the correct decipherment and attribution of a coat-of-arms to be undertaken, it is necessary to appreciate the individual components comprising the escutcheon, lambrequins, motto, coronet or chapeau, helm and supporters: of these, the most important for familial descendancy is the escutcheon. The origins of heraldry and the design of the escutcheon are reviewed and related to the components of other armorial bearings including the importance of the crest and presence or otherwise of a motto. Full armorial bearings are rarely encountered. The first English armorial service was commissioned in Chinese porcelain in 1705, and the earliest examples of English porcelain armorial service artefacts in the 1760s are discussed. Keywords Origins of heraldry · Escutcheon · Motto · Crest · Coronet · Supporters · Armorial bearings · English armorial porcelain

1.1 The Origins of Heraldry and Coats-Of-Arms The decipherment of a coat-of-arms demands an understanding of the basis of the heraldic devices used to facilitate the correct assignment or attribution to an individual of an armorial bearing or crest that is depicted on a ceramic artefact. It is generally believed that the origins of British heraldry can be traced to the Norman Conquest and the differentiation of knights and their supporters on the field of battle from the coats-of-arms borne upon their shields (escutcheons) and crests worn on their helms (Edwards, Welsh Armorial Porcelain: Nantgarw and Swansea Crested China, 2022). The early armorial literature contains some very fanciful and often conflicting ideas about the bearing of arms, but the texts of William Wyrley (The True Use of Arms, 1853) and Sir William Dugdale (The Ancient (Antient) Usage in Bearing of Such Ensigns of Honours as are Commonly Call’d Arms with a Catalogue of the Present Nobility of England to Which is Added a Catalogue of the Present Nobility of Scotland and Ireland and C., 1682), both of whom were Rouge Croix Pursuivant Heralds at the College of Arms in London, form a good basis for the understanding of the origin, purpose and growth of heraldry and its social standing in the context of the bearing and the granting of coats-of-arms. Hence, it is important for the researcher to check everything at source as frequently misleading and incorrect statements are made in © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 R. L. Denyer et al., The Pendock Barry Porcelain Service, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-25813-8_1

1

2

1 The Origins of Heraldic Porcelain

the earlier literature: for example, Susana Dawson Dobson (Historical Anecdotes of Heraldry and Chivalry: Tending to Shew the Origin of Many English and Foreign Coats of Arms, Circumstances and Customs, 1795) alleged controversially that King Richard II (1377–1399) was the first English King to use supporters for his coatof-arms, namely two white harts collared and chained, whereas King Edward III (1327–1377) already had been using variously a lion and a falcon, two lions and two angels as the supporters for his coat-of-arms! The escutcheon is the major heraldic feature of a coat-of-arms which bears definitive information about the family of the arms-bearer. There are different ways of presenting an escutcheon to display heraldic features and the major ones are as follows: per fess, the shield is divided in two horizontally; per pale, the shield is divided in two vertically; per bend, the shield is divided in two diagonally; per chevron, the shield is divided by a chevron or inverted “vee”; per pile, the shield is divided in two with an inverted triangle, its base merging with the top of the shield; per saltire, displaying a cross quartering the shield diagonally; per quarterly, displaying a cross quartering the shield horizontally and vertically; per gyronny, the shield is divided into eighths radiating from the centre; barry, horizontal bars of two colours (heraldically known as tinctures); paly, vertical bars of two colours (tinctures); bend dexter, a bar extending from the top left to the bottom right on the shield; bend sinister, a bar extending from the top right to the bottom left on the shield; bordure, a coloured edge around the shield; quarter, the top left quarter (to an observer, otherwise known as the dexter quarter) of the shield The shape of the escutcheon (Norman French, escuchon, a shield) was directly relevant to the type of shield borne by knights in battle. The first type of escutcheon that bore heraldic arms had a rounded top and elongated inverted teardrop shape tapering to a point, which can still be seen on the effigies of tombs of Norman knights in English cathedrals—this is often referred to now as a kite shield. This became more triangular and then squared-off at the top, as was first carried by cavalry and mounted knights in battle, becoming the shorter version that is now more commonly depicted in coats-of-arms and known as a heater shield. Later, a wider variation in the escutcheon shape was developed, and modifications such as the bouche, which represented a small slot in the upper dexter part of the shield to accommodate the lance during jousting tournaments, and an engrailment, comprising two concave portions to the dexter and sinister top halves of the shield and coming to a point in the middle, were made. Between twenty and thirty different types of escutcheons are known internationally including oval shields and rococo versions, which reflect the original variation in shapes of the shield used by the knights of different countries in combat. In summary, therefore, the concepts of heraldry and the granting of arms probably originated in the eleventh or twelfth century, with the Norman escutcheons first appearing in English heraldry and developing with the parallel growth in variation of the shield and crest designs appearing from later mediaeval times, probably in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, as a consequence of the staging of elaborate jousting tournaments involving knights and men-at-arms, when the heraldic additions such as supporters also then came into being. It will now be appropriate to consider

1.2 Components of Armorial Bearings

3

the heraldic components which together comprise the full coat-of-arms that are borne by an armigerous individual.

1.2 Components of Armorial Bearings In British heraldry, the coat-of-arms is emblazoned onto an escutcheon (shield) which is associated with two supporters, named sinister (left) and dexter (right) as viewed by the shield bearer and, therefore, seen in mirror image when viewed from the front of the shield. An order or badge of honour can be placed in the lower compartment beneath the escutcheon, where the motto usually sits. Above the escutcheon may sit a crown or a coronet, with perhaps a chapeau (a soft cap), which marks the rank or standing of the bearer of the arms; the coronet indicates the rank in the peerage of the arms bearer through the presence, number and arrangement of small balls on spikes (known as “pearls”) and strawberry leaves around the coronet. In the upper compartment of the coat-of-arms is found the helmet (helm) or galero. The helm comprises several types with an open-faced or closed visor, indicating the rank of nobility of the shield bearer—usually a knight or a baronet will have a closed visor on the helm, whereas higher ranks in the peerage will have a barred or an open visor. The helm is always accompanied by strips of cloth mantling (lambrequins), which represented the linen surcoat worn on top of a knight’s suit of armour and is surmounted by a twisted silk torse or cloth wreath, usually of two colours, which functions as a supporter of the crest on the helm itself. The torse is usually curved in a convex profile to match the contour of the top of the helm. Above the crest a slogan may also appear which represents an ancient battle cry. In the Roman Catholic Church, clerics entitled to bear arms replace the helm with a galero; for example, a red wide-brimmed cardinal’s hat bearing tassels at each side and carrying a suspended gold cross centrally on a chain. Anglican Church clerics who are entitled to bear arms use a galero which is typically a black wide-brimmed hat with tassels in various colours and bishops can alternatively use a mitre in place of a helm (Scott-Giles, Boutell’s Heraldry, 1954; Woodcock, The Oxford Guide to Heraldry, 1988). The number and arrangement of the strawberry leaves and “pearls” alternating on a noble’s coronet which may appear above escutcheon give the rank in the peerage of the bearer of the arms displayed. Hence, a Duke’s coronet (and that of a Duchess) does not have “pearls” but will have eight strawberry leaves in total, of which five will be seen when viewed from the front, comprising three fully facing the observer and another two which are viewed at each side. Similarly, the coronet of a Marquess (and Marchioness) will have four strawberry leaves and four “pearls”, of which three strawberry leaves and two “pearls” will be visible from the front. An Earl (and Countess) will have eight strawberry leaves and eight “pearls” of which four strawberry leaves and five balls will be visible from the front. A Viscount (and Viscountess) will have sixteen “pearls” of which seven will be visible from the front, and a Baron (and Baroness) will have six “pearls” of which four will be visible from the front. Hence, the monogram and crest of the Viscountess Philadelphia Cremorne,

4

1 The Origins of Heraldic Porcelain

as depicted on the dessert comport from her armorial Derby China Works Cremorne porcelain service shown in Fig. 1.1, has a coronet with seven “pearls” clearly visible from the front, indicative of the rank of a Viscount or Viscountess (Twitchett, Derby Porcelain: An Illustrated Guide 1748–1848, 2002). A coronet is normally depicted for all ranks of the British peerage from Baron to Duke, whereas royalty use a jewelled crown in their arms, which has a different shape and composition to that of a coronet (Scott-Giles, Boutell’s Heraldry, 1954; Fox-Davies, A Complete Guide to Heraldry: with Illustrations by G. Johnston, Herald Painter to the Lyon Court, 1909). The earliest coats-of-arms and crests tend to be rather simple in concept and design compared with the later ones. This is exemplified in the current research project described here and the topic of this book, where the earliest version of the escutcheon displaying the Barry arms is depicted centrally in the Pendock-Barry

Fig. 1.1 Dessert comport of unusual shape commissioned from the Derby China Works by Lord and Lady Cremorne: Thomas Dawson (1725–1813), Baron Dartrey of Dawson’s Grove, County Monaghan, Ireland, was raised to the peerage as Viscount Cremorne in June 1785. In 1770, he married Philadelphia Hannah Freame, granddaughter of William Penn, founder of Pennsylvania, who was born in Philadelphia. This service, which can be dated to 1789 from archival correspondence, bears a Viscount’s coronet below which is the monogram PHC inside a circlet of gilt foliage. The decoration is a simple pattern of Chantilly sprigs of blue cornflowers and gilded foliage. This service depicts perhaps the simplest kind of armorial on porcelain, namely a coronet and initials, but it nevertheless serves to attribute the commissioning of this service unequivocally. Private Collection

1.2 Components of Armorial Bearings

5

Derby China Works porcelain service, a dessert plate from which is shown in Fig. 1.2. This comprises just ten alternating red and white horizontal bars on the shield, dating back to its Norman origins—the crest is not shown on this armorial plate but is a wolf’s head erased sable. The later arms and escutcheon of Pendock-Barry of Roclaveston Manor, Nottinghamshire, a descendant of the Barry family who laid claim to the Barry arms in the early nineteenth century, are more complicated, and his crest depicts an embattlemented tower charged with red roses with the motto “A Rege et Victoria”, which translates as “From the King and Conquest”. Incidentally, the presence of the red roses depicted on this later Pendock-Barry crest could well have inspired the inclusion of the symbolic wreath of roses so beautifully enamelled against a black ground around the verge of the armorial porcelain plate of the Pendock-Barry service that is shown in Fig. 1.2.

Fig. 1.2 Dessert plate from the Pendock Barry armorial service supplied from the Derby China Works to Pendock Barry Neale of Tollerton Hall, Nottinghamshire. It is a beautifully decorated with a design consisting of a centrally located Barry arms surrounded by oak leaves against a white ground which is in turn surrounded by a dark blue border richly decorated with gilt circles, stars and dots, all surrounded by wide rim decorated with roses in the style of William Billingsley against a black ground. Note that this armorial plate exhibits the heraldic escutcheon only

6

1 The Origins of Heraldic Porcelain

1.3 What Constitutes an Armorial Porcelain Service? It is essential to establish the basis of the scientific methodology of an investigation whereby the holistic approach, that has been demonstrated to be successful in assisting in the identification of porcelain specimens that were of an unknown factory attribution or provenance, can also be utilised to define the standard procedures for operation that will facilitate the correct identification of armorial porcelains and their assignment chronologically to armigerous family members (Edwards, Porcelain Analysis and Its Role in the Forensic Attribution of Ceramic Specimens, 2021; Edwards, Welsh Armorial Porcelains: Nantgarw and Swansea Crested China, 2022). The essence of the holistic approach is the assimilation and judgemental, weighted evaluation of all relevant components that potentially can contribute to the attribution of an artwork, in this case a piece of porcelain. These individual components comprise historical documentation, manufactory records, relevant comments from contemporary observers, the quantitative and qualitative chemical analyses of the body paste, glaze and pigments used, the presence of markings and the stylistic appreciation by connoisseurs which consider the shapes, designs, translucency, textures and decoration of the piece concerned compared with exemplars of the genre. For armorial porcelains, in addition, the decipherment and attribution of the escutcheon, crest and associated heraldic devices such as mottoes, monograms and ciphers correlated with the detailed genealogy of the arms-bearer concerned is an essential part of this holistic approach for attaining the unequivocal synergistic attribution of the commissioning of the artefact and its definitive chronology. Porcelain services that are known to bear an armorial decoration potentially belong to one of the following categories: • Porcelain services that bear an heraldic crest, which is often simply gilded, and positioned either in the reserve or centrally located on the artefact. • Porcelain services that bear an heraldic crest and an associated motto beneath. • Porcelain services that bear a coat-of-arms, which may be fully or only partially depicted heraldically, hence including components of the escutcheon, supporters, a motto, helm, lambrequins, a coronet and a crest. These coats-of-arms might be expected to be executed in polychrome enamels and will be accompanied by some gilding, perhaps in the crest itself and additionally on the lambrequins, motto and the supporters. The coat-of-arms may alternatively only be partially depicted, possibly featuring only the basic escutcheon. The heraldic device may also be accompanied by a simple decoration: an example of this type of armorial decoration is the Viscountess Cremorne service shown here in Fig. 1.1, which displays the appropriate gilded coronet accompanied by the monogram PHC, for Philadelphia Hannah Cremorne, in a gilded gilt elliptical circlet of leaves and a simple decoration of random sprigs of cornflowers and gilt foliage. • Porcelain services that contain an enamelled crest or a coat-of arms, with or without a motto, but also accompanied by an associated decoration, which may be enamelled and perhaps comprise more intricate geometric gilding patterns and motifs. This can be especially useful for chronological assignment if a particular

1.3 What Constitutes an Armorial Porcelain Service?

7

factory painter can be identified from the accompanying decoration or patterns on an armorial artefact. Although appearing to be relatively straightforward in its application, there can be several pitfalls for reaching an incorrect assignment and attribution of a coat-of-arms on a porcelain artefact. For instance, a crest on its own can be insufficient to assign unequivocally to a family arms-bearer without undertaking much diligent searching through the heraldic literature. There may be several similar crests used by other arms-bearing families which could potentially result in the attainment of an incorrect conclusion if small nuances are not noted, such as the “nowing” of a rampant lion’s tail or the type of cross borne on a flag or pennon (Edwards, Welsh Armorial Porcelains: Nantgarw and Swansea Crested China, 2022). Fairbairn (Crests of the Families of Great Britain and Ireland and Their Kindred in Other Lands, 1986) provides a comprehensive listing of several thousand heraldic crests and of the family individuals who have used them historically, and this can provide a potentially valuable lead for the armorial researcher. A crest with an associated motto does potentially assist here in the narrowing down of the field, whilst bearing in mind that the motto may itself be an acquired one and may not have been officially registered to the arms-bearer by the College of Arms. Some armories, such as Fairbairn (Crests of the Families of Great Britain and Ireland and Their Kindred in Other Lands, 1986), provide lists of the families who share mottoes (which are usually stated in the English, Latin, French or Welsh languages), and this is extremely useful for an initial assessment of likely contenders. Elvin (Elvin, A Handbook of Mottoes Borne by the Nobility, Gentry, Cities, Public Companies etc., 1860) also provides a list of mottoes that have been commonly used in heraldic achievements. The depiction of the full coat-of-arms with its crest, motto, helm, with or without a coronet, and its supporters undoubtedly affords the best chance of success for the researcher to deduce its unequivocal identification and for deriving the correct family and thence the individual arms-bearer attribution. The basic escutcheon alone, or perhaps the lone crest, is the most difficult starting point for elucidating the armigerous family member. Here, the Pendock-Barry armorial porcelain service displays the heraldic escutcheon only centrally on the porcelain, and it seems superficially that the assignment to Pendock Barry of Roclaveston Manor, Tollerton, is unambiguous: however, the precise composition of the heraldic escutcheon and the wealth of information contained therein is critical for its interpretation and its resultant chronological placement as will be apparent later. The matching of this heraldic information, the chemical analysis and the superb decoration and enamelling of the Pendock-Barry porcelain armorial service will provide a classic example of the individual component input to the holistic analysis of a porcelain armorial service directed towards the correct confirmation of its chronology and of the artist involved in its decoration.

8

1 The Origins of Heraldic Porcelain

1.4 Earliest Examples of English Porcelain Armorials In Chap. 3, the impact of the importation of armorial Chinese porcelain into Europe and especially upon Georgian society in Great Britain is described, giving rise to several literary comments such as that of Dr Samuel Johnson who cautioned against this “contagion of china fancy”. He was, of course, referring to the immense fascination and desirability that was generated by the possession of these new porcelain artefacts by the aristocracy and a wealthy clientele. The first armorial porcelain service recorded that bore an English heraldic device of which exemplars still exist today was that of Sir Thomas Pitt of Ewerne Stapleton, Dorset, Governor of the Honourable East India Company at Fort St George, Madras. This service was commissioned in 1705 and bore his escutcheon and crest of a stork on its torse. David Howard, in his classic and seminal books on the Chinese armorial porcelains that were imported by the Honourable East India Company (HEIC) ships into London from the port of Canton (Guangzhou) in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, cited some 5200 different armorial services (Howard, Chinese Armorial Porcelain, Volumes I and II, 1974 and 2003; Howard, A Tale of Three Cities—Canton, Shanghai and Hong Kong: Three Centuries of Sino-British Trade in the Decorative Arts, 1997). When one considers that each service would probably have been in excess of 100 pieces, then this represents a very large quantity of armorial porcelain imported, independently of their analogous “anonymous” artefacts. In this enterprise, the supercargoes and captains of the East Indiamen ships would have the responsibility of commissioning their decoration in Jingdezhen, the centre for Imperial porcelain production, or later in Canton by local Chinese enamellers through their agents working in Hongs at the quayside (Edwards, Porcelain Analysis and Its Role in the Forensic Attribution of Ceramic Specimens, 2021). Despite the surge in desire to own porcelain services, the earliest English porcelain manufactories which were founded to counteract the Chinese porcelain dominance and compete with the Chinese imports, seemed reluctant to provide porcelains decorated with armorial bearings. The catalyst for this to happen seemed to be the decoration of armorial pieces in the London ateliers, such as those of James Giles in Cockspur Street, Haymarket, who produced some of the earliest English-decorated pieces of Chinese porcelain in the late 1750s and early 1760s alongside the Worcester porcelain that he was also decorating there at that time (Hanscombe, Transactions of the English Ceramic Circle, 20, p. 124m 2008). Figure 1.3 illustrates a Chinese porcelain teapot from an armorial service, whose arms have not been identified, decorated in the James Giles workshop in the mid-1760s. There was certainly a hiatus before the first pieces of armorial English porcelains appeared in the late 1760s: a diligent search of the literature cannot precisely define the very first piece of English armorial porcelain that has survived. A Worcester armorial porcelain tea cup, coffee cup and saucer (a trio) from a service bearing the arms of Gavin impaling Heasey with an escutcheon comprising a vertical sword with a saltire and mullet (Gavin) and an argent with gules fess shield (Heasey) along with the crest of a full-rigged ship in sail (Rissik Marshall, Coloured Worcester Porcelain of the First Period, 1951) is a possible candidate for one of the earliest pieces of

1.4 Earliest Examples of English Porcelain Armorials

9

armorial English porcelain from a service as its production must predate the death of Christina Heasey in 1767. An even earlier example of an armorial porcelain punch bowl, although this is technically not an armorial service as we have described here, from William Reid’s Liverpool factory, ca. 1756–58, does have family armorial bearings, namely an escutcheon with a stag trippant (Lloyd, dexter) and a black raven on a gold ground (Corbett, sinister) (Hillis, Liverpool Porcelain, 1756–1804, 2011). By the 1780s, armorial porcelains were being manufactured more widely in English porcelain by several manufactories, but the Chinese analogues were still much more prevalent. Correspondence now started to appear in surviving factory records for the commissioning of armorial porcelain services and these are invaluable

Fig. 1.3 A Chinese hard paste porcelain teapot decorated in the James Giles workshop in Haymarket, London, bearing an unidentified armorial escutcheon dating from the period 1760– 1770, which is now in the Helena Woolworth McCann Collection of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York (Winfield Foundation; Accession Number 51.86.394 a, b). The escutcheon shape is of an unusual Italianate type and contains three wolf’s heads couped armed sable on an erminois field, with the gilt crest of a wolf ambulant erminois on a sable and or torse. Public domain

10

1 The Origins of Heraldic Porcelain

for researchers into early armorials. Such is the case for William Duesbury’s Derby China Works and his London agent, Joseph Lygo, from whom many services were commissioned in Derby porcelain by the aristocracy (Twitchett, Derby Porcelain: An Illustrated Guide, 1748–1848, 2002; Edwards, Porcelain Analysis and its Role in the Attribution of Unknown Specimens, 2021). An example of such correspondence is provided by the letters between Lady Philadelphia Cremorne and William Duesbury relating to the commissioning and delivery of her armorial service in 1788, a dessert comport specially requested by Lady Cremorne from which is illustrated in Fig. 1.1. Another is the record of the purchase of an early armorial tea service by Bishop John Egerton, the Bishop of Durham, in 1784, the sale of which was noted in the Covent Garden showroom of the Derby China Works in London: a tea-cup and saucer from this service is illustrated in Fig. 1.4. The observant reader will note the presence of a gilt ducal coronet engorging the crest of a couped lion’s head in blue enamel on this artefact: this arose from the designation of the Bishops of Durham as Prince Bishops of the realm, with the consequent rank of a non-royal Duke. However, manufactory documentation is often found to be incomplete, and it then becomes a much more difficult task to trace the provenance of an armorial service completed by the factory.

Fig. 1.4 Tea cup and saucer, Derby porcelain, ca. 1782–4, bearing the arms of the See of Durham and commissioned by John Egerton, Bishop of Durham (1771–1787). An entry in the Derby sales records of their Covent Garden showroom in London gives an entry in 1784 for the purchase of this service at a cost of £9 14s. Reproduced with the Courtesy of Bonhams Auctioneers and Valuers, Bond Street, London

1.4 Earliest Examples of English Porcelain Armorials

11

For many porcelain manufactories, detailed records no longer exist and the prime source for armorial research then becomes the armory literature involving the consultation of several reference texts, the major ones being: Burke, A Genealogical and Heraldic Dictionary of the Peerage and Baronetage of the United Kingdom, 1826; Burke, Burke’s General Armory—The General Armory of England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales: Comprising a Registry of Armorial Bearings from the Earliest to the Present Time, 1884; Burke, A Visitation of the Seats and Arms of the Noblemen and Gentlemen of Great Britain and Ireland, 1895; Cockayne, The Complete Peerage of England, Scotland, Ireland, Great Britain and the United Kingdom Extant, Extinct or Dormant, 1910; Fairbairn, Crests of the Families of Great Britain and Ireland and Their Kindred in Other Lands, 1986; Fox-Davies, Armorial Families: A Complete Peerage, Baronetage and Knightage, and a Directory of Some Gentlemen CoatArmour and being the First Attempt to Show Which Arms are in Use at the Moment are Borne by Some Legal Authority, 1895; Fox-Davies, A Complete Guide to Heraldry: with Illustrations by G. Johnston, Herald Painter to the Lyon Court, 1909. Fairbairn (Fairbairn, Crests of the Families of Great Britain and Ireland and Their Kindred in Other Lands, 1986) is found to be useful for its listing of mottoes, approximately 7000 of which are given in Volume 1, along with their family association. It is often found that different families shared a common motto, and sometimes crests, perhaps more than a dozen, although of course their escutcheons would differ. The earliest reference to a Royal armorial porcelain service is that of the Duke of Clarence service of 1789 which bears full armorial achievements in Worcester porcelain, showing the Royal coat-of-arms centrally and badges of the Order of the Thistle and Order of the Garter in the reserve (Fig. 1.5). An example of an early non-armorial but prestigious and sumptuously decorated porcelain service was the Mecklenburg-Strelitz service ordered by King George III and Queen Charlotte in 1763 from the Chelsea Porcelain Manufactory as a “diplomatic gift” (see later, Chap. 3) for Adolphus Frederick IV, the Duke of Mecklenburg -Strelitz (1738–1794), who was brother to the Queen. Some ceramics historians have been surprised that Nicholas Sprimont, who founded the Chelsea China Works in 1749 and who was a London silversmith, did not institute the idea of armorial porcelains in Chelsea porcelain shapes as he would have been well-aware of their armorial analogues in silver plate for the Georgian dining table. In 1786, HRH George, the Prince of Wales, ordered a non-armorial porcelain dessert service from the Derby China Works, each piece having a central pink rose beautifully painted by William Billingsley, the master rose painter at Derby. Undoubtedly, the most sumptuous Royal armorial porcelain service was that commissioned by King William IV and Queen Adelaide from the Rockingham China Works in 1832 (Cox & Cox, Rockingham Porcelain, 1745–1842, 2001).

12

1 The Origins of Heraldic Porcelain

Fig. 1.5 Armorial plate from the Duke of Clarence dinner–dessert service in Royal Worcester porcelain, Flight period, ordered by His Royal Highness Prince William in 1789 (who later became King William IV in succession to King George IV in 1830) to celebrate his accession to the royal Dukedom. Sumptuously decorated with his coat-of-arms centrally located and enclosed in the Order of the Garter with its motto, Honi Soit Qui Mal y Pense, and displaying the heraldic badges of the Order of the Thistle and Order of the Garter in the verge, which also shows St George impaling a dragon with a lance. Reproduced from The Art Institute, Chicago (CCO; public domain): Joseph Maier and Arthur Lewis Liebman Memorial. Gift of Kenneth J. Maier MD, ref 1994.90

References Burke, J. B. (1826). A genealogical and heraldic dictionary of the peerage and baronetage of the United Kingdom. Privately Published. Burke, J. B. (1884). Burke’s general armory—The general armory of England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales: Comprising a registry of armorial bearings from the earliest to the present time. Harrison & Sons, Pall Mall. Burke, J. B. (1895). A visitation of the seats and arms of the noblemen and gentlemen of Great Britain and Ireland (Vol. I and II). Hurst & Blackett Publishers. Cockayne, G. E. (1910). The complete peerage of England, Scotland, Ireland, Great Britain and the United Kingdom extant, extinct or dormant. In Gibbs V. (Ed.), St. Catherine’s Press.

References

13

Cox, A., & Cox, A. (2001). Rockingham porcelain, 1745–1842. Antique Collectors Club, Woodbridge. Dawson Dobson, S. (1795). Historical anecdotes of heraldry and chivalry: Tending to shew the origin of many English and foreign coats of arms, circumstances and customs. Holl and Brandish. Dugdale, W. (1682). The ancient (Antient) usage in bearing of such ensigns of honours as are commonly call’d arms with a catalogue of the present nobility of England to which is added a catalogue of the present nobility of Scotland and Ireland and C. Theater for Moses Pitt/Richard Davis, Oxford, and sold by Samuel Smith, St Paul’s Churchyard. Edwards, H. G. M (2021). Porcelain analysis and its role in the forensic attribution of ceramic specimens. Springer-Nature. Edwards, H. G. M. (2022). Welsh armorial porcelains: Nantgarw and Swansea crested China. Springer-Nature. Elvin, C. N. (1860). A handbook of Mottoes Borne by the nobility, gentry, cities, public companies etc., Bell & Daldy. Reprinted with Supplement and an Index by Pinches, R. (1971). Heraldry today, Beauchamp Place, London and Genealogical Publishers. Fairbairn, J. (1986). Crests of the families of Great Britain and Ireland and their kindred in other lands (Vol. I, II) In T.C. & E.C. Jack, Edinburgh and London, 1905 and New Orchard Publishing. Fox-Davies, A. C. (1895). Armorial families: A complete peerage, baronetage and knightage, and a directory of some gentlemen coat—Armour and being the first attempt to show which arms are in use at the moment are Borne by some legal authority (Vol. I and II). In T.C. & E.C. Jack, Grange Publishing Works. Fox-Davies, A. C. (1909). A complete guide to heraldry: with illustrations by G. Johnston, herald painter to the lyon court. In T.C. & E.C. Jack. Hanscombe, S. (2008). Armorial porcelain decorated in the London workshop of James Giles. Transactions of the English Ceramic Circle, 20(Part 1), 124. Hillis, M. (2011). Liverpool porcelain, 1756–1804. Maurice Hillis, Liverpool. Howard, D. S. (1974). Chinese Armorial porcelain (Vol. 1). Faber & Faber. Howard, D. S. (1997). A tale of three cities—Canton, Shanghai and Hong Kong: three centuries of sino-British trade in the decorative arts. Sotheby’s Publishing. Howard, D. S. (2003). Chinese Armorial porcelain (Vol. II). Heirloom & Howard. Rissik Marshall, H. (1951). Coloured Worcester Porcelain of the First Period, 1751–1783, Ceramic Book Co. Scott-Giles, C. (1954). Boutell’s heraldry. Frederick Warne & Co., Ltd. Twitchett, J. (2002). Derby porcelain: An illustrated guide, 1748–1848. The Antique Collectors Club. Woodcock, T. (1988). The Oxford guide to heraldry. Oxford University Press. Wyrley, W. (1853). The true use of arms, 1592. Reprinted by J. G. Bell.

Chapter 2

The Gentry and Heraldic Device Display

Abstract Changing use of armorials from identifying the individual to identifying a family and their possessions. The role of the College of Arms, and the Visitations by the Heralds. Social mobility 1740–1810. Luxury products and goods in the eighteenth century. Changes in fashion leading to demand for all manner of luxury goods for household furnishings and entertainment. Armorials on services manufactured in China and the development of the ceramic industry in England and Wales. Use of armorial displays within the home. Armorial displays as decorative art. The rules of inheritance for armorials. The procedure for obtaining armorials. Discussion on individuals who acquired armorials in the period 1800–1815 and the reason for doing so. Keywords College of arms · Visitations · Books · Libraries · Public display · Private spaces · Churches · Consumers · Luxury goods · Social habits · Military conflicts · Acquiring armorials · Royal Licence

2.1 Origins of Heraldic Display Heraldic devices originated as the identification badges worn by knights in battle and at tournaments. Embroidered coats-of-arms developed from knights wearing their family insignia embroidered onto the surcoats worn over armour or chain mail, as well as on shields and horse caparisons. Knights began wearing the same the shielddevice that their fathers had worn, and the association of personal insignia with the inheritance of lands and feudal rights led to a family’s coat-of-arms becoming hereditary, passing from generation to generation. Arms would be displayed with subtle differences to distinguish between brothers and different branches of the same family. Marriages between armorial families led to new combinations of family armorials on heraldic insignia, particularly when the woman was an heiress or coheiress in her own right with significant landed estates. By the fifteenth century, the use of armorials had become complex and there was a surge in the misuse of insignia, which led to the need to formalise and enforce the use of heraldic devices.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 R. L. Denyer et al., The Pendock Barry Porcelain Service, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-25813-8_2

15

16

2 The Gentry and Heraldic Device Display

2.2 College of Arms and the Visitations The College of Arms was established in 1484 by a royal charter from Richard III, and it was given responsibility for all heraldic issues in England and Wales. From 1530 until 1688, Heraldic Visitations were made to the counties, to ensure that coats-ofarms were being used in accordance with the rules and controls that had developed. The Visitations were tours of the counties, during which the heralds would register the usage of coats-of-arms. The heralds also created and updated their pedigree records of county families. In the earlier Visitations, the heralds visited the estates of the gentry families, then it became the custom for the heralds to visit a specific town and for those with armorials to present themselves to the herald. Nottinghamshire fell into the Northern Province, which placed it under the jurisdiction of the Norroy King of Arms. Nottingham was the subject of Heraldic Visitations in 1530, 1569, 1614 and 1662–1664. William Dugdale visited the county in 1662–1664 as the Norroy King of Arms and his Visitation records that he had spoken to Mr Pendock of Tollerton and recorded his pedigree. His records also note that he had seen the Pendock coat-of-arms from William Pendock which had been confirmed by an earlier herald, Richard St George, Norroy in 1614 (Dugdale, Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire Visitation Papers, p. 32, 1987).

2.3 Heraldic Display for Status and Possessions Armorials were used on rare, valuable and prized items as an indication of ownership. Books are a prime example. Books were rare, expensive items that were only owned by the very wealthy. Nicholas Bacon (1509–1579) used a woodcut of his armorials on books he donated to Cambridge University. Sir Thomas Tresham (1543–1605) used an engraved armorial bookplate on his books. Marking a book with a coat-ofarms was intended to be a permanent addition to it, and this practice served multiple purposes. Firstly, placing an armorial on a book ensured that the book’s association with its original owner would not be lost once it had left their possession. An armorial ensured that the book would always be associated with that original owner, no matter how many hands it subsequently passed through. A book was a rare and valuable item that was expected to have longevity and to be passed on. An armorial was a respected device that marked the book as having once belonged to a prominent and known individual. This in turn created provenance for the book, which increased its value and desirability. Most books were factual tomes, concerned with religion, law, culture and history. Marking a book with an armorial device, as opposed simply writing a name on the flyleaf, linked the family name to the book. It created an association between the family and the power and authority of learning and the law. This was a potent association, especially in a time when most people could not read and would never possess a book within their lifetime. The armorial

2.4 Public Display Within Private Spaces

17

was a highly visual indicator that a family had had the wealth to own books, which in turn was a symbol of the family’s status as members of the armorial-bearing, land-owning gentry. In the eighteenth century, it became fashionable for the gentry to collect sufficient books to establish their own private libraries. Henry Cavendish (1731–1810) built up a collection of 12,000 volumes. The establishment of private libraries within grand town houses or at the manorial family seats of the county gentry was a status symbol. Firstly, it reinforced the family’s position in society. Only the very wealthy could afford a private library. Secondly, it was a sign that the family was both educated and cultured. Given that books represented status and authority, it is not surprising that armorial displays appeared as prominent decorative features within these libraries. The Wyndham family, owners of Felbrigg Hall since the 1620s, built a library at Felbrigg Hall from books that William Wyndham (1717–1763) had collected on his Grand Tour. After he inherited the Hall from his father, he commissioned James Paine to design the library at Felbrigg Hall in the gothic style, with very tall pinnacle bookcases which covered all the walls. This left no room for pictures, but directly above the fireplace there was a large display of the family armorials (Purcell, “The Library at Felbrigg Hall”, The Country House Library, p. 148, Fig. 113, 2019) a visual image of authority in the public space within a private house.

2.4 Public Display Within Private Spaces When a family had armorials to be displayed, they were always positioned within a prominent place in the public rooms within homes. They were visual displays of a family’s identity and antecedents. For the county gentry families, who passed on their armorials as well as their landed estates down the generations, a heraldic device served as a symbol of the family’s heritage and its possession of its lands in a chain of inheritance over multiple generations. The library at Felbrigg Hall was not the only room adorned with armorials. There was also an armorial panel over the fireplace in the Great Hall which dates to c1620. Hazelwood Castle in Yorkshire was decorated with the Vavasour family arms in its Great Hall. Ralph 1st Duke of Montague made the link explicit when he had his coatof-arms and his family tree carved into the staircase at Broughton House. Armorials were also put into windows. The Great Hall at Sulgrave Manor in Northamptonshire contains armorial devices in its stained-glass windows. Henry Ferrers “The Antiquary” (1549–1633) was one of the earliest adopters of this practice. He installed the Ferrers coat-of-arms at Baddesley around 1575.

18

2 The Gentry and Heraldic Device Display

2.5 Churches Country churches had often been built or endowed by a land-owning county gentry family. A significant number contained tombstones that were adorned with family armorials, or had a chapel dedicated solely to a particular local family. At Felbrigg church, for example, there is a stone sculpture of Sir Simon Felbrigg who is depicted wearing his coat-of-arms (Armstrong, History and Antiquities of the county of Norfolk, p. 311, 1781). St Marys church in Axminster was associated with the Yonge family from 1470 to 1700, who built a chancel aisle. Many family members were buried in a vault and a stone in the north aisle bore the family armorials (Rogers, The Ancient Sepulchral Effigies and Monumental and Memorial Sculpture of Devon, p. 270, 1877). At Hoveton St Peter’s church had many brass shields at some point in its past, although they had been removed by the 1880s (Farrer, Church Heraldry of Norfolk, p. 377, 1885). Heraldic displays such as these associated armorial families with the power and authority of the church, as well as reinforcing the family’s standing within the local community. In his work Betjeman’s Best British Churches, Betjeman remarks that wool merchants, big farmers and those not entitled to an armorial monument on the walls inside the church usually have the grandest graves (Betjeman’s Best British Churches, 2011).

2.6 Luxury Products and Goods in the Eighteenth Century Industrialisation created the means to manufacture products on a larger scale than had previously been possible. The technical pull to manufacture goods was matched by a consumer push or demand for such products. The eighteenth century saw the emergence of a new middling society in England. This was a wide group, comprised of industrialists, entrepreneurs, investors and merchants as well as professionals who provided services (Berg, Luxury and Pleasure in Eighteenth Century Britain, p. 15, 2005). This group augmented the traditional, landholding wealthy as the purchasers of the new, high-quality manufactured products. There was a large market for luxury products, which were both the ornament and pleasure of life in the eighteenth century (Berg, Luxury and Pleasure in Eighteenth Century Britain, p. ix, 2005). Luxury products had been shipped from China to Europe during the sixteenth, seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. The Georgians were global consumers. The availability of these novel commodities meant that homes could be furnished and ornamented in a decorative, attractive manner. These were material possessions bought for pleasure and enjoyment. Traditional oak furniture was augmented with mahogany furniture imported from the West Indies. Silks came from France (Corfield, The Georgians: The deeds and misdeeds of 18th Century Britain, p. 36, 2022). Silks, calicos, blue and white porcelain and furniture were all transported in quantity, which fed the demand for such products as well as stimulating the demand for more.

2.6 Luxury Products and Goods in the Eighteenth Century

19

Manufacturers in Britain began to imitate these luxury imported products by producing their own versions. This led to new designs and innovations, which were purchased by wealthy customers. The pleasure of shopping and choosing these products became a pastime for the wealthy. In London, Piccadilly, St James and Haymarket became shopping streets. Wedgwood’s creamware was showcased, as was Sadler and Green’s new transfer-printed earthenware. Birmingham silverware was displayed (Corfield, The Georgians: The deeds and misdeeds of 18th Century Britain, p. 14, 2022). These levels of consumer spending were not solely for personal pleasure, but also to impress friends and visitors to their homes. Light, bright patterned wallpapers along with decorative plasterwork were used to create pleasing decorative effects. Clocks, ornaments and pictures were bought as display items (Corfield, The Georgians: The deeds and misdeeds of 18th Century Britain, p. 92, 2022). Social habits changed in response to the goods available. Visits, tea-drinking and sociable dinners followed by card-playing all became fashionable pastimes in the Georgian period. “This is an age of Gallantry and Gaiety” observed Defoe in 1726 (cited by Corfield, The Georgians: The deeds and misdeeds of 18th Century Britain, p. 59, 2022). The purchase of high-quality porcelain services for breakfast, dinner, dessert and tea became a desirable social “must have”, which reflected on a person’s social standing and wealth (Godden, Welsh Ceramics in Context Part 1, 2003). Nor was this social behaviour confined to London. As one commentator observed in 1772, “as much ceremony is found in the assembly of a country grocer’s wife as in that of a countess” (Berg, Luxury and Pleasure in Eighteenth Century Britain Oxford p 4 citing “Universal Magazine of Knowledge and Pleasure”, 1772). Coffee had been imported in bulk since the late seventeenth century, and coffee houses had become fashionable meeting places particularly for gentlemen in London, where business was mixed with social meetings. Coffee drinking’s preeminence as a fashionable non-alcoholic drink was challenged by the import of tea from China. From 1720 to 1750, imports quadrupled (Corfield The Georgians: The deeds and misdeeds of 18th Century Britain, p. 38, 2022). Chinese porcelain imports also grew during the same time period, to meet the demand for these products. As an example of the volume of pieces being imported, a single merchant ship which sank in 1725 was discovered to have 75,000 pieces of porcelain as its cargo. Another shipwrecked cargo ship which sank in 1752 was carrying 150,000 pieces of porcelain, mainly blue and white decoration (Edwards, Porcelain Analysis and its Role in the Forensic Attribution of Ceramic Specimens, p. 82, 2021). The act of commissioning a service was a difficult and complex process. The East India Company was the major importer of these wares, and obtaining a service was a significant undertaking. It typically took two or three years between placing an order and receiving the service. The commission had to be executed via a captain who was making a trade voyage to China, and a complex system of intermediaries developed. Once an order was placed, a captain bound for China would carry all the commissions to the manufactories in China, where the orders would be produced and decorated. Depending on the size of the service, the manufacturing process alone could take 2 years, as some services were upwards of 200 pieces. Once the service

20

2 The Gentry and Heraldic Device Display

had been produced and decorated as per the commission, it would then be packed up ready for transportation to the port, where it would be taken to wait for the captain’s next visit to the port. This could add months to the time taken for the customer to receive their order, as sailing ships had to be inbound from India between June and September, then they would be waiting for a reverse north-easterly monsoon wind to enable them to sail back to India and then onto Europe (Edwards, Porcelain Analysis and its role in the Forensic Attribution of Ceramic Specimens, p. 77, 2021). The sea voyage would take several months, then transport would be required from the dockside to the purchaser. It is estimated that any one ship in the 1720s would have had up to 2000 each of plates, cups and saucers, soup plates and bowls in its cargo (Edwards, Porcelain Analysis and its Role in the Forensic Attribution of Ceramic Specimens, p. 73, 2021).

2.7 Armorials on Ceramics The first true armorial service, consisting of plates and dishes and decorated with an armorial in enamelled Imari colours, was made for Thomas Pitt in 1705 (Howard, Chinese Armorial Porcelain Vol. 1, p. 176, 1974), and this set the fashion within gentry society. A significant number of the patrons who were wealthy enough to commission these services would have had family armorials, and the number of armorial pieces being commissioned rose significantly. It is estimated that some 5000 armorial services were imported to England (Edwards, Porcelain Analysis and its role in the Forensic Attribution of Ceramic Specimens, p. 80, 2021) and a significant number of these were commissioned by the East India Company directors and captains themselves. The trouble and expense associated with commissioning these services would only have added to their lustre and exclusivity. Sir John Willes (1685–1761) is a typical example of a patron who commissioned a service. Willes was a Lord Chief Justice. He built Astrop Park in Brackley, Northampton, and he married Margaret Brewster (1690–1750) in 1718. His commission was placed c1735 for pieces with the arms of Willes impaling Brewster (Christie’s Auction, Chinese Export Art, January 2018). Other commissions were made for Osterly Park, Valentines Mansion, and the Shugborough estates. Francis Sykes of Basildon Park commissioned a service in the 1760s. Given the demand for all manner of ceramics from China, it was only a matter of time and technology before ceramics manufactories in England and Wales were set up. European factories had been established in Meissen by 1708, Vienna in 1718, Chantilly in 1725 and Vincennes in 1740. The earliest English manufacturers for soft paste porcelain pieces were established in the 1740s. The Chelsea porcelain works were established 1743–45, hotly followed by the rival Bow porcelain factory in 1745. Several small works were set up, the most prominent of which include Bristol in 1748 and Longton Hall in 1750. Further companies were established in the 1750s, including Worcester in 1751, Derby and

2.9 Social Mobility

21

Lowestoft in 1757 and Wedgwood in 1759. Plymouth was set up in 1768 after the discovery of kaolin deposits allowed the manufacture of the first hard paste porcelain. As developments in porcelain production led to new product designs, breakfast services, dinner services, dessert services and tea services became available in a wide range of shapes and styles. A web of decorating workshops developed, with several manufacturers using London ateliers to decorate their wares, which were then sent onto fashionable retail emporiums for sale.

2.8 Armorials on Services Manufactured in England and Wales 1740–1810 Some of the very early English delftware pieces had carried armorial decorations: one of the earliest surviving pieces dates to 1651 and was produced by the Pickleherring Pottery in Southwark for the Grocer’s Company (The British Museum Collection, Pickleherring Pottery, 1651). The early English soft paste porcelain manufacturers copied the imported Chinese services in decoration, but not all porcelain manufacturers ventured into armorial enamelling. There were significant manufacturing challenges which led to large volumes of kiln wastage at these early manufactories, and providing customised armorial services increased the overall manufacturing cost, as 24 carat gold was used to decorate the crests. Furthermore, the bespoke nature of an armorial service meant that the manufacturer would have limited resell options, should the commissioning client decide against accepting the service. Derby, Worcester, Bristol, Spode, Nantgarw and Swansea all produced armorial services as commissions from wealthy patrons. Bristol produced the Burke service in 1774. Worcester produced some armorial cups and saucers for Warwick Calmady Esq of Cornwall around 1770 and was commissioned to produce a service for the Duke of Clarence in 1789.

2.9 Social Mobility 1740–1810 saw changes within society as a result of the opportunities for selfadvancement and social mobility which had become possible during the eighteenth century. Rules of primogeniture, which held family estates together by ensuring inheritance went to the eldest son, meant that cadet branches of aristocratic families had to have some form of income independent of family landed wealth. By 1700, it is estimated that there were as many lawyers as clergymen in England and Wales (Corfield, The Georgians: The deeds and misdeeds of 18th Century Britain, p. 138, 2022). Both groups continued to grow during the century, as did the number of physicians, and together they formed a prosperous professional class. Another group who prospered

22

2 The Gentry and Heraldic Device Display

were the business owners, industrialists and merchants, whose numbers also swelled during the century. Many great houses were built by the monied wealthy. Park landscaping became fashionable, as prosperous families sought to emulate the landed ease of the aristocratic nobility. Lower down the social scale, clerks found employment in commerce, businesses, financial institutions and government. The term “civil service” appeared in 1785 (Corfield The Georgians: The deeds and misdeeds of 18th Century Britain, p. 157, 2022). Pitt’s reforms to the political peerage system in 1784 reflected this change. Prior to his reforms, landholding was a prerequisite for a seat in the Lords. As a result of his changes, the House of Lords contained a larger number of lawyers, bankers and industrialists than it had previously had. Land and money were connected, as these were posts often held by younger sons of the aristocracy, but by 1800 there were only around 500 aristocratic, hereditary titles in existence (Corfield, The Georgians: The deeds and misdeeds of 18th Century Britain, p. 246, 2022). The period was also marked by a succession of conflicts. The Seven Years War (1756–1763), the American War of Independence (1775–1783) and the French Revolutionary Wars (1793–1801) all took their toll on the country. News and despatches about military engagements shaped social attitudes towards war, and many county gentry families had family members in the Navy or Army, typically younger sons who had not gone into the church, law or medicine. Joining a regiment could provide significant opportunities for advancement that would be rewarded by military honours. In 1802, Lord Nelson commissioned a magnificent Imari patterned dinner, breakfast, tea and dessert services from Worcester, all bearing his armorials and recently bestowed honours. Small wonder then, that an armorial service had become a highly desirable, luxury product by the 1800s.

2.10 Armorials as Decorative Art Books on heraldry and heraldic devices began appearing during this same time frame. These books reflected the growing interest in heraldry and family history but were also a source of information for the flourishing industry of heraldic painters and decorators producing armorials on commission. In 1728, The Banner Display’d by Samuel Kent was published. Printed in two volumes, it was advertised as being very useful for herald painters, embroiderers, carvers and undertakers (“This day was published” Newcastle Courant 25 May 1728 p. 3). Armorial decoration was a skilled role, and herald painters often worked across multiple disciplines. John West, for example, advertised himself a coach, herald sign writer, house painter and guilder. He also cleaned and renovated paintings (“Marlborough, Sept. 27, 1775” Oxford Journal 18 Nov, 1775, p. 2). Charles Davis, based in Bath, offered coach, sign and herald painting, gilding, house painting, picture restoration and decorative supplies (“Charles Davis, Painter” Bath Chronicle and Weekly Gazette 29 Dec, 1768, p. 1).

2.11 Armorials by Royal Licence

23

Some armorial painters and decorators developed such expertise in the subject they produced reference works. In 1769, Arthur J. Harris, a herald painter in Bath, proposed the publication by subscription of the coats-of-arms, crests, mottoes, pedigrees of the nobility, baronets and gentry of Somerset (“Speedily will be published” Bath Chronicle and Weekly Gazette, 16 Nov, 1769, p. 2). Queen Charlotte had a dedicated herald painter, Joseph Edmondson (d. 1786). He had originally been a coach painter, specialising in armorials on carriages, before he applied his knowledge to become Mowbray Herald Extraordinary At Arms. He was the author of multiple books on heraldry, including the Companion to the Peerage of Great-Britain and Ireland in 1776 and A Complete Body of Heraldry in 1780. Another tome was published in 1777 by G. Kearfly: The Peerage of the Nobility of England, Scotland and Ireland. This was a comprehensive reference book, advertised as containing their titles date of their creations, descriptions of their arms, crests and supports, their mottos, country seats and town residences (“This day is published” Northampton Mercury 28 Dec 1778, p. 1). In August of 1804, William Bentham published The Baronetage of England, which detailed all the armorials of England in four volumes. Heraldic devices were displayed on the decorative items within homes, particularly on objects that were used for entertaining. Armorials had first found their way onto the dining tables and banquet arrangements of the wealthy through silverware. The armorials of Pendock Neale (1728–1772) and Harriet Eliot (1731–1776) appear on a tricorn kettle tray (Sotheby’s, European Ceramics, Glass, Silver and Vertu, 2007). The piece was made in 1755, 2 years after their marriage, and is likely to have been part of a large commission of armorial silverware for use at Ince Castle.

2.11 Armorials by Royal Licence The market for porcelain services had been formed by the Chinese exports, and it grew exponentially during the eighteenth century as technological developments in the production methods enabled English manufacturers to produce services for the domestic market. The most exclusive and expensive of all porcelain services were those commissioned by patrons to bear their armorials. This in turn created a desire amongst those in gentry society to acquire armorials if it were possible for them to do so. Arms that have been granted to one family can only be transferred to another person not in the legal line of descent from the original grantee via a royal licence, and the process is then followed by an exemplification of the arms. The College of Arms was responsible for this process, which it still carries out today, alongside with the more commonly used deed of poll process for changing surnames. Several royal licences granted in the 1800s refer to the role of the College in the announcement. For example, in 1801 Rev John Cramer of Sallymount, in county Kildare, received a royal licence to take the surname and arms of Roberts as directed by the will of Jane, late duchess of St Albans, “with proper distinctions (such Arms being first duly exemplified according to the Law of Arms and recorded

24

2 The Gentry and Heraldic Device Display

in the Heralds Office)” (“London Gazette, Oct. 10” Sun (London) 21 Oct, 1801, p. 3). Other grants were explicit that the College process was mandatory, such as the royal licence granted for William Rafferty to assume the surname Houghton, which stated that the decision must be registered with the College of Arms “otherwise to be void and of none Effect” (“Whitehall June 25, 1808” British Press 27 Jun, 1808, p. 4). A number of people were granted a royal licence to take on surnames and armorials in the early 1800s. Changes to surnames and armorials were published in the London Gazette then picked up by other national and local newspapers. From 1801 to 1815, at least 25 people applied and were granted the privilege. Most applicants were men, but women were also granted surname changes. In 1806, for example, the Right Honourable Lady Augusta Murray, daughter of the Earl of Dunmore, was granted a royal licence to assume the surname of De Ameland “out of respect for her descent from that family” (“The King” Sun (London) 21 Oct, 1806, p. 3). The reasons for applying to change surnames varied. Most often, the applications were associated with a will. Testators would insert clauses into their wills requiring their heir to assume a family surname and armorials to inherit a legacy. This was the case for George Raynsford. He was the son of Richard Raynsford and Frances Edwards. He requested a royal licence to assume the surname and armorials of Edwards, in compliance with the will of his maternal uncle, George Edwards (“The King has granted” Northampton Mercury 11 March, 1809, p. 3). Applications were frequently made by a brother-in-law or a son-in-law who had married into an armorial family which was without a direct male heir—and the applicant often already had their own armorials. An example of this would be Cadwallader Blayney Roper (1765–1832) who was entitled to the arms of Roper. He sought a royal licence to incorporate the arms of Trevor quarterly with Roper, as specified in the will the Rt Hon Mary Jane Dowager Lady Dacre (1755–1808)(“The King has been graciously pleased to grant” Globe 18 Jan, 1809, p. 4) who was his first cousin. Pendock Barry’s request for a royal licence to assume the surname and armorials of the Barry family was granted in November 1811. This is discussed further in Chap. 4.

2.12 Conclusion A global trade in Eastern luxuries had become a global trade in British consumer goods by the end of the eighteenth century. These were not essential goods, but material possessions for personal identity, culture and symbolic display. The Industrial Revolution is as much about producing consumer products as it is about the people who bought these products. Consumer demand formed a ready market for the ceramic manufactories established in England and Wales after 1740, and as technological developments enabled a wider range of products, consumers continued to purchase in ever increasing numbers.

References

25

The new middling social groups enjoyed a standard of living with decorative items in their home and socially active lives, which centred around entertaining and being entertained. This created the market for all manner of ceramics. The most exclusive services were commissioned named services, and particularly armorials. They carried a particular social cachet in a society that was accustomed to military action.

References Armstrong, M. J. (1781). History and antiquities of the County of Norfolk. J Crouse. Berg, M. (2005). Luxury and pleasure in eighteenth century Britain. Oxford University Press. Corfield, P. J. (2022). The Georgians: The deeds and misdeeds of 18th Century Britain. Yale University Press. Dugdale, W., Nottinghamshire and derbyshire visitation papers. Harleian Society. Edwards, H. G. M. (2021). Porcelain analysis and its role in the Forensic attribution of ceramic specimens. Springer-Nature. Farrer, E. (1885). Church heraldry of Norfolk. Howard, D. S. (1974). Chinese armorial porcelain (Vol. 1). Faber & Faber. Purcell, M. (2019). The library at Felbrigg Hall’. In The country house library, fig 113 (p. 148). Yale University Press. Rogers, W. H. H. (1877). The ancient sepulchral effigies and monumental and memorial sculpture of devon.

Database Sources Bath, C., & Weekly, G. (1768). Charles Davis, Painter. In Bath Chronicle and Weekly Gazette 29 Dec 1768 p. 1. The British Newspaper Archive [online] www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk. Accessed August 25, 2022. Bath, C., & Weekly, G. (1769). Speedily will be published. In Bath Chronicle and Weekly Gazette, 16 Nov 1769 (p. 2). The British Newspaper Archive [online] www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk [Accessed August 25, 2022]. British Museum Collection Pickleherring Pottery. 2022. [online] https://www.britishmuseum.org/ collection/term/BIOG81354. Accessed August 24, 2022. British Press. (1808). Whitehall June 25, 1808. British Press 27 Jun 1808 (p. 4). The British Newspaper Archive [online] www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk. Accessed August, 25 2022. Christie’s Action. (2018). Chinese export art Jan 2018 [online]. https://www.christies.com/en/lot/ lot-6124831. Accessed August 24, 2022. Globe. (1809). The King has been graciously pleased to grant. Globe 18 Jan 1809, 4. [online] The British Newspaper Archive www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk. Aaccessed August 25, 2022. Northampton Mercury. (1778). This day is published. Northampton Mercury 28 Dec 1778, 1. [online] www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk. Accessed August 25, 2022. Northampton Mercury. (1809). The King has granted. Northampton Mercury 11 March 1809, 3. [online] www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk. Accessed August 25, 2022. Oxford Journal. (1775). Marlborough, Sept 27, 1775. Oxford Journal, 18 Nov 1775, 2. The British Newspaper Archive [online] www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk. Accessed August 25, 2022.

26

2 The Gentry and Heraldic Device Display

Sotheby’s. (2007). European ceramics, glass, silver and vertu, 2007. [online] https://www.sot hebys.com/en/auctions/ecatalogue/2007/european-ceramics-glass-silver-and-vertu-w07650/lot. 193.html. Accessed September 15, 2022. Sun (London). (1801). London Gazette, Oct 10. Sun (London) 21 Oct 1801, 3. The British Newspaper Archive [online] www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk. Accessed August, 25 2022. Sun (London). (1806). The King. Sun (London) 21 Oct 1806, 3. The British Newspaper Archive [online] www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk. Accessed November 15, 2022.

Chapter 3

The Development of Armorial Porcelains

Abstract The history of the development of Chinese porcelain from its origins in the Tang and Song Dynasties to its importation into Europe in the Ming and Qing Dynasties. The first appearance of Chinese porcelain in Europe, its desirability and its early manufacture as diplomatic gifts by Francesco Medici, Duke of Tuscany. The earliest European armorial porcelains from Florence and Rouen and the earliest European porcelain diplomatic gift to King Philip II of Spain in 1581. Early English manufacture of porcelains and the appearance of armorials from the mid-1760s to provide the needs of a change in dining arrangements in Georgian society. Keywords Chinese porcelain · Tang dynasty · Song dynasty · Porcelain importation into Europe · Medici porcelain · Rouen porcelain · Porcelain as diplomatic gifts

3.1 Porcelain as Diplomatic Gifts The origins of the manufacture of porcelain can be traced back to the Tang Dynasty (618–906 CE) in China, and the finest examples of Chinese porcelain have always been appreciated for their translucency and texture and for their quality blue and white and later polychrome enamelled decoration. Although many historians accord the first mention of Chinese porcelain to Marco Polo, the first westerner to travel to China to the Courts of Kublai Khan and Temur Khan in the Yuan Dynasty and to return with a sample of porcelain, Suleiman, an Arabic merchant trading with China, who pre-dated Marco Polo by four centuries and who in 851 CE, during the Chinese Tang Dynasty, said: They have in China a very fine clay with which they make vases which are as transparent as glass; water is seen through them. These vases are made of clay.

Whereas many of the ceramics of the Tang Dynasty were believed to be more like faience in character and really, therefore, comprised a predominantly nontranslucent earthenware or stoneware substrate with an applied vitreous glaze, clearly some production in limited quantities of a translucent ceramic had been undertaken

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 R. L. Denyer et al., The Pendock Barry Porcelain Service, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-25813-8_3

27

28

3 The Development of Armorial Porcelains

successfully during this period as described above by Suleiman. Evidence for this appeared recently in the archaeological excavation of the wreck of an Arab dhow which sank in 830 CE off Belitung Island in the Straits of Singapore with a cargo of 60,000 pieces of Chinese ceramics en route for the Abbasid Dynasty in Arabia. The cargo comprised mostly Tang Dynasty glazed stonewares, with some Yue celadons and about 300 pieces of a very fine Xing white porcelain from Heibei, which indicates that even at this early period the Chinese were manufacturing and exporting large quantities of novel glazed ceramics and some true translucent porcelain pieces. During the Song Dynasty (960–1279 CE) and the Yuan Dynasty (1271–1368 CE), further improvements in the porcelain production were made in the Northern kilns centred on Dehua and the Southern kilns at Jingdezhen and this was contributory to the establishment of the fine porcelains exported during the following Ming (1368– 1644 CE) and Qing (1644–1912 CE) Dynasties. In the Ming Dynasty and for the reigns of Kangxi (1661–1722 CE), Yongzheng (1723–1735 CE) and Qianlong (1735– 1796 CE) in the early Qing Dynasty, the site of Imperial porcelain production was confirmed and concentrated at Jingdezhen, where the famous wood-fired dragon kilns built into the hillside could each take a charge of up to 25,000 pieces of porcelain per firing schedule. The last Mongol Emperor of the Yuan Dynasty, Togon Temur (Huizong), who reigned from 1333 to 1368, sent a Chinese delegation of Nestorian monks to the court of Pope Benedict XII in Avignon in 1338 bearing a very fine Qingbai porcelain vase with its characteristic yingqing bluish-green glaze—this being the earliest piece of Chinese porcelain that appears to have been specifically made for the European market. This precious artefact bore no armorial bearings and is shown in Fig. 3.1. Now known as the Gaignieres-Fonthill Vase, it resides in the National Museum of Ireland, Collins Barracks, Dublin, arriving there via a circuitous route through the King of Naples, then via the Kingdom of Aragon and thence to Jean, Duc de Berry and Dauphin of France, the son of King Louis XIV (Lane, 1961). Although itself devoid of any armorial bearings or applied enamel decoration, the attractively moulded vase did acquire some additional silver mounts in the late fourteenth century which did bear the arms of the Angevin Kings and King of Poland, although these mounts are now missing (Edwards, Porcelain Analysis and Its Role in the Forensic Attribution of Ceramic Specimens, 2021). Other early Chinese diplomatic gifts of Chinese porcelain from the Chinese Emperors were made by similar delegations despatched to the Ottoman sultans at the Topkapi Palace in Constantinople and to the Mongol Emperors in Samarkand in the mid-fifteenth century. These “diplomatic gifts” were the catalyst for the immeasurable fascination held for this novel ceramic material by the aristocratic rulers of Europe; thereafter, it was labelled as “die Porzellankrankheit” (the porcelain disease), or as Dr Samuel Johnson described it somewhat later, “the contagion of china-fancy” (Finlay, 1998; Redford, The Letters of Samuel Johnson, 1992). Subsequently, the Portuguese discovered Chinese porcelain in India and the first pieces were brought back to Lisbon from Calicut by Vasco da Gama in his flagship Sao Gabriel and presented to King Manuel I (reigned 1495–1521) on his return to Portugal after rounding the Cape of Good Hope into the Indian Ocean in 1499. King Manuel I was so delighted with his gift of porcelain that he ordered more

3.1 Porcelain as Diplomatic Gifts

29

Fig. 3.1 The Gaignieres—Fonthill Vase, Yuan Dynasty Chinese porcelain, ca. 1338, as it is today, front view, minus its later addition of silver mounts, demonstrating the superb quality of its Qingbai porcelain; note that the vase itself which has a moulded floral decoration does not possess any armorial decoration, although it is recorded that silver mounts added later in the fourteenth century did have armorial devices engraved. Copyright, The National Museum of Ireland, Collins Barracks, Dublin, and reproduced with permission

from the first Portuguese expedition sent to China in 1517 to be decorated with his heraldic coat-of-arms, which probably, therefore, represents the first specific European commission to be made for Chinese armorial porcelain historically (Rui, “Portugal Embusca de China: Imagens e Miragens (1498–1514)”, Ler Historia, 9, 1990) 1990; Graca, “The Portuguese Porcelain Trade with China”, Arts in Asia, 7, 1977). It is, however, doubtful whether this armorial porcelain was ever delivered to King Manuel as relations between the Portuguese delegation and the Chinese Emperors Zhengde and Jiajing seriously deteriorated during their prolonged stay in China awaiting an Imperial audience and King Manuel died before his expedition leaders were released from their imprisonment by their Chinese hosts.

30

3 The Development of Armorial Porcelains

3.2 Early European Armorial Porcelains 3.2.1 Medici Porcelain, Florence The earliest European porcelain manufactory was established by the Medicis in Florence in the last quarter of the sixteenth century. In 1575, the Venetian ambassador to the Court of Tuscany, Andrea Gussoni, noted that Francesco Medici I, Grand Duke of Tuscany, had established a porcelain manufactory in the Casino of San Marco in Florence, having discovered the secret of the manufacture of the “porcelain of India” after 10 years of trials and experimentation. Gussoni said that the Medici porcelain was “transparent, hard, light and delicate” (Lane, Italian Porcelain, 1954). Lorenzo de Medici had earlier received a Chinese porcelain vase as a diplomatic gift in 1487 from the envoys of the Mamluk Sultan in Egypt, and this created a desire amongst the successive Medici Grand Dukes to collect and eventually to manufacture porcelain themselves after his death in 1492 (Kerr & Wood, Science and Civilisation in China, 2004; Lane, Italian Porcelain, 1954). Cosimo Medici I (reigned 1537–1574) was an avid collector of Chinese porcelain, and he owned over 400 pieces of Chinese porcelain in his personal collection in 1553. Cosimo’s son, Francesco Medici, used his own manufactured porcelain artefacts as “diplomatic gifts”, and his manufactory was never intended to be a commercial enterprise for the wider sale of porcelain. He presented several pieces of Medici porcelain to the powerful King Philip II of Spain (reigned 1556–1598) which bore the King’s coatof-arms in an underglaze blue decoration, and these must therefore represent the first recorded examples of European porcelain armorial artefacts. Two of these large armorial porcelain bottles are now in the ceramics collection of the Musee national de Sevres, France. These diplomatic gifts were much admired by Philip, who apparently used them frequently. In the sixteenth-century Europe, porcelain was believed to possess a rather magical power which could act in response to the presence of toxins and could also heal minor skin afflictions—an idea which carried over from its mystical use as a “tempered earth” in alchemy (Bowen Backus, Asia Materialized: Perceptions of China in Renaissance Florence, 2014)! The Italian antiquarian and historian Guido Pancirolli was concerned at the loss of knowledge from the ancient world in the sixteenth-century Renaissance, and he wished to draw attention to lost things (deperdita) during the advancement of learning in the Renaissance (Panciroli, Rerum Memorabilium Iam, Olim Deperditarum, Libro Duo, 1599 and 1602). His description reveals how Chinese porcelain was considered as a “magical” creation in the mid-to-late sixteenth century: Never has porcelain been seen before…. those precious transparent vases so beautiful in form and colour architects can find no fault in them; amongst their inestimable virtues is that of breaking should poison be put into them.

The substantial Medici bottles (height 28 cm, base 11 × 11 cm, volume 3.5 l) presented to King Philip II and which bear his coat of arms include heraldic devices in blue enamel to signify his several titles as King of Spain and Portugal, King of Naples

3.2 Early European Armorial Porcelains

31

and Sicily, King of England (through his marriage to Mary Tudor, Queen Mary I, 1554–1558), Duke of Milan, Lord of The Netherlands, Duke of Burgundy and King of Jerusalem. The King’s escutcheon is bordered with a fettered chain bearing a sheep in recognition of his title as a Knight of the Golden Fleece. The escutcheon is surmounted by the crown of a united Spain and Portugal. The base of the first bottle depicts the cupola of the Duomo in Florence beneath which is an initial F for Francesco Medici—providing an example of a very early porcelain factory mark. An estimate has been made of the total production of Duke Francesco’s Medici porcelain at approximately 900 pieces, and some 70 of these have survived today in collections (Bowen Backus, Asia Materialized: Perceptions of China in Renaissance Florence, 2014), but many of these are not armorial porcelains. The idea of using coats-of-arms on porcelain for creating diplomatic gifts of his own porcelain to other European rulers was generated by Duke Francesco de Medici in the 1580s; Francesco also used his own characteristic heraldic escutcheon from his own coat-of-arms as his factory stamp as well as the cupola of the Duomo in Florence, so making these items super-armorial!

3.2.2 Rouen Porcelain, France Some hundred years later, the first French porcelain manufactory at Rouen, which was founded under the patronage of King Louis XIV in 1674, started to produce luxury porcelain pieces from about 1690 (Grandjean, “The Porcelain of Rouen, Discovering the Secrets of Soft Paste Porcelain at the St Cloud Manufactory ca 1690–1696, 1999; Froissart, Collection d’un Amateur, Rouen 1680–1740: De la Premier Porcelaine de l’Age d’Or de la Faience, 2008; Solon, “The Rouen Porcelain”, The Burlington Magazine for Connoisseurs, 7, 1905) onwards: some nine or ten Rouen soft paste porcelain artefacts have survived to this day and it is indeed fortunate that one of these is a moutardier of 1695, decorated in underglaze blue and bearing the coat-ofarms of a French legal advocate and counsellor to the parliament of the Departement de Normandie, Comte Jacques Asselin de Villequiers (1669–1728). This moutardier is shown in Fig. 3.2, from which the coat-of-arms is clearly visible in its blue and white decoration. These arms comprise an escutcheon with a chevron containing three tall burettes and supported by two gryphons rampant regardant. Above the escutcheon sits a coronet which displays nine “pearls” which denote the rank of Comte in French heraldry—equivalent to that of a Viscount in the heraldic lists of the British Isles. Undoubtedly, King Louis XIV embraced the emergence of porcelain as “the ambassadorial gift of preference in the 18th Century” (Walton, The Era of Louis XIV: A Turning—Point in the History of Diplomatic Gifts, 1992). It is not possible in the absence of the appropriate documentation to state whether the moutardier was presented to the Comte Jacques Asselin de Villequiers by the Rouen manufactory, or perhaps even by King Louis XIV, or whether it was purchased there personally by the noble client. At the contemporary French porcelain factory of St Cloud, the porcelain was manufactured and sold commercially, as evidenced

32

3 The Development of Armorial Porcelains

Fig. 3.2 Rouen porcelain mustard pot and lid, moutardier, ca. 1695, bearing the coat-of-arms of Comte Jacques Asselin de Villequiers, decorated in underglaze blue. Musée National Ceramique de Sevres. CC by SA 3.0. Public domain

by the purchase in 1701/2 of some items of St Cloud porcelain by Ehrenfried von Tschirnhaus, a visitor to the manufactory, who later joined Augustus the Strong, Elector of Saxony, to commence the manufacture of porcelain there at Meissen with Johann Böttger in the first decade of the eighteenth century. Certainly, Augustus the Strong manufactured porcelain, his “white gold”, at Meissen for his own use, for diplomatic gifts and for sale to wealthy clients (Cassidy-Geiger, “Porcelain and Prestige: Princely Gifts and White Gold from Meissen”, Chap. 1, in Fragile Diplomacy: Meissen Production for Foreign Courts, ca. 1710–1763, 2007). Recently, a Meissen polychrome tea and chocolate service was sold at auction bearing his coat-of-arms and the monogram AR signifying Augustus Rex—which must surely be a strong candidate for the earliest armorial service made for a European monarch in his own porcelain manufactory.

3.3 Armorial Artefacts at the Georgian Dinner Table

33

3.2.3 Early English Manufactories In contrast to an extensively documented history relating to early European porcelain manufactories, dating back to that of the Florentine Duke Francesco Medici in the 1570s, then through several start-ups believed to have spontaneously arisen, if only briefly, elsewhere in Genoa, Parma and Milan, and on to the French manufactories at Rouen and St Cloud, the porcelain manufactory of John Dwight at Fulham in England, which was founded in 1680, seems to be the earliest and only representative of their English analogues in the seventeenth century. There is no evidence, however, that armorial porcelains were ever made at Fulham and the reader is referred to the detailed summaries and analyses of Fulham porcelains provided in the recent work of (Edwards, Porcelain Analysis and Its Role in the Forensic Attribution of Ceramic Specimens, 2021) and the Ramsays (Ramsay & Ramsay, The Evolution and Compositional Development of English Porcelains from the 16th Century to Lund’s Bristol c.1750 and Worcester c.1752—The Golden Chain, 2017). The earliest English porcelain manufactories after Fulham were the smaller ventures at Pomona and Bovey Tracey in 1743/44, followed by those at Bow, Limehouse, Chelsea and Worcester, dating from 1744 to 1751, some of whose products do exhibit armorial work although admittedly from a rather later period. In Chap. 1, it was stated that in all probability the earliest armorial English porcelain service dated from the mid-late 1760s, some seventy years or so after Rouen, although there is a wealth of evidence to indicate that English clients were commissioning large armorial services made in Chinese porcelain during the same period (Howard, Chinese Armorial Porcelain, Vols I and II, 1974 and 2003). There is no doubt that by the 1780s and 1790s English armorial porcelain services were now becoming a standard feature of the output of porcelain manufactories. The largest armorial porcelain service ever commissioned, a combined breakfast, tea, dinner and dessert service of 7000 pieces, was ordered by the Honourable East India Company from Richard Chamberlain’s Worcester China Works manufactory in 1817 for use in the Governor’s residence in its Indian headquarters at Fort St. George, Madras. This service was decorated with a salmon pink border, sumptuously gilded and displaying the full coat-of-arms of the HEIC centrally with its escutcheon, supporters and motto and cost in excess of £4000 at that time, equivalent to about £400,000 today (Beurdeley, Porcelain of the East India Company, 1962).

3.3 Armorial Artefacts at the Georgian Dinner Table The personal decoration of porcelain with one’s own commissioned coat-of-arms or associated heraldic devices occurred first in the early eighteenth century, probably alongside the use of similar armorial bearings that were then also being applied to silverware goods and cutlery then being used for dining purposes. This, of course, is entirely independent of the much earlier examples known of armorial porcelains

34

3 The Development of Armorial Porcelains

which were created for “diplomatic gifts” to influential colleagues by the nobility who were sponsoring the manufactories at Florence and Rouen, namely Duke Francesco Medici I of Tuscany (reigned 1574–1587) and King Louis XIV (reigned 1643–1715), respectively, for which specimens of their artefacts (mostly non-armorial) are still extant. The acquisition of armorial porcelain dinner, dessert, tea and breakfast services by wealthy families reflected a change in social attitudes through the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries and the way that people met and dined together in Stuart and Georgian England. Hitherto, it was normal to have the meal at dinner served centrally and communally from large tureens or platters onto single plates, which were then removed and washed in the kitchen between courses and returned to the table for repeated use by the diners, so minimising the need for multiple sets of dishes or plates. The dishes and plates themselves were usually made of wood or pewter, or exceptionally of silver (Davy, Eat, Drink and Be Merry: the English at Table, 1600– 2000, 2000; Glanville & Young, Elegant Eating: Four Hundred Years of Dining in Style, 2002). As dining fashion moved onto the provision of multiple courses with individual servings for the seated guests and family, the need then arose for larger sets of dishes for the diners, along with comports, platters and tureens for the carriage of the food prior to its serving and for its display and serving on the table and sideboard, and the first large ceramic matched pattern dinner services hence appeared only in the early 1700s. Silver dishes in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries had engraved armorial bearings applied in addition to their English silver assay hall marks, so removing their anonymity and identifying the armigerous family ownership of the artefact. It was natural then to also treat porcelain services similarly and so the concept of armorial porcelains for everyday usage was born: dinner sets comprising multiple dishes decorated en suite were also found to be cheaper to commission in Chinese hard paste porcelain rather than silver, whether these were decorated in China or imported in the white for local armorial enamelling in the ceramic ateliers and workshops here, such as those of James Giles in London, located in the fashionable Cockspur Street, Haymarket. Ateliers such as those of James Giles were patronised by eminent personalities of the time, by royalty and the aristocracy. Additionally, the exhibition of a family’s crest or coat-of-arms on a dinner service was a visual confirmation to guests of one’s social status and ability to access desirable trade goods imported from overseas as well as advertising the established position in an elite society of the host and of their membership of a nobility or gentry with the officially registered entitlement to bear arms. David Howard is of the opinion (Howard, Chinese Armorial Porcelain, 1974) that large armorial services were not commissioned from China for use in England before the turn of the eighteenth century, which accords perfectly with the above scenario. In some manufactories, fragile porcelain ladles were not supplied, except as optional extras for porcelain dinner or dessert services, and these would normally then be otherwise made of silver, which would probably bear an engraved armorial device, so it would be natural to expect that similar armorial bearings on the porcelain dishes they accompanied would also be applied. It has also been suggested (Smith, The East India Company at Home, 1757–1857—A Case Study in Armorial Porcelain, 2014) that armorial porcelain dinner and dessert service ownership could

3.3 Armorial Artefacts at the Georgian Dinner Table

35

be viewed as a gender-specific masculine commodity at dinner tables in the eighteenth century and provided an opportunity to advertise one’s status in the community; the converse applied to armorial tea and coffee services, which were used at functions that were generally hosted by the ladies of the household. The earliest example of a surviving armorial porcelain dinner service for an English family for which examples of the artefacts are still extant is that of Thomas Pitt, Governor of the HEIC Fort St George, Madras (1653–1726), who went to serve in India with the HEIC in the late seventeenth century. This armorial service dates from 1705. It is of Kangxi, Qing Dynasty, Chinese porcelain decorated in the Imari style with predominantly red and blue pigments, in simulation of the imported Japanese Arita wares which were proving to be so popular in the late seventeenth century and bears the Pitt arms centrally in a rococo escutcheon. This escutcheon is rather unusually placed heraldically above the crest of a stork and its torse; an example of a plate from this Pitt service is shown in Fig. 3.3. Kangxi (Xuanye) was the second of the

Fig. 3.3 Kangxi porcelain, Qing Dynasty, ca. 1705, Chinese armorial porcelain plate from the Pitt service, made for Sir Thomas Pitt of Ewerne—Stapleton, Dorset, the earliest surviving example of a Chinese armorial service ordered for the British aristocracy. Note the curious placement of the over-large crest below the escutcheon and the upwards curvature to the torse matching the curve of the cavetto of the plate, which should properly fit over the helm and require a downwards curvature. The oval escutcheon displays three bezants—a Byzantine gold coin discovered by the Crusaders en route to Jerusalem and in Latin called “Bizantius aureus”, a gold bezant. Private Collection. Reproduced with the permission of Kingschina Ltd, Mayfair, London

36

3 The Development of Armorial Porcelains

Manchu Emperors and reigned from 1661 to 1722, who succeeded to the Imperial throne following the interregnal and rebellious period in China after the collapse of the Ming Dynasty in 1644. The heraldic supporters, helm, mantlings and family motto are also absent from the Pitt armorial service, so this then comes within our definition of being an armorial artefact that possesses only a partial coat-of-arms (see later); the arms are contained in the form of an unusually shaped circular rococo “escutcheon” surrounded by wreaths of blue foliage and comprise a chequy of azure and or with three gilt bezants. His motto, not given in the armorial bearings on the plate, is “Per ardua liberi”, which translates as “Freedom through adversity”.

3.4 Difficulties in Production of an Armorial Service One of the reasons that could explain the reluctance of English porcelain manufactory proprietors to undertake the production of armorial services could be paraphrased in the following statement of Josiah Wedgwood made on 25 September 1766: Crests are a very bad thing for us potters to meddle with and I never take any orders for services so enamelled.

Wedgwood argued that if items of crested armorial services were found to be faulty from the kiln after their second glost firing, subsequent to their enamelling and gilding having been undertaken, then they could not then be sold off as “seconds” elsewhere, thereby having to be written off as a total loss to the manufacturing business. However, he had to revise his strategy according to his client’s demand to match his competitor manufactories and he then started to accept commissions for armorial earthenwares and creamwares from the landed gentry and aristocracy. One of the most famous of these was the large dinner and dessert service in Wedgwood’s Queen’s creamware ordered by the Empress Ekaterina II (Catherine the Great) of Russia: called the Frog service, it was ordered in 1773 for the Empress’ new Chesma Palace at St Petersburg which was built to celebrate the Russian naval victory over the Ottoman Turks in July 1770 at Chesma Bay in the Mediterranean near the island of Chios. The site of the proposed Chesma Palace was to be on marshy ground at Kekerekeksinsky, which has been translated simply as “Frog Marsh” and known as La Grenouillere in the French language which was then officially used in the Russian Court. A very large service of 944 pieces in total, being some 50 place settings, and comprising 680 pieces in a dinner service and 264 pieces in a separate dessert service, each component was hand painted in monochrome sepia, depicting in all 1222 different views of English stately homes and landmarks that were much admired by the anglophilic Empress Catherine. Of especial interest here is that each piece bore a green enamelled motif of a frog in an engrailed “wave” escutcheon, in deference to the site chosen for the Empress Catherine’s new palace. Technically, this service is not an armorial as the frog was not a heraldic component of the Empress Catherine’s coat-of-arms and is more akin therefore to a rebus, a pictographic device which is suggestive of a person

3.4 Difficulties in Production of an Armorial Service

37

or a place where it was to be used. The Empress Catherine’s genuine heraldic coatof-arms, in contrast, comprises a Romanov double eagle bearing a central escutcheon of St George on horseback slaying a dragon, with no supporters, the eagle holding a sceptre and an orb in its talons and being surmounted by the Imperial Russian crown, as it appears on other armorial services in porcelain commissioned by the Empress Catherine in the mid-to-late 1700s. At first, so Llewellyn Jewitt reports (Jewitt, The Ceramic Art of Great Britain from the Prehistoric Times Down to the Present Day, 1878), it seems that Josiah Wedgwood was extremely reluctant to “deface” his esteemed Queen’s Ware ceramic artefacts with a frog motif but he was overruled by the Empress Catherine: Wedgwood was very unwilling to disfigure the service with this reptile but he was told that it was not to be dispensed with.

The landscape views were selected by Thomas Bentley, Josiah Wedgwood’s business partner, and featured Wedgwood’s own home, Etruria Hall, on a serving dish. This service was the most expensive ever made at Etruria, and the Empress Catherine was invoiced for £2700, equivalent to approximately £400,000 today, i.e. approximately $500,000 (Edwards, Porcelain Analysis and Its Role in the Forensic Attribution of Ceramic Specimens, 2021). The service was made in Etruria from an order placed by the Empress Catherine through her Russian Consul in London and then sent to London to Wedgwood’s decorating atelier in Little Cheyne Row, Chelsea, where his team of 30 painters decorated it with the requisite borders and scenes and then overglaze fired it. The detail of the green enamelled frog in its “escutcheon” is shown in Fig. 3.4, which could lead to its incorrect classification as an armorial ceramic. A rather different problem to that posed by Wedgwood emerges when it is realised that the armorial decoration has to be accomplished very precisely, as even small changes or errors can conspire to indicate a different armigerous source, to the consternation of clients. We have referred to the crest of Pitt of Ewerne Stapleton, Dorset, which appears in an incorrect position on the armorial plate in Chinese porcelain that dates from 1705. Not only is the position of the crest incorrect relative to the escutcheon but the torse curvature is also wrong as it matches the cavetto of the plate but not of any associated helm! Furthermore, the crest for Pitt of Ewerne Stapleton as shown in Fairbairn (Fairbairn, Crests of the Families of Great Britain and Ireland and Their Kindred in Other Lands, Volumes I and II, 1905) clearly gives a stork with its beak open and showing its tongue, whereas its analogue depicted on the armorial plate has a closed beak. The usual procedure that operated at this time for the decoration of a service in China was that the supercargo of the East Indiaman vessel concerned would present a sketch of the armorial decoration required to the agent in Canton who would then commission the decoration to be undertaken in Jingdezhen, some 1000 km distant over hazardous mountain passes and rivers (Edwards, Porcelain Analysis and Its Role in the Forensic Attribution of Ceramic Specimens, 2021). The decorated porcelain would be returned to Canton some months later and loaded in tea chests for protection into the East Indiaman which had to wait for the prevailing

38

3 The Development of Armorial Porcelains

Fig. 3.4 Josiah Wedgwood’s Queen’s Ware Frog service was made for Empress Catherine the Great of Russia (Ekaterina II) in 1773 for use in her Chesma Palace—a very large, combined dinner and dessert service originally comprising 944 pieces with hand painted illustrations in sepia monochrome of individual English houses and estates, each containing a green enamelled frog motif contained within an escutcheon. Here, the green enamelled frog motif in an escutcheon from the Frog service is shown demonstrating that one could easily be misled into believing that this was an armorial service! City of Birmingham Museum of Art. Public domain

favourable monsoon wind to return to England. Mistakes in execution of the decorated service in China were apparently quite common, and there would have been no time available for their correction even if noticed. Later in the eighteenth century, a decorating facility was opened by the Chinese agents (Hongs) on the wharves at Canton so that prepared porcelain in the white already stored there from the Jingdezhen kilns was decorated locally under the watchful gaze of the supercargoes who could then compare the sketch provided with the applied decoration—a much more satisfactory outcome! Foreign nationals were excluded from the city of Canton by Chinese law and were confined to the port area where these negotiations and the porcelain deals were made. In England, of course, a different procedure was adopted whereby the manufactory proprietor could enlist the services of the College of Arms in London for a suitable fee to provide a drawing of the precisely defined

3.5 Named Porcelain Services

39

coat-of-arms of their client which could then be copied exactly onto an armorial service in their enamelling workshops. The result of this procedure would be that a potentially dissatisfied client would never be able to claim that their coat-of-arms had been incorrectly executed, although there was an additional cost involved to the porcelain manufactory proprietor. Several invoices exist in the Josiah Wedgwood archive at Etruria for fees payable to the College of Arms in London for Wedgwood’s armigerous clients for the preparation of armorial services.

3.5 Named Porcelain Services Armorial services should not be confused with the special “named services” made for the aristocracy, gentry and royalty which are demonstratively some of the greatest accomplishments achieved in porcelain decoration, but which differ from true armorial services in that they do not bear any heraldic achievement, namely a coat-of-arms, escutcheon, motto, coronet or heraldic crest of the armigerous person who commissioned the service. Classic examples of named non-armorial services in English porcelain include the Lord Ongley, Prince of Wales and Earl Camden services in Derby porcelain the Lady Mary Wortley Montagu service in Worcester porcelain and the Earl of Coventry (Blind Earl) services in Chelsea and Worcester porcelain (Rissik Marshall, 1951). Other “named” service such as the Frog service mentioned above made for the Empress Ekaterina II of Russia, although in creamware and not porcelain, is not an armorial service but a pseudo-armorial service because it does not display a heraldic device that is part of the coat-of-arms of the person who commissioned it. Further examples in this category would be monogrammed or ciphered services which do not additionally display a heraldic device (Edwards, Welsh Armorial Porcelain: Nantgarw and Swansea Crested China, 2022). A special case seems to be the Carnatic service, which has been described in the ceramics literature as an “unusual English armorial service”. An order for an armorial porcelain service was placed by His Highness Willajah Nabob Azam Jah with Chamberlain’s Worcester manufactory through their agents in Madras, Griffiths, Cooke & Co., in 1820 for a large compound porcelain service comprising integral breakfast and dinner-dessert services of over 1000 individual pieces in total; these services are unusual in that the “coat-of-arms” or heraldic device depicted thereon is not immediately recognisable as such but has nevertheless been considered by many writers to be armorial. The dinner-dessert service comprised a cobalt blue ground border and central illustrations from Curtis’ Botanical Magazine with the Arabic inscription in the form of an armorial “escutcheon” included in a vignette in the reserve. An example of this particularly fine botanical service is shown in Fig. 3.5, where the “escutcheon” containing the Arabic script is seen. The breakfast service in contrast has a deep pink border and the same inscription is contained in a cartouche that is now located centrally and which is surrounded by a wreath of garden flowers. The “escutcheon” does not in fact contain any heraldic device but actually depicts the name and title of Azam Jah, Nawab of the Carnatic (reigned 1819–1825) in Arabic script and reads

40

3 The Development of Armorial Porcelains

Fig. 3.5 Large oval dish from the Carnatic dinner-dessert service ordered from Chamberlain’s Worcester manufactory in 1820, for Azam Jah, Nawab of the Carnatic (reigned 1819–1825). This service has a dark cobalt blue ground border and this particular dish displays a central botanical plant taken from Curtis’ Botanical Magazine of 1819/1820 (Volume XLVII, Plate 282), inscribed on the reverse “Shewy Arctotes”. The “armorial” feature resembling an escutcheon bears the Arabic script, “Amir al-hind nawab Azam Jah bahadur above a date of 1236 Hijri (Hegira). Reproduced with permission from the Collection of Indar and Aruna Pasricha, Kensington, London

“Amir al-hind nawab azam jah bahadur” above a date of 1236 Hijri, which equates to 1820 in the Western calendar. The service took three years to complete at the Chamberlain’s Worcester manufactory and was eventually shipped out to India in 1823 for the Nawab Azam Jah on the HEIC East Indiaman, Windsor Castle. Porcelain dealers, museum curators and collectors refer to this Chamberlain’s Worcester Carnatic service as “armorial” porcelain even though it is devoid of any true heraldic devices or a coat-of-arms because the inscription sits in a cartouche, which could be loosely regarded as an escutcheon but is strictly not so heraldically as it does not contain any symbols relating to a familial descendancy. Finally, it must be said that in contrast to the number of armorial services supplied by China in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, their English and Welsh porcelain analogues are relatively few in number: in a recent investigation into the shortlived Welsh porcelain manufactories of Nantgarw and Swansea, which operated production of very high quality porcelains between 1817 and 1820, out of 83 named services that have been identified only 18 were armorial (22%), being only 7/52 for Nantgarw and 11/31 for Swansea (Edwards Welsh Armorial Porcelain: Nantgarw and Swansea Crested China, 2022). Of these armorial services, only one service bore a full armorial coat-of-arms (Nantgarw, Viscount Weymouth service), four more

References

41

bore escutcheons (two including mottoes) and thirteen were crested armorials only. Statistically, therefore, partial coats-of-arms on porcelain are much more commonly observed than the full heraldic achievements and only 27% of the armorials surveyed displayed the escutcheon and 88% were crested, with or without the escutcheon. In this current text, the Pendock Barry armorial service in Derby porcelain displays an escutcheon only, minus the crest, lambrequins, supporters and motto, and a major task will be to correlate the information that can be deciphered from the heraldic escutcheon alone (what is present and what is absent) to chronologically place its decoration in a narrow time frame for input along with the historical documentation and analysis that will facilitate the identification of the artist involved.

References Beurdeley, M. (1962). Porcelain of the East India Company. Barrie and Ratcliffe. Bowen Backus, I. (2014). Asia materialized: Perceptions of China in Renaissance Florence, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Chicago. Cassidy-Geiger, M. (2007). Porcelain and Prestige: Princely Gifts and White Gold from Meissen, Chapter 1. In M. Cassidy-Geiger (Eds.) Fragile diplomacy: Meissen production for foreign courts, ca. 1710–1763 (pp. 2–23). Yale University Press. Davy, I. (Ed.). (2000). Eat, drink and be merry: The British at table, 1600–2000. Philip Wilson. Edwards, H. G. M. (2021). Porcelain analysis and its role in the forensic attribution of ceramic specimens. Springer-Nature. Edwards, H. G. M. (2022). Welsh armorial porcelain: Nantgarw and Swansea crested China. Springer-Nature. Fairbairn, J. (1905). Crests of the families of Great Britain and Ireland and their kindred in other Lands (Vol. I and II). T.C. and E.C. Jack. Finlay, R. (1998). The pilgrim art: The culture of porcelain in world history. Journal of World History, 9, 141–187. Froissart, C. (2008). Collection d’un Amateur, Rouen 1680–1740: De la premier porcelaine de l’Age d’Or de la Faience. Sotheby’s. Glanville, P., & Young, H. (Eds.). (2002). Elegant eating: Four hundred years of dining in style. V&A Museum Publications. Graca, J. (1977). The Portuguese porcelain trade with China. Arts in Asia, 7, 45–47. Grandjean, G. (1999). The Porcelain of Rouen. In B. Rondot (Ed.), Discovering the secrets of soft paste porcelain at the St Cloud manufactory, ca (pp. 1690–1696). The Bard Graduate Center for the Studies in the Decorative Arts. Howard, D. S. (1974). Chinese armorial porcelain (Vol. 1). Faber & Faber. Howard, D. S. (2003). Chinese armorial porcelain (Vol. II). Heirloom & Howard. Jewitt, L. (1878). The ceramic art of Great Britain from the prehistoric times down to the present day, Vols. Virtue & Co., Ltd., Paternoster Row, London. Kerr, R., & Wood, N. (2004). In J. Needham (Series Ed.) Science and civilisation in China, Part 12: Ceramic technology (Vol. 5, 364–368). Cambridge University Press. Lane, A. (1954). Italian porcelain. Faber & Faber. Lane, A. (1961). The Gaignieres-Fonthill Vase—A Chinese Porcelain of About 1300. The Burlington Magazine, 103, 124–132, 1961. Booksurge Publications. Pancirolli, G. (1599), Rerum Memorabilium, Iam Olim Deperditarium, Libro Duo (Vol. 2). Machaelis Forster, 1599 and 1602.

42

3 The Development of Armorial Porcelains

Ramsay, W. R. H. & Ramsay, E. G. (2017). The evolution and compositional development of English porcelains from the 16th century to Lund’s Bristol c.1750 and Worcester c/1752—The golden chain. Invercargill Press. Redford, B. (1992). In B. Redford (Ed.) The letters of Samuel Johnson (Vol. 3, 5, pp. 70–71). Princeton University Press. Rissik Marshall, H. (1951). Coloured Worcester porcelain of the First Period, 1751–1783. Ceramic Book Co., Newport. Rui, L. (1990). Portugal embusca de China: Imagens e miragens (1498–1514). Ler Historia, 9, 33. Smith, K. (2014). The East India Company at home, 1757–1857—A case study in armorial porcelain, case study: The British country house in an imperial and global setting. University of Warwick and University College. Solon, M. L. (1905). The Rouen porcelain. The Burlington Magazine for Connoisseurs, 7, (26), 116–124. Walton, G. (1992). The era of Louis XIV: A turning-point in the history of diplomatic gifts. In: H. C. Collison (Eds.) Versailles: French court style and its influence. University of Toronto Press.

Chapter 4

Case History: The Commissioning of the Pendock Barry Service

Abstract Pendock Neale Barry (1757–1833) commissioned the Pendock Barry service from the Derby works. Examination of his background. The commissioning of the dessert service, and the reasons for doing so. Evaluation of the most likely date he placed the commission for the service. The court case of 1809 and the granting of the Barry arms and armorials in 1811. Keywords Pendock Neale Barry · Barry armorials · Pendock family · Neale family · Barry armorials · Pendock Barry service

4.1 Biography: Pendock Neale Barry (1757–1833) Pendock Neale Barry was born 27 August 1757 and baptised the following day at Tollerton in Nottinghamshire as Pendock Neale (“Pendock Neale” (1757) St. Peters Church, Tollerton). He was the son of Rev John Neale (1729–1781) and Elizabeth Lowe (1713–1795). Rev John Neale was the second son of John Neale (1686–1749) and Elizabeth Major (1692–1741) (Oxford University Alumni 1500–1886, 1888). His elder brother, Pendock Neale (1728–1772), had inherited the family’s sizeable estates in Nottinghamshire on the death of their father in 1749 (Records of the Prerogative Court of Canterbury, 2013). In 1753, Pendock Neale married Harriet Eliot (England, Select Marriages, 1538–1973, 2014) and moved to Saltash, Cornwall, where he purchased Ince Castle, close to Harriet’s family home (Polsue, A Complete Parochial History of the county of Cornwall, p. 178, 1872). Pendock and Harriet had no children, so he named his nephew Pendock Neale as his heir in his will of 1769. (Records of the Prerogative Court of Canterbury, 2013). He died late 1772 (“Deaths” Hampshire Chronicle—11 January 1773, p. 3), and Pendock Neale duly came into his inheritance aged 15. His uncle’s estate was complex, and it was not settled until 1775. By that time, Pendock Neale was 18 years. He went to Oxford University, where he matriculated at Magdalen College to study law (Foster, Alumni Oxonienses: The Members of the University of Oxford, 1715–1886 vol III, N p. 1009, 1888).

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 R. L. Denyer et al., The Pendock Barry Porcelain Service, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-25813-8_4

43

44

4 Case History: The Commissioning of the Pendock Barry Service

Pendock Neale married his first cousin Susannah Neale (1758–1811) on 7 September 1780 at Tollerton (Nottinghamshire, England, Church of England Marriages, and Banns, 1754–1937, 2022). She was the daughter of John Neale’s third son, Rev Thomas Neale (1733–1782) and Susanna Faulkner (1735–1834). Her armorials were the Neale arms in principal to the Pendock and Barry arms. (Day, History of the Hatchments, St. Peters Church Tollerton, Nottinghamshire, p. 10, 2012). Pendock and Susannah Neale had 2 children. Their daughter Susannah Faulkner Neale was born on 16 April 1782 at Ince Castle, Saltash, Cornwall and baptised at St. Peter’s Church Tollerton by her uncle, the Rev Pendock Neale (1770–1816) who was Rector of Tollerton (Nottinghamshire, England, Church of England Baptisms, Marriages and Burials 1838–1812, 2022). Their son Pendock Neale was born 6 May 1783 and baptised the following day at St. Peter’s Church Tollerton (Nottinghamshire, England, Church of England Baptisms, Marriages and Burials 1838–1812, 2022). Pendock Neale continued to live at Tollerton Hall with his family. He was a Justice of the Peace in Nottingham, and he also served as High Sheriff in the period 1782–1784 (Throsby, Thoroton’s History of Nottinghamshire, p. 174, 1797). 1804–1806 marks a point in his life where he was planning for the future. His son and daughter were both of age by this time, which may well have prompted him to think about the future. The sale of Ince Castle appears to mark a break of any remaining connection with the Elliot family and would have provided Pendock Neale with funds. He made a settlement on his daughter Elizabeth and drew up plans to carry out extensive, expensive renovations at Tollerton Hall. As part of this renovation work, he wanted to add armorials into the windows of Tollerton Hall, and in September 1804, he engaged the College Heralds to draw up his pedigree tree. It is highly likely that he commissioned the dessert service around this time: given the length of time it would take to make and decorate a double dessert service with an intricate, flamboyant pattern with as the detailed armorial decoration on every piece, he is likely to have placed the order sooner rather than later, once he had his pedigree confirmed. Pendock Neale obtained a copy of the Herald’s pedigree charts from his solicitor, and once he had them, he then declined to pay the College of Heralds for the work they had undertaken for him. It is unclear why he omitted to pay, but eventually he was taken to court by the Attorney General for non-payment. The court found against him, and he was ordered to make the payment, which he did around 1809. He then went on to formally apply for a royal licence to assume the surname and armorials of Barry. This was granted by the Prince Regent on 20 November 1811, and it allowed for Pendock Neale and his male issue to take and use the surname of Barry and to bear the armorial ensigns of Barry of Tollerton (“Whitehall, Nov 20” London Courier and Evening Gazette 23 Jan 1812, p. 4.). From this date, he was known as Pendock Barry, and his son Pendock Barry Neale became Pendock Barry Barry.

4.3 The Pendock Family

45

In 1813, Pendock Barry became a Doctor of Civil Law (Oxford University Alumni 1500–1886, Vol 3, N, 1888). Electoral registers and directories show that Pendock Barry lived at Tollerton until his death in 1833. He was survived by son, his daughter Elizabeth having died in 1821 (“Susannah Falkner Neale” Somerset Parish Records, 1538–1914, 2016).

4.2 Family Connection to the Barry Surname and Armorials The decision to seek a royal licence to resurrect the Barry surname and armorials stands out from all the other applications made around the same time, as Pendock Neale was a very distant descendant of the Barry family. This was alluded to in the announcement of the royal licence. He was described as the great-grandson of John Neale of Mansfield Woodhouse, Nottingham, and Anne his wife, daughter of Phillip Pendock of Tollerton, Esq descended from Richard Pendock of Gutherington in the Gloucester, Esq, and his wife Maude the heir of Thomas Barry of Tollerton (London Courier and Evening Gazette, 23 Jan 1812). The Barrys of Tollerton are thought to be descended from the French de Barrie family and to be a branch of the Barry family that settled in Ireland. The armorials of the Barrys in Leamlara, Cork, are argent, 3 bars gemels, gules whereas the Tollerton Barry arms are gules, 3 bars embattled argent (Burke, Burke’s Genealogical and Heraldic History of the Landed Gentry, p. 58, 1965). Certainly, the family was established at Tollerton in the 1100s when land grants record their holdings (Beckwith, The Beckwiths 1891 p. 20). A partial tree has been created for the Barry family through land records from 1100 until the male line ended with Thomas Barry (Burke, Burke’s Genealogical and Heraldic History of the Landed Gentry, 1965). His heir was his daughter Maud, who conveyed the Barry estates to the Pendock family when she married Richard Pendock around 1548 (Visitations of the County of Nottingham in the years 1569 and 1614 p. 107, 1871) (note that Burke references the heiress as Matilda in A Genealogical and Heraldic Dictionary, vol 1 p. 59, 1850).

4.3 The Pendock Family The Pendock family took its name from Pendock in Gloucestershire. Robert and Walter de Pendock were holding the manor around 1175 from the earls of Warwick, and Pendocks continue to hold the manor until 1357. The earliest Pendocks in Anne’s line lived in Gotherton, 15 miles from Pendock manor. Gotherton was an old settlement, being listed in the Domesday Book as Godrington. The village was 6 miles from Sudeley Castle, where William Pendock was born around 1506, when Sudeley Castle was held directly by the Crown. William married Margaret Heyton, daughter

46

4 Case History: The Commissioning of the Pendock Barry Service

of Richard Heyton of Heyton (Visitations of the County of Nottingham, p. 107, 1871), and their son Richard was born in 1528. It was Richard who would marry the heiress to the Barry family. As an armorial family, the Pendocks incorporated the Barry arms into their own coat-of-arms which was gules two gemelles argent on a chief argent five trefoils azure, displaying the Pendock arms in the first and third quarter and the Barry arms in the second and fourth quarter. Following the line of Pendock Barry’s descent, Richard and Maud had a son William Pendock, who born at Tollerton around 1550 (Visitations of the County of Nottingham, p. 107, 1871). William married Eleanor Lovett, who is thought to be the daughter of Richard Lovett of Lipscombe Park, although she does not appear in Burke’s history of the Lovett family (Burke, A Genealogical and Heraldic history of the Extinct and Dormant Baronetcies, p. 324, 1844) nor in the Visitations of Buckinghamshire (Harvey, Visitation of Buckinghamshire in 1566, 1883). Their son John Pendock was born around 1572 at Tollerton, Nottinghamshire (Visitations of the County of Nottingham, p. 107, 1871). On 29 September 1594, John married Frances Parkyns (born c1572) in Nottinghamshire. Frances was from another armorial family, being the daughter of Richard Parkyns of Bunney (1541– 1603) and his wife Elizabeth Beresford (1550–1608) daughter of Aden Beresford of Fenny Bentley in Derbyshire. John Pendock and Frances Parkyns had at least 5 children who survived to adulthood. Their eldest son and heir Richard Pendock was born in Tollerton in 1595 (Visitations of the County of Nottingham, p. 107, 1871). Another son John was born in 1603, who lived at Bradmore some 11 miles from Bunny Park, which indicates that some of the lands brought to the marriage by Frances had been settled on him. John married Jane Spencer in 1631 (England, Select Marriages, 1538–1973, 2014), and they had at least 3 children who were all baptised at Bunny Park. John and Frances named a son born in 1598 as Barrie Pendock in acknowledgement of the Barry hegemony. Their youngest surviving son, Gervase Pendock, was born in 1602 and baptised on 9 May 1602 at Tollerton. Gervase Pendock went to Cambridge, the first of the Pendocks to do so. Having matriculated from St Johns College in 1621, he took orders in 1636 and became the Rector of Tollerton, which was in his father’s gift (Cambridge University Alumni, 1261–1900, 1999). Richard Pendock, heir to John, married Elizabeth Gelsthrop of Whatton on 21 September 1618. Elizabeth was daughter of William Gelsthrop of Whatton and Mary. In 1645, Richard Pendock was named a member of the parliamentarian Civil War committee in Nottingham; however, he died in November that year (Cecil, Nottinghamshire in the Civil War, 1937). Clearly by this time, the Pendocks were a very well-established country family, with sufficient wealth to support younger family members from the family’s estate and patronage. Richard’s heir was his eldest son Philip Pendock, who had been born in 1621 in Tollerton. Philip is credited by Thoroton with having carried out partial enclosure of the Tollerton estate around 1645 (Throsby, Thoroton’s History of Nottinghamshire, 1797). Following his father’s death, Philip married Jane Charlton, daughter of Nicholas Charlton Esq from Chilwell, Nottinghamshire. The Charlton family were also an armorial family: their arms being azure on a chevron or, between three swans,

4.4 The Neale Family

47

argent, as many cinquefoils, gules. (Burke’s Genealogical and Heraldic History of the Landed Gentry, p. 209, 1965). This was a marriage with a local gentry family as Chilwell is 9 miles from Tollerton. Philip and Jane lived at Tollerton, where they had at least 3 surviving children: Ann born c1658, Thomas born c1662, and Mary born c1665. Philip died in 1669 when his family were still young, leaving Thomas as his heir. Thomas went to Cambridge and matriculated from Christ Church in 1679, but he died unmarried in 1782. The estates passed to his sister Ann, who married John Neale (1657–1725) in 1683.

4.4 The Neale Family In most accounts of the Neale family, Richard Neale is the earliest direct ancestor of Pendock Neale Barry. Burke states had come from Ireland in the retinue of the Duke of Newcastle and settled in Nottinghamshire (Burke, A Genealogical and Heraldic Dictionary of the Landed Gentry of Great Britain and Ireland, vol 1, p. 59, 1850). The hatchments at Tollerton church, however, indicate that the Neales in fact were a branch of an armorial family. The memorial for Pendock Neale (1728–1772) is adorned with an armorial argent a fess gules, in chief 2 crescents of the second, in base a bugle horn of the last, stringed with vert. This is the coat-of-arms for the Neales of Warnford, Hampshire, which had been granted to William Neale (1521– 1601) in 1577 (Robson, The British herald, or Cabinet of armorial bearings of the nobility and gentry of Great Britain and Ireland, vol 2, 1830). William and his son Sir Thomas Neale (1565–1621) served the Crown. William was an Auditor of the Exchequer to Queen Elizabeth, and Thomas was an Auditor to King James 1. (“Parishes: Warnford”, in A History of the County of Hampshire: Volume 3, ed. Page 1908), pp. 268–273). Another son, Francis Neale (1563–1631) served as MP for Grantham in 1593 and 1597. (“Francis Neale of St Dunstan In the West, London, and East Meon, Hants”, The History of Parliament: the House of Commons 1558– 1603 ed. Hasler, 1981). William had at least two more sons, John Neale (1550–1610) and Walter Neale (1561–1612) and 2 daughters, Agnes Neale (1567–1621 and Mary Neale (b.1570). It is highly likely that Richard Neale (b.1625) who served the Duke of Newcastle was a grandson or great-grandson of William Neale. Other descendants of this Neale family include Denise Neale, daughter of John Neale of London, who married William Dix in 1596 and is buried at Wickmere, Norfolk (Harvey, The Visitation of Norfolk in the Year 1563, vol 2 p. 256, 1895) and Henrietta Maria Neale, daughter of James Neale born in April 1647 in Maryland. (Kerr, Genealogical Notes of the Chamberlaine Family of Maryland, p. 25, 1880). Richard Neale was a senior aide to the Duke of Newcastle (1617–1684) who was an influential seventeenth century figure. The eldest son of the earl of Devonshire, he had become Viscount Mansfield in 1620 and Earl of Newcastle in 1628 and served as Lord Lieutenant of Derbyshire 1628–1638. He was attainted and sequestrated in 1642 for his support of the Royalist cause in the Civil War. He was later restored to his estates, becoming Duke of Newcastle in 1665 (Stephen, Dictionary of National

48

4 Case History: The Commissioning of the Pendock Barry Service

Biography, Vol 3 p. 1277, 1885). In 1674, the Duke began rebuilding Nottingham Castle, and Richard Neale of Mansfield Woodhouse, one of his stewards, was a joint trustee of the project. (“Description of Nottingham Castle”, The Gentleman’s Magazine and Historical Chronicle, Volume 101, Part 2, p. 394, 1831). Richard Neale had acquired Mansfield Woodhouse, Nottinghamshire, some 23 miles from Tollerton, by 1657 when his son John Neale was born, and on 10 December 1683, John Neale married Ann Pendock (Nottinghamshire, England, Extracted Church of England Parish Records, 2001). Following their marriage, the couple lived at the Neale family home in Mansfield Woodhouse rather than at Tollerton Hall. Their eldest son John was baptised at Mansfield Woodhouse on 15 December 1686, and another son Richard was baptised there on 18 April 1689 (England, Select Births and Christenings, 1538–1975, 2014). John Neale served as High Sherriff of Nottingham (Burke, Burke’s Genealogical and Heraldic History of the Landed Gentry, p. 34, 1965). His two sons, John and Richard, both moved to Tollerton, and they married two sisters: Richard married Alice Major, and John married Elizabeth Major (Burke, Burke’s Genealogical and Heraldic History of the Landed Gentry, 1965). Richard and John both named one of their sons Pendock Neale, an acknowledgement of their mother’s family. The Neale family were clearly well integrated into Nottinghamshire gentry society, and the closeness of the brothers, John and Richard, is clear. John Neale duly inherited the family estates from his father, and he remained at Tollerton until his own death in 1749 (England & Wales, Prerogative Court of Canterbury Wills, 1384–1858, 2013). Under the terms of his will, he made provision for both his younger sons, Rev John Neale (1729–1781) and Rev Thomas Neale (1733–1782), and he was succeeded in his estates by his eldest son Pendock Neale (1728–1772). Pendock Neale went to Oxford University and matriculated in 1753 aged 15 (Oxford University Alumni 1500–1886, 1888). On 3 April 1753, he married Harriet Eliot (1731–1776) at St. Georges Chapel, Windsor (England, Select Marriages, 1538–1973, 2014). Harriet was the daughter of Richard Eliot (1694–1748) and Harriet Craggs (1713–1769). The Eliot family had long associations with Port Eliot in Cornwall. Harriet, born 15 December 1731 at St Germans, Cornwall, was the fifth child of Richard and Harriet. Following the marriage, Pendock Neale purchased Ince Castle, near Harriet’s ancestral home, rather than live on his own estates in Northampton. Indeed, there is no evidence that he spent time at Tollerton Hall after his marriage, or that his wife ever visited his family estates. Pendock Neale did remain close to his Neale relatives. He had been joined in Cornwall by his youngest brother, Rev Thomas Neale by 1765. He granted his brother the chaplaincy of St Nicolas Church, Saltash, a chapel of ease for St Stephen’s parish church. Thomas Neale’s procurement ended in 1770, when he moved to Tollerton, becoming Rector of Tollerton until his death in 1782. (Cambridge University Alumni, 1261–1900, 1999). He took over the rectorship from their middle brother, Rev John Neale, who had been Rector of Tollerton from 1755 to 1770. These valuable clerical appointments demonstrate how close Pendock Neale was to his brothers and how he made provision for them from the family estates and patrimony.

4.5 Dynastic Ambition

49

Pendock Neale made his will in 1768, and he named his nephew Pendock Neale (1757–1833) as his heir. He also made provision for his brother Rev Thomas Neale and his niece Susannah. Monies were also left to the 2 sons of his uncle Richard George Neale a surgeon and his brother, another Pendock Neale. The will also stipulated that if his nephew did not have heirs, the estates would pass to the Bruere descendants of Richard Neale’s daughter Elizabeth (1722–1789) with the stipulation that they take the Neale surname. This clause demonstrates that Pendock Neale saw his land and estates as belonging to the Neale family and underlines his desire to ensure the continuation of the Neale surname. Pendock Neale died at Ince Castle in 1772. His body was brought back to Tollerton and buried in the local church. A hatchment in St. Peter’s Church shows his armorials as Pendock and Barry impaling Eliot (Day, History of the Hatchments, St. Peters Church Tollerton, Nottinghamshire. p. 8, 2012). This is unusual, as the Neale arms are not included in his armorials as would be expected.

4.5 Dynastic Ambition Given the terms of his uncle’s will, which linked the family estates to the Neale surname, it is clear that Pendock Neale was acting of his own accord when he sought to resurrect the Barry surname and armorials. There was of course precedence for families resurrecting previous family names, and there were examples from within Pendock Neale’s extended family. He would have been well-aware, for example that his uncle’s brother-in-law, Edward Eliot, had been created Baron Eliot in 1784 then taken on the additional name of Craggs by royal licence in 1789. It certainly seems to be the case that Pendock Barry and his son Pendock Barry Barry intended to use Barry surname and armorials to propel themselves into London society. Pendock Barry Barry was at the first Royal Levee of the 1812 season, where he was presented to the Prince Regent as reported in the Globe (“The Prince Regent’s Levee” Globe, 13 March 1812, p. 3). Pendock Barry Barry was also presented to the Queen when she held a Drawing Room on 31 April 1812 (“The Queen’s Drawing Room”, Sun (London) 1 May 1812). By this time, the son Pendock Barry Barry had already moved to London, taking a house in Portland Street for the London season that year. A ball and supper were held at his house on 23 April (“Mr Barry Barry” Sun (London) 4 April 1812, p. 2), and in May 1812, he hired the Argylle Rooms for a masked ball, which was reported as because his friends were too numerous to be accommodated at his own house in Portland Place. All guests were invited to come in masks and costumes, and at the party’s peak at 2am, the party resembled an Italian carnival. 47 guests are listed in attendance at the party, with the principal guest being the Marchioness of Lansdowne. Supper consisted of green peas, ices, fruits, burgundy and champagne. Tea and coffee were provided at 6am (Morning Post, 13 June 1812). The timing of the glittering London season in the year the royal licence was granted is a clear signal of social ambition. With Pendock Barry being widowed by this time,

50

4 Case History: The Commissioning of the Pendock Barry Service

and his son Pendock Barry Barry being unmarried, it is possible that one or both hoped to make an advantageous marriage. Georgian society at this time operated an informal “marriage mart” through social events such as balls, masquerades and assemblies (Corfield, The Georgians: The deeds and misdeeds of 18th Century Britain, p. 98, 2022) The Argylle Rooms were at the very centre of the London season at the start of the 1800s. Hiring such a location was a clear signal to high society that the Barrys intended to be part of the London social scene, which is supported by the guest list. The Marchioness of Landsdowne was Louisa Fox-Strangways, wife of Henry Petty FitzMaurice, 3rd Marquess of Landsdowne (1780–1863) who had been Chancellor of the Exchequer until 1807 and a leading light in the Whig party (Stephen, Dictionary of National Biography vol 15, p. 1013, 1885). Other prominent attendees included Lady Montolieu, who was Maria Henrietta Heywood (b. 1760) who had married Lewis Montolieu, Baron de St. Hypolite (1760–1817). By 1810, dessert was the final course of a meal and the most expensive. Pineapples, peaches, nectarines, grapes would be served. Dried fruits would be piled up in porcelain fruit baskets and dishes, creating extravagant displays. Glass or silver epergnes would hold fruit flowers or sweetmeats. There would be compotes for stewed fruits, ice-pails, ice cups for ice-creams. Crystal decanters with fine wines, claret, sherry or madeira would be provided (Christie, The British Country House in the Eighteenth Century, 2000, p. 296). As an example of this style of entertaining, Viscountess Dungannon had held a grand ball and supper at her home in Grafton Street in July 1811. With 3 spacious drawing rooms brilliantly lit up, her ball began at midnight. Guests were served supper at 3am in a room laid out for 250 guests, decorated with rich chased plate. The ball continued until 7am (Globe, 4 July 1811, p. 3). Pendock Barry had commissioned a double dessert service, with the additional extra items of two double ice-pails. The service decoration ensured that this was a highly visual display service, with its striking and stunning design of rich roses, gilt stars and circles on a navy background with the armorials taking central place on the plates and prominently displayed on the dishes. The visual impact of a supper table laid out with a white cloth and the service upon it would have been impressive. Even in 1894, the auction house tasked with the dispersal of the service displayed it on a white cloth and the Derby Daily Telegraph commented that “presented a sight in ceramics seldom seen (“Great sale of Derby China”, Derby Daily Telegraph 26 May p. 2, 1894). Back in 1812, laid out at the Argylle Rooms for the guests, the “wow” factor of the service would have been considerable and deliberate. The armorials had been prominently decorated on every piece of the dessert service. Even the tureen and sucrier lids carried the armorials, as well as the armorial being placed on the sides of the dishes. It is significant that Pendock Barry chose to quarter the Barry armorials with the Pendocks but did not include the Neale arms as well. The contents of Tollerton Hall have long since been dispersed, but a carved giltwood mirror came up for auction at Bonhams in 2004 which carried an intriguing armorial. The mirror was dated 1800– 1815, and it displays the Neale arms quartering Barry and Pendock with a crescent for difference. This demonstrates that some members of the family were using the

4.5 Dynastic Ambition

51

Neale arms at this time. It is a matter of conjecture as to why Pendock Barry did not retain the Neale crest within his armorial. Convention would suggest the armorial would have had Neale in the first quarter, Pendock in the second, Barry in the third and Neale again in the fourth. Despite the glittering London season in 1812, neither Pendock Barry nor Pendock Barry Barry married, and as events turned out, it was their sole London season. In 1813, accusations of assault were made against the son, Pendock Barry Barry. He denied the accusations, and his father Pendock Barry supported him. The accuser was supported by Pendock Barry’s brother, the Rev Thomas Neale, which caused a rift between the two brothers which was unresolved at the time of Rev Neale’s death in 1816. Charges were formally made against Pendock Barry Barry at Nottingham Assizes in 1814, but he did not face the charges as he went abroad for the next 4 years. His relationship with his father broke down irrevocably. Father and son are known to have met again in 1819, when Pendock Barry Barry went to Tollerton Hall. The result of that meeting was that Pendock Barry took out an injunction preventing his son coming near him again. By this time, Pendock Barry Barry had already taken out an injunction against his father in Chancery to prevent wasteful spending on the estate. The breach with his son and wider family led to Pendock Barry becoming a recluse. The rectorship of Tollerton, which had supported members of the Neale family for generations, was presented to the Rev Edward Smith in 1817, an appointment which was reported as being “to the exclusion of his family” in the Stamford Mercury (“The following strange paragraph” Stamford Mercury 7 March 1817, p. 3). The family falling out had also extended to his daughter Elizabeth. She had left Tollerton Hall around 1813, moving to Bath where she remained until her death in 1821. The chief mourner at her funeral was her brother, Pendock Barry Barry. Pendock Barry remained alienated from his son, his family and society until his death in 1833. He never remarried and crucially—given that the Barry surname and armorials had been granted to Pendock Barry and his male heirs—neither did his son Pendock Barry Barry. Instead, Pendock Barry Barry formed a life-long partnership with Mrs Susannah Davies (1786–1872), and it is possible that this relationship or Pendock Barry Barry’s failure to marry and have an heir was a significant factor in the continued estrangement between father and son. Pendock Barry took steps to disinherit his son. The bulk of the family estates would pass to Pendock Barry Barry under the 1769 will of Pendock Neale, but Pendock Barry had a significant personal income which was not entailed. He made a will which left this money away from his estranged son. On his father’s death, Pendock Barry Barry returned to Tollerton Hall and took up residence. He oversaw the funeral arrangements, and he had a memorial to his father erected in the local church. He also wasted no time in challenging his father’s will. The court case and subsequent appeal took until 1837 to be resolved, and the judgement went against him. As a result, Pendock Barry Barry had large estates but very little income. Several wood sales were advertised from the estate as he tried to raise funds. He even sold the right to appoint the next rector of Tollerton to the highest bidder, stating somewhat waspishly in the advert in the Nottingham Journal on 24

52

4 Case History: The Commissioning of the Pendock Barry Service

Jan 1840 that this would take place on the demise of the present incumbent, then aged 74! (“To be sold by private contract” Nottingham Journal 24 Jan 1840, p. 2). This was the Rev Edward Smith, who had appeared as a witness against Pendock Barry Barry in his court case challenging the will. With Pendock Barry Barry’s death in 1847, the dynastic ambition of his father Pendock Barry was over. Pendock Barry Barry named Susannah Davies as his heir. She continued to live at Tollerton. She exercised the prerogative of the manor to appoint the rector of Tollerton in 1867, choosing the Rev. Abraham Adlard Welby as the successor Rev R. C. Ward (“Clerical Appointments & Vacancies” Western Daily Press 5 Sept 1867. p. 3). Susannah Davies was close to Pendock Barry Barry’s Neale relatives. The 1871 census records show that her household at Tollerton Hall included two sisters, Susannah Brigetta Neale (1814–1872) and Elizabeth Butler Neale (1818–1900) who were first cousins of Barry Barry, being the daughters of the Rev Thomas Neale (1767–1859) and Bridget Glenn (1785–1851). Also, in her household was Elizabeth Jones (1812–1894) described as her companion (1871 Census Return for Tollerton Hall, Tollerton, Nottinghamshire). Susannah Davies remained at Tollerton until her own death in 1872, when the estate passed to William Melville Barry Otter (1845–1917), a distant cousin of Pendock Barry Barry who was descended from George Bruere (1720–1780) and Elizabeth Neale (1722–1789). The new owner immediately put the estate up for auction. It was described as having been in the owner’s family since the time of the Norman Conquest and much was made of the fact that the estate came with the village, no part of which had been sold off. The Pendock Barry service was not taken by William Otter Barry. Elizabeth Jones, the companion of Susannah Davies, acquired the service along with several other dinner services from Tollerton Hall. She continued to live with Elizabeth Butler Neale until her death in 1894, when the service was put up for auction. It was dispersed in multiple lots after failing to sell in its entirety. She had kept the service carefully packed away since leaving Tollerton Hall. The sale achieved extensive coverage in both local and national press. It was lauded for its condition, its completeness and its stunning decoration yet only a handful of reports referred to the armorials it bore.

4.6 Conclusion Pendock Neale Barry (1757–1833) is a complex figure. He had a well-established gentry background and had a traditional education at Oxford where he read law before embarking on a successful career in a series of local government posts. He appears to have made a happy marriage with his cousin, Susannah Neale, and with the birth of his son and daughter, his future family line must have seemed assured. 1804–1806 marks a period in his life when he was settling his affairs. His son and daughter were both of age by this time, which may well have prompted him to think about the future. He had acquired funds via the sale of Ince Castle, which

References

53

would have provided Pendock Neale Barry with the funds to make a settlement on his daughter Elizabeth as well as to carry out extensive renovations at Tollerton Hall. He had grand plans for the Hall, including the addition of armorials into the windows, and it is likely that he commissioned the armorial dessert service around this time. His reluctance to pay for the Heralds work on his family pedigree let to a court case in 1809 and would account for the gap between him commissioning the heraldic pedigree in September 1804 and being formally granted a royal licence to take on the Barry surname and armorials in November 1811. As events turned out, the London season of 1812 is thought to have been the first, and last time, the exquisite dessert service was seen. Pendock Barry and his son became estranged, and their rift became permanent. In addition, there were no further heirs born to carry the Barry surname. The 1847 funeral hatchment of Pendock Barry Barry featured the Barry armorials, with a skull to represent that he was the last of his line. The dessert service itself was removed from Tollerton Hall in 1872. It remained packed away until it appeared at auction in 1894, when its general condition plus the completeness of the service added to its rarity.

References Beckwith, P. (1891). The beckwiths. Joel Munsell’s Sons. Burke, J. (1844). A genealogical and heraldic history of the extinct and dormant baronetcies. John Russell Smith. Burke, J. (1850). A genealogical and heraldic dictionary of the landed gentry of Great Britain and Ireland (Vol. 1). Henry Colburn. Burke, B. (1965). Burke’s Genealogical and heraldic history of the landed gentry (Vol. 2). Cecil, A. (1937). Nottinghamshire in the Civil War. Clarendon Press. Corfield, P. J. (2022). The Georgians: The deeds and misdeeds of 18th century Britain. Yale University Press. Day, E. (2012). History of the hatchments, St. Peters Church Tollerton, nottinghamshire. Tollerton St. Peter’s Church June 2012 [online] https://stpeters-tollerton.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/ 01/hatchments-booklet-2012.pdf [online] (Accessed Sept 10, 2022). Foster, J. (Ed.) (1888). Alumni oxonienses: The members of the university of oxford, 1715–1886 (Vol. III), N. Harvey, J. (1883). In W. C. W. Metcalfe (Ed.) Visitations of buckinghamshire in 1566. Pollard. Marshall, G. W., (Ed.) (1871) Visitations of the county of Nottingham in the years 1569 and 1614 (vol 4). Harleian Society. ‘Parishes: Warnford’ (1908) in A history of the county of hampshire: Volume 3, ed. Page 1908, (pp. 268–273). British History Online. http://www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/hants/vol3/pp2 68-273) (Accessed: October 3, 2022). Polsue, J. (1872). A complete parochial history of the county of Cornwall: compiled from the best authorities and corrected and improved from actual survey. Illustrated. W. Lake. Robson, T. (1830). The British herald, or Cabinet of armorial bearings of the nobility and gentry of Great Britain and Ireland (Vol. 2). Turner & Marwood. Stephen, L., (Ed.). (1885). Dictionary of national biography (Vol. 3, 15). Oxford University Press. Throsby, J. (1797). Thoroton’s history of nottinghamshire (vol 1).

54

4 Case History: The Commissioning of the Pendock Barry Service

Database Sources ‘Barry B. (1812). Mr Barry Barry. Sun (London), 2. 4 April 1812. [online]. The British Newspaper Archive www.thebritishnewspaperarchive.co.uk (Accessed: April 4, 2022). Bonhams. (2004). A George II carved giltwood mirror’, Fine English and continental furniture and works of Art, 2 March 2004, Bonhams [online] https://www.bonhams.com/auctions/10828/ lot/87/ (Accessed: August 8, 2022). Derby Daily Telegraph (1894) ‘Great sale of derby China. In Derby daily telegraph, 2, 26 May 1894. [online]. The British Newspaper Archive www.thebritishnewspaperarchive.co.uk (Accessed: March 29, 2022). Globe. (1811). Viscountess Dungannon’s Grand Ball and Supper. Globe, 3, 4 July 1811. [online] The British Newspaper Archive www.thebritishnewspaperarchive.co.uk (Accessed: March 29, 2022). Globe. (1812). The prince regent’s levee. Globe, 3, 13 March 1812. [online] The British Newspaper Archive www.thebritishnewspaperarchive.com (Accessed: March 29, 2022). Hampshire Chronicle. (1773). ‘Deaths’ Hampshire Chronicle, 3, 11 January 1773. [Death of Pendock Neale Snr] [online] The British Newspaper Archive www.thebritishnewspaperarchive. co.uk (Accessed: March 29, 2022). London Courier and Evening Gazette. (1812). Whitehall Nov 20. London Courier and Evening Gazette, 4, 23 Jan 1812. [online] The British Newspaper Archive www.thebritishnewspaperar chive.co.uk (Accessed: March 29, 2022) Neale, J. (1683). Nottinghamshire, England, extracted church of England Parish records. [Database online] Ancestry.com 2001 (Accessed September 5, 2022). Neale, J. (1686). (England, select births and christenings, 1538–1975). [Database online] Ancestry.com (Accessed September 5, 2022). Neale, T. (1782). Cambridge University Alumni, 1261–1900. Ancestry.com [Database online] (Accessed September 5, 2022). Neale Esq, J. (1749). Records of the Prerogative Court of Canterbury. The National Archives; Kew; Series PROB 11; Class: PROB 11; Piece: 774. Ancestry.com 2013 [Database online] Ancestry.com (Accessed September 5, 2022). Nottingham Journal. (1840). To be sold by private contract. Nottingham Journal, 2, 24 Jan 1840. [online] The British Newspaper Archive www.thebritishnewspaperarchive.co.uk (Accessed: March 29, 2022). Pendock, J. (1631). England, select marriages, 1538–1973. Ancestry.com [Database online] (Accessed September 5, 2022). Pendock Barry Neale. (1783). Nottinghamshire, England, Church of England baptisms, marriages and burials 1838–1812. St. Peter, Tollerton, 1728–1790 Nottinghamshire Archives; Nottingham, Nottinghamshire. PR6678; Reference: PR6678 Ancestry.com [Database online] (Accessed September 5, 2022). Pendock Neale. (1753). England, select marriages, 1538–1973 FHL Film Number 924802 Ancestry.com. [Database online] (Accessed September 5, 2022). Pendock Neale. (1757). St. Peters Church, Tollerton (1728–1790). Nottinghamshire Archives; Nottingham, PR6678; Ref: sPR6678 Ancestry.com. [Database online] (Accessed September 5, 2022). Pendock Neale. (1780). Nottinghamshire, England, Church of England marriages, and banns, 1754–1937. St. Peters Church Tollerton 1754–1810. Nottingham Archives, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire. Ref: PR6681. Ancestry.com [Database online] (Accessed September 5, 2022). Pendock Neale Esq. (1773). Records of the Prerogative Court of Canterbury, series PROB 11; Class: PROB 11; Piece: 986. The National Archives. Ancestry.com 2013 [Database online] (Accessed September 5, 2022). Pendock Barry. (1812). The Prince Regent’s levee. The Globe, 3, 13 March 1812. [online] The British Newspaper Archive www.thebritishnewspaperarchive.co.uk (Accessed: March 29, 2022).

References

55

Pendock Barry. (1817). The following strange paragraph. Stamford Mercury 3, 7 March 1817. [online]. The British Newspaper Archive www.thebritishnewspaperarchive.co.uk (Accessed: April 4, 2022). Sun (London). (1812). ‘Mr Barry Barry’ 4 April 1812 Sun (London) 2. The British Newspaper Archive [online] www.thebritishnewspaperarchive.co.uk. (Accessed: March 29, 2022). Susannah Davies. (1871). Census return for Tollerton Hall, Tollerton, Nottinghamshire. Sub-district Ratcliffe Upon Trent. PRO RG10/3549 folio 58 p. 5. Ancestry.com [Database online]. (Accessed: July 27 2021). Susannah Falkener Neale (nd.) Nottinghamshire, England, Church of England baptisms, marriages and Burials 1838–1812 St. Peter, Tollerton, 1728–1790 Nottinghamshire Archives; Nottingham, Nottinghamshire. PR6678; Ref: PR6678 Ancestry.com [database online]. (Accessed September 5, 2022). Susannah Falkner Neale. (2022). Somerset Parish records, 1538–1914; Somerset Heritage Service; Taunton, Somerset. Ref: D\P\wal.sw/2/1/20 Ancestry.com. [Database online] (Accessed September 5, 2022). Western Daily Press. (1867). Clerical appointments and vacancies. Western Daily Press 3, 5 September 1867. [online] The British Newspaper Archive www.thebritishnewspaperarchive. co.uk (Accessed: March 29, 2022).

Chapter 5

Manufacture of the Pendock Barry Dessert Service

Abstract The Pendock Barry dessert service was a completely unknown Derby porcelain service until its appearance in the Thomas Neale auction of 1894. This chapter examines the origins and history of the Derby Old China Works from its foundation, closure and the establishment and closure of the King Street Factory. Then goes on to considers the likely date of manufacture of the Pendock Barry service using information acquired from new research regarding the commissioning patron, Pendock Neale Barry, relating to his early and illicit acquisition and use of the Pendock Barry Arms from the College of Arms around 1805. This suggests a date of manufacture of around 1805–1806. Further evidence that the service was manufactured prior to the Bloor period is provided by indications that the service was gilded by Thomas Soar and that the service does not show the craquelure typical of Bloor Derby porcelain. Analyses of the plate shape to indicate a date of manufacture after 1800, and an examination paste translucency to demonstrate that paste of the Pendock Barry service dates to before the late Kean period. Chapter 5 also discusses the chemistry of Derby porcelain and proposes future work involving the characterisation of the Derby paste via the chemical analysis of Derby sherds acquired from Derby Museum and Art Gallery and complete dated pieces of porcelain available to the authors for inspection. Keywords Derby Old China Works · William Duesbury · Chelsea China Works · Bow China Works · Longton Hall · William Billingsley · Michael Kean · Robert Bloor · Pendock Barry Service · Neales · Tollerton · College of Arms · Thomas Soar · Plate shapes · Translucency · Glaze craquelure · Ceramic paste analysis · Chemical analysis · Ceramic constituents

5.1 The Origin of Derby Porcelain In 1756, a triumvirate of William Duesbury, Andrew Planche and John Heath (Jewitt, The Ceramic art of Great Britain, 1883) made an agreement as “co-partners together as well in the art of making English China as also in buying and selling all sorts of wares belonging to the art of making china”. John Heath, an Alderman of Derby, was the financier, contributing £1000; Andrew Planche was a “china maker”, and William © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 R. L. Denyer et al., The Pendock Barry Porcelain Service, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-25813-8_5

57

58

5 Manufacture of the Pendock Barry Dessert Service

Duesbury was an enameller from Staffordshire and the motivating force behind the enterprise. The factory was established on the Nottingham Road in Derby. It is alleged that porcelain was made in Derby prior to the foundation of the Derby China Manufactory at the Cockpit Hill Potworks under the direction of Andrew Planche somewhat earlier, around 1751–1753 and several specimens of this early production are known to exist bearing script marks of Darby and Darbishire. The precise date of manufacture of porcelain at the fledgling Derby China Works is therefore not known but an advertisement in the Public Advertiser in Derby in December 1756 notified readers of a porcelain sale there by public auction, so clearly, some manufacturing had been ongoing fairly rapidly and must have started soon after its foundation. It is also believed that Andrew Planche did not remain long in Derby and left soon after the foundation of the Derby China Works. Duesbury was very proud of his accomplishment in porcelain figure manufacture at Derby as he claimed publicly that he had created a “second Sevres and Meissen”. William Duesbury (1725–1786), born in Cannock, Staffordshire, received his apprenticeship training from 1742 in the enamelling workshops of London, decorating Chelsea porcelain (Bemrose, Bow, Chelsea and Derby Porcelain: Being Further Information Relating to These Factories, Obtained from Original Documents, Not Hitherto Published, 1898), and in 1754, he returned to Staffordshire to Longton Hall where his parents lived. The Derby China Works quickly achieved a reputation for making quality porcelain, and soon after their foundation, they engaged a London agent in 1757. Duesbury acquired the failing Chelsea China Works in 1770 from Nicholas Sprimont, thereby starting their Chelsea-Derby period, where Derby porcelain was decorated at the Chelsea site in London, continuing the tradition of holding the annual Chelsea china auction, the first of these being 14 April 1771 under their Derby ownership. In June 1774, Duesbury opened his London warehouse at 1, Bedford Street, Covent Garden, transferring the Chelsea auction business there and maintaining a selection of their china for viewing by potential clients. In 1775, Duesbury purchased the Bow China Works and after that Longton Hall in Staffordshire, which gave him access to a skilled workforce of potters and enamellers. One of the enamellers at Chelsea who transferred to Derby was the father of William Billingsley, who had been an accomplished decorator at Chelsea: in 1774, his son, also William Billingsley, followed his father into the Derby China Works, where he was apprenticed at the age of 16 to William Duesbury under the mentorship of Edward Withers in the enamelling workshop. On 28 March 1775, King George III authorised the use of a crown as a Derby factory mark in a Royal Warrant as “China Manufacturers in Ordinary for His Majesty” and this was followed in 1777 by the acquisition of James Giles’ workshop in Kentish Town. After this growth in business, a setback appeared first in 1779 when John Heath, the financial backer and a banker, was declared bankrupt: Duesbury bought his interest in the Derby China Works from his creditors in August 1780. In 1783, Prince George, the Prince of Wales, furnished his home at Carlton House with Derby china and the following year in 1784, Duesbury moved all production and decorating processes to Derby, now centralised on the Nottingham Road site. In the meantime, William Duesbury’s eldest son, also William, was born in 1763 and had joined the business, which he then managed

5.2 Date of Manufacture of the Pendock Barry Dessert Service

59

following his father’s death from a heart attack on 30 October 1786. William Duesbury II married Elizabeth in 1787 and died in 1797 at the age of 34; Michael Kean, having been taken into partnership at the Derby China Works in 1795 because of the failing health of William Duesbury, then married Elizabeth, widow of Duesbury II, in 1798 who was his business partner in the Derby China Works (Anderson, Derby Porcelain International Society Journal, II, pp. 1–8, 1991; Anderson, Derby Porcelain and the Early English Fine Ceramics Industry, 2000). The marriage failed in 1806 and Kean sold the Derby China Works to Robert Bloor, a clerk in Duesbury’s Derby China Works, and his brother Joseph in 1811. From about the late 1820s, due to Robert Bloor’s debilitating mental illness, the Derby China Works started to decline: in 1828, James Thomason was appointed manager until in 1844 Thomas Clarke, husband of Bloor’s granddaughter, took over after Bloor had been declared insane. Joseph and Robert Bloor died in 1845 and 1846, respectively. Thomas Clarke was forced to close the business and auctioned off the moulds and potting equipment until finally the Nottingham Road site closed in 1848. Several of the staff at the Derby China Works at Nottingham Road, under the leadership of Sampson Hancock, an enameller in the workshops, got together and reopened the porcelain manufacturing and decorating business from new premises at King Street, Derby. A statement from Sampson Hancock describes this event clearly: I succeeded Robert Bloor, transplanting the Nottingham Road works to my present factory – King Street. Six working men employed at the old factory put their wits together and started my works—William Locker, James Hill, Samuel Fearn, Samuel Sharp, John Henson and myself’

In a later report in the Derby Reporter of 1875, he stated: … that although the old premises and materials were disposed of, six of the workmen, including myself, formed a combination to carry on the old Derby China Work and trade in another part of town with the same artistic, if not so extensive a success, in proof of which many of the articles made previous to 1848 by the old firm have been sent to us to match …’

The King Street site then traded under some new partnerships until 1935.

5.2 Date of Manufacture of the Pendock Barry Dessert Service Ever since its first appearance in the Thomas Neale auction of 1894 (Swain, Pendock Barry and his Dessert Service, 68–72, 1984), the Pendock Barry dessert service has been something of an enigma. At the time of the sale, this double dessert service consisting of 90 pieces was not only strikingly beautiful, but it was in a virtually pristine condition as if barely used. Thomas Neale made the most of the eye-catching nature of the service by laying it out in its entirety prior to the sale. This was the last time the full service was displayed, as it was sold in multiple lots, achieving the highest price for any ceramics service up to that date.

60

5 Manufacture of the Pendock Barry Dessert Service

Many of the service pieces carried the Duesbury II mark in gold to the reverse. Not all the pieces in the service were marked and a few pieces, namely the 4 sucriers, carried the Duesbury II marks in iron red to the base (Swain, Pendock Barry and his Dessert Service, 68–72, 1984). All of these marks seemed to indicate that the service was made in the Derby works. Unfortunately, unlike all other major Derby services of the late eighteenth until the mid-nineteenth century, the Pendock Barry service does not appear in the Derby pattern books. This seems a very unlikely accidental omission for what must have been a major undertaking in the Derby works and may suggest that. (a) the service was not manufactured in Derby, (b) it was not decorated in the Derby works by a Derby decorator, (c) the person who commissioned it did not want its manufacture to be recorded. The former is unlikely because the body of the pieces in the service seems to be comparable to Derby porcelain of the Duesbury II and Kean period, although the sucriers are of an unknown Derby shape and may have been custom made for the service at Derby or perhaps elsewhere. This later point is hard to determine because the sucriers are unavailable for examination. Determining a date of manufacture for the service has proved problematic. The lack of reference to it in the Derby pattern books means that there is no pattern number allowing the estimation of a date. However, there is retrospective evidence from the Derby decorator John Haslem that similar patterns were decorated by the renowned Derby flower painter and later porcelain manufacturer William Billingsley (Haslem, The Old Derby China Factory: The Workmen and their Productions, 1876). This no doubt helped W. D. John to date the service to somewhere around 1790–1795. (John, William Billingsley 1758–1828, 1968). This date is unfortunately unlikely. John Haslem joined Derby in 1822 (Twitchett, Derby Porcelain: An Illustrated Guide, 1748–1848, 2002) as a decorator long after William Billingsley had left the Derby works to help establish the Pinxton factory. As a result, it has been suggested that the information regarding the attribution of Billingsley as decorator and a date of manufacture around 1790–1795 may be unreliable. This view is supported by the fact that the client who commissioned the service, Pendock Neale of Tollerton, may have ordered it when he changed his name under royal licence in 1811 to Pendock Barry (London Courier and Evening Gazette 1812). John Twitchett, having been in discussion with Maxwell Craven of the Derby City Museum and Art Gallery about the Pendock Barry service and the Neales of Tollerton, certainly came to this conclusion (Twitchett, Derby Porcelain: An Illustrated Guide, 1748–1848, 2002). This led him in his work Derby Porcelain 1748–1848 to suggest that William John’s attribution to Billingsley and a date of 1790–1795 was incorrect and that the service was manufactured during the Bloor period in 1811 and possibly decorated by Joseph Stanesby. In the Bloor period, it is believed that the glaze for the body was modified. It is certainly the case that post around 1811 the glaze used in Derby porcelain developed craquelure during firing, which indicates that the body and the glaze failed to

5.2 Date of Manufacture of the Pendock Barry Dessert Service

61

bind completely during the manufacturing process. The pieces in the Pendock Barry service displayed no such craquelure, indicating an earlier period of manufacture. Reference to Tollerton and the History of Pendock Neale Barry may provide some clarification. The adoption of the Barry surname and armorials by Pendock Neale was a major undertaking. He initially engaged the College of Arms to establish his descent from the Barry family in 1804, along with their confirmation of his right to bear the Barry arms. He then illicitly acquired the pedigree they created for him from his solicitor in 1805, without paying the College of Arms for their services. Contemporary reports from the 1800s state that Pendock Neale hosted members of the College of Arms at his estate in Tollerton, Northamptonshire, and lavished them with fine dining and claret, which in his view was sufficient payment for their services! This unorthodox approach led to the Windsor Herald and Blue Pursuivant at Arms pursuing Pendock Neale in the Court of the King’s Bench, London, in 1809 (Belfast Monthly Magazine 1809). It was presumably only later, after paying the College of Arms for the research, that he was formally granted the Barry arms in 1811. Evidence that Pendock Neale was using the Pendock Barry arms from 1805 potentially casts new light on the matter of the Pendock Barry dessert service and the date of its manufacture. It is likely that on acquiring the coat-of-arms from his solicitor Pendock Neale not only used it on his windows at Tollerton as seems to be indicated in the 1809 article, but also commissioned a dessert service incorporating it into the design. That he would wish to do this off-book, so to speak, may explain why the service was never recorded in the Derby pattern books. To pinpoint a manufacture date of around 1805, additional evidence is required. Close examination of the base of a Pendock Barry plate available to the authors for inspection revealed a gilder’s mark, a gilt 1 applied to the inner edge of the foot rim at around the 12–1 o’clock position (Fig. 5.1). It is known that Thomas Soar used the number 1 as his gilder’s mark and he was also known to apply that mark to the foot rim at around the 1 o’clock position. Thus, the Pendock Barry plate seems to have been gilded by Thomas Soar. Thomas Soar was the principal painter in gold at Derby during the Duesbury I, Duesbury II and Kean periods. By 1810, Thomas Soar had left Derby and had instead set up his own small business decorating porcelain for the local gentry. In an advertisement in the Derby Mercury (Derby Mercury 5 April 1810, p. 3) under the title “Enamelled China”, Soar stated Thomas Soare with the greateft refpect, begs leave to inform the Nobility, Gentry and Public at Large, that he enamels Deffert, Breakfaft and Tea Sets with arm, Crefts, Cyphers, &c., in the moft elegent manner, and the moft liberal terms.

The advertisement then goes on to say His long experience in the Derby Manufactory encourages him to look with confidence for fuport which it will be his ftudy to deferve and his pride to acknowledge. N.B. Ladies inftructed to Paint China at their own apartments on reafonable terms.

Twitchett also quoted portions of this advertisement and suggested that Thomas Soar probably undertook a high proportion of the gold decoration of heraldic work

62

5 Manufacture of the Pendock Barry Dessert Service

Fig. 5.1 Image of the back of a dessert plate from the Pendock Barry service. Although there is no Derby mark there is a gilders mark, the number 1 applied to the inner foot rim at the about the 12 o’clock position indicating that the plate was gilded by Thomas Soar

at the Derby works. Twitchett also noted that Thomas Soar was highly respected in Derby, holding the appointment of Governor of the Poor in the parish of St. Alkmund’s in 1815 (Twitchett, Derby Porcelain: An Illustrated Guide, 1748–1848, 2002). The identification of Thomas Soar as the gilder of the Pendock Barry service is key to pinpointing the service’s date of manufacture. Thomas Soar is unlikely to have used his gilder’s mark after leaving the Derby works, so this would indicate a date of manufacture before 1810 whilst Soar still worked at the Derby factory. Further support for this view comes from comparing Derby dessert plate shapes from different periods. The dessert plates in the Pendock Barry service are quite unlike

5.2 Date of Manufacture of the Pendock Barry Dessert Service

63

Fig. 5.2 Comparison of shapes between a dessert plate from the Pendock Barry service and a dessert plate from the Prince of Wales dessert service. The dessert plate from the Pendock Barry service is wider, with a wider rim but a comparable bowl depth. The dessert plate from the Pendock Barry service is un-moulded and of a plain shape with a slightly canted wider rim. The dessert plate from the Prince of Wales service is smaller, moulded with a wrythen fluted rim which is narrower in comparison with the rim of the dessert plate from the Pendock Barry service, but the rim is more steeply canted in the dessert plate from the Prince of Wales service. Scale bar = 8.3 cm

the majority of Derby porcelain dessert plates of the last quarter of the eighteenth century and the dessert plates in the Regency period. Prior to Kean moving the porcelain manufacture to the new Nottingham Road site in around 1788–1798 (Twitchett, Derby Porcelain: An Illustrated Guide, 1748– 1848, 2002), dessert plates were often moulded to incorporate lobes and fluting. A common dessert plate shape of this period consisted of a narrow canted wrythen fluted rim extending to a concave flat-bottomed bowl supported by a foot rim. This design was used in the Prince of Wales dessert service (1786), the Job Mathews dessert service (1790), the Rothschild dessert service (pattern 100, 1790) and the Chatsworth service (1795–1800). Another important point is the size of these plates, as these dessert services had quite small plates. For example, the Prince of Wales service dessert plates (pattern no 65) are 22.5 cm in diameter and have a wrythen fluted rim 3 cm wide that is canted at a steeper angle than that of the Pendock Barry plates, which in turn extends to a concave flat-bottomed 2 cm deep bowl, all supported in a 4 mm high foot rim (Fig. 5.2). In comparison, the dessert plates from the Pendock Barry service are of a very plain un-moulded circular shape, with a diameter of 24.5 cm, consisting of a 3.5 cm

64

5 Manufacture of the Pendock Barry Dessert Service

Fig. 5.3 A Bloor derby dessert plate decorated with blue and gilt moulded in the manner of the John Trotter service c1820–25. This dessert plate is large, measuring 25 cm in diameter with a 4 cm wide canted rim, a 3 cm deep bowl all supported on an 8 mm deep foot rim. The plate displays the craquelure typical of Bloor Derby period porcelain

wide rim which is slightly canted inwards towards a 2 cm deep concave flat-bottomed bowl supported on a glazed 5 mm high foot rim. Dessert plates of the same shape as the Pendock Barry service appear to have been made between around 1897 and 1820. Examples include dessert plates decorated by George Robertson c1797–1800, dessert plates from the Duke of Devonshire service and dessert plates decorated by Robert Brewer or William Cotton c1810–1815 (Twitchett, Derby Porcelain: An Illustrated Guide, 1748–1848, 2002). However, those made during the Bloor period are easily identified by the craquelure of the glaze (Fig. 5.3) which again differentiates them from the dessert plates of the Pendock Barry service. By the Bloor period, rococo shapes were also coming back into fashion, so a lot of the dessert plates made during the Bloor Derby period were larger, incorporated rococo-inspired moulding, such as those moulded in the manner of the John Trotter dessert service c1820–25 (Fig. 5.3). This further differentiates the Bloor Derby period dessert plates from those in the Pendock Barry service. The comparison of the shapes of the Derby dessert plates once again suggests that the Pendock Barry service was most probably made sometime between 1797 and 1810 which would support a date of manufacture of around 1805. Further information regarding the date of manufacture for the Pendock Barry service may be obtained by analysis of the pastes used during different Derby porcelain periods. There is evidence of significant differences in pastes and glazes during

5.2 Date of Manufacture of the Pendock Barry Dessert Service

65

the history of the Derby works, but for the purposes of determining a date of manufacture of the Pendock Barry service it is probably worth concentrating on the pastes of pieces made during the Duesbury II, Duesbury II/Kean and the early Bloor periods. Visual examination involving the transmission of white light through the pastes of plates can be very informative. Differing chemistries result in differing refraction and absorption of light; thus, differences in the transmission of light through porcelains suggest that the pastes of those porcelain have different chemistries. For example, comparison of the optical properties of a plate from the Prince of Wales dessert service c1786 and a plate from the Pendock Barry dessert service (Fig. 5.4a, b) reveals that both pastes display similar optical properties enabling the transmission of a murky brown to green light. Examination of the optical properties of later Derby dessert plates from the Kean period and the Bloor period (Fig. 5.4c, d) suggests that the Kean period and Bloor period pastes differed from one another, and from the pastes used in the Prince of Wales and Pendock Barry services. The dessert plate dating to the late Kean period with a Duesbury II red mark to the base along with a gilders mark (20 in red) and a decorators mark 13 in yellow to the foot rim (Fig. 5.5) displayed the transmission of a murky but distinctly light green light, whilst the Bloor Derby period plate displayed a much higher degree of translucency but a murky brown to green transmitted light similar but less intense than those that of plates from the Prince of Wales and Pendock Barry services. This seems to suggest that alterations were made to the Derby paste between the manufacture of the Pendock Barry plate and the manufacture of the Kean period plate and that the paste underwent further changes during the Bloor period. There is evidence that during the latter part of the Michael Kean period, there was a move towards the manufacture of bone china at Derby (Owen and Barkla, Journal of Archaeological Sciences, 24, pp. 127–140, 1997), and this would go some way in explaining the difference in the optical properties of pastes between the plates from the Prince of Wales service/Pendock Barry service and the Kean period plate. That there are differences in paste between the Bloor Derby plate and the Prince of Wales/Pendock Barry plates is hardly surprising seeing as Bloor is known to have changed the glaze. That the optical properties of the Bloor period plate differ from the Kean period plate also seems to suggest that Bloor not only changed the glaze, but he also changed the paste, reverting to a composition closer to that of the earlier pastes. The results of this visual examination of the optical properties of Derby paste suggest that the paste used in the Pendock Barry service is most like the paste used in the Prince of Wales service and least like that used in the late Kean period. This implies that the Pendock Barry service was manufactured sometime before Kean modified the Derby paste somewhere between 1800 and 1808/9, and before the Bloor period. Confirmation of this may be acquired by the chemical analysis of Derby pastes from different periods.

66

5 Manufacture of the Pendock Barry Dessert Service

Fig. 5.4 Shows the difference in paste when a white light is shone through a a plate from the Prince of Wales dessert service c1786, b a plate from the Pendock Barry service, c a plate from a late Kean period plate c1805–1810 and d a plate from the Bloor period. Both the plates from the Prince of Wales service and the plate from the Pendock Barry service display a similar murky brown to green paste. In comparison, the Kean period plate displays a distinctly light green paste, whilst the Bloor period plate displays a murky brown to green paste with a higher translucency than the plates from the Prince of Wales and Pendock Barry services. This observation is suggestive of differences between the paste of the late Kean period plate, the Bloor period plate and both the Prince of Wales and Pendock Barry plates

5.3 Composition of the Derby Paste Many texts on Derby porcelain have made the assumption that, having achieved his initial porcelain body formulation success, William Duesbury and his successors never afterwards changed its composition. This fallacy was exposed by Owen and Barkla in their analytical paper of 1997 (Owen and Barkla, Journal of Archaeological Sciences,24, pp. 127–140, 1997) when they published compositional data

5.3 Composition of the Derby Paste

67

Fig. 5.5 Shows a late Keans period plate with a Duesbury II red mark to the base along with a gilders mark (20 in red) and a decorators mark 13 in yellow to the foot rim decorated with gilded rim and 4 flowers around a central bouquet of flowers

from their analyses of 16 sherds excavated from the Derby China Works waste pit several years previously (Barkla and Barkla, Transactions of the English Ceramic Circle, 15, pp. 229–239, 1990). Prior to their analyses, the earlier work of Sir Arthur Church (Church, English Porcelain: A Handbook to the China Made in England During the Eighteenth Century as Illustrated by Specimens Found Chiefly in the National Collections, 1894), which mentioned at length the history of the Derby manufactory and its products but provides no analytical data, and the work of Herbert Eccles and Bernard Rackham (Eccles and Rackham Analysed Specimens of English Porcelain in the Victoria and Albert Museum, 1922), which does describe the analytical data for two Derby porcelain specimens, are two of the few literature citations which even consider the composition of Derby porcelain. The Eccles and Rackham analyses concluded that the Derby porcelain specimens from the 1780–1790 period contained a raw material component of between 40 and 45% bone ash, which constitutes a highly phosphatic porcelain body (Eccles and Rackham Analysed Specimens of English Porcelain in the Victoria and Albert Museum, 1922). The later much

68

5 Manufacture of the Pendock Barry Dessert Service

cited analytical work of Tite and Bimson (Tite and Bimson, Technological Study of English Porcelains, Archaeometry, 33, pp. 3–27, 1991) also omits analyses for Derby porcelain whilst considering ten other porcelain manufactories of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, including Chelsea, Bow, Lowestoft, Longton Hall and Worcester. The analyses of the Derby porcelain body are summarised in Table 5.1. Owen and Barkla (Owen and Barkla Journal of Archaeological Sciences, 24, pp. 127–140, 1997) have defined three periods of manufacture at Derby which involved different body paste compositions, namely 1750–1770, which involved a lead oxide-rich flint glass frit that was used in decreasing amount up to 1780 (Savage, Eighteenth Century English Porcelain, 1952), a short period between 1764 and 1769 which used soapstone to give a magnesian-rich body and finally from 1770 a highly phosphatic body which resulted from the incorporation of calcined bone ash until about 1810 when a shift was made towards the production of bone china, which again would have involved calcined bone ash to > 40% (Anderson, Derby Porcelain International Society Journal, II, pp. 1–8, 1991, Anderson, Derby Porcelain and the Early English Fine Ceramics Industry, 2000). The initial glassy porcelain recipe would have comprised 30–55% quartz, 34–50% flint glass, kaolinite 6–10%, calcite < 16%, bone ash 0–6% and gypsum 0–1% which was represented largely by the ternary system CaO–PbO–SiO2 with major contributors of CaSiO3 and PbSiO3 (Samanta and Hummel, Journal of the American Chemical Society, 59, pp. 157–160, 1976). In contrast, the phosphatic porcelain body would have had a recipe formulation comprising 31–43% calcined bone ash, 21–24% kaolinite, 31–39% quartz and 1–6% calcite. The presence of crystalline wollastonite formed at the kiln firing temperatures would have been restricted to the glassy phase porcelain sherds only since all the calcite would have been consumed by reaction with the phosphate to form the calcic plagioclase, Bytownite Cax Na1−x (Al,Si)Si2 O8: from about 400 °C: Calcite + Kaolinite → Plagioclase + CO2 + 2H2 O Thus, all three plagioclase Bytownite; Anorthite; Labradorite would be formed above 400 °C. The phosphatic porcelain would have been fired above the thermal minimum of 1250 °C in the system Ca3 (PO4 )2 –Al2 O3 –SiO2 and probably nearer the temperature of 1400 °C where tridymite effected a conversion to cristobalite, the high temperature form of silica (St. Pierre, Journal of the American Chemical Society, 37, pp.243– 258, 1954, St. Pierre, Journal of the American Chemical Society, 38, pp. 217–222, 1955). It was believed that the major clay type used was locally derived halloysite from Brassington in Derbyshire, which dehydrates from 60 °C to kaolinite, mixed with a ball clay from Dorset indicated by the presence of a TiO2 signature, and which also contains a soda and potash content of about 3% (Holdridge, Pottery Science—Materials, Processes and Products, 1956). There is some evidence also that Derby utilised a cerussite additive, a basic lead carbonate, to fortify the lead content of the flint glass which could be variable over a wide range from between

Shard

Shard

1750–1770

1700–

47

75

43

42

SiO2

10