sound opinion upon the porcelain of John Dwight, from the unlucky fact that none of it is known to exist. It would be too much to assert that none of it does actually exist, only it has escaped identification, and some happy accident alone can now bring it to light. This is not past praying for. The author of "Marks and Monograms" is hopeful. He says, and justly, that the same dark cloud once hung over the Moustiers faïence, the Florence porcelain of the sixteenth century, the Henri Deux ware of Oirons, near Thouars, and other once undreamed-of wares which modern research has rediscovered; and Fulham even yet may have its turn.1

Possibly it is to the final demolition of the old Pottery, if ever that come about, that one must look for the accident that will at last reveal the secrets of John Dwight's inventions. He was given overmuch to burying things about the premises, and, though some of his hidden treasures have from time to time been found, it is by some suspected that there are important discoveries yet to be made. It was, and perhaps is still, accepted at Fulham as an article of faith that shortly before his death he buried all the models, tools, and moulds connected with his china manufacture, somewhere about the Pottery; as, although too much interested in it to relinquish the manufacture himself, he found it so expensive and unremunerative that he desired to save his successors from the temptation of carrying it on.

If this be indeed so, the buried treasure yet remains to be unearthed. Some probability is given to the legend from the fact that, about twenty years ago, a vaulted chamber was discovered which contained some fragments of stoneware, inlaid with blue, and

'While engaged upon this article I have received a kind letter from M. Solon, the distinguished author of "The Art of the Old English Potter," who writes: "Materials I suppose can easily be gathered upon John Dwight and his work, although they are no doubt scattered far and wide. I looked into my notes to see whether I had anything worth communicating about the great potter, but I am sorry to say I found nothing of interest. Nevertheless I copy for your examination one of my, so far, unanswered queries. In the British Museum a smal red teapot of the shape often made by the Elers, without any ornamentation,

stamped underneath with the mark (IF)

The mark is of difficult interpreta

tion, unless we accept the supposition that F stands for Fulham. Teapots of red Staffordshire clay were made by John Dwight, as appears from one of the receipts contained in his book. Few more examples of the same mark have come under my notice.' There is probably nothing in that; if I send it, it is merely to show you that I should like to be of help if possible. I have seen lately in Londonin Wareham's shop-a very curious specimen of Fulham stoneware, a very tall Chinese pagoda, which you might perhaps like to see."

VOL. CCLXXIII. NO. 1940.

K

a number of stone Bellarmines of the time of the elder Dwight. They are of the same form and material as those of Cologne, with masks under the spout, and medallions in relief.

This imitation Cologne ware was probably for a long time confounded with the German grès itself, but it is easily distinguished by an expert. Specimens of it are frequently to be met with in collections.

John Dwight's magpie habits are rather curiously illustrated by certain entries in some old MS. books of receipts and memoranda, dated from 1689 to 1695, which were found in the Pottery some years ago. Most of the entries are of technical interest, having reference to receipts for bodies, glazes, &c.; but some pages are devoted to memoranda of hidden money,

i.e.:

In the garret in a hole under ye fireplace, 240 g. in a wooden box.

In ye old labouratory at the old house in two holes under the fireplace on both sides ye furnace in 2 half pint gorges, cover'd 460.

In two holes of that great furnace running in almost to the oven, 2 boxes full of mill'd money; may be drawn out wh a long crooked iron standing behind yo kitchen door.

The most important collection of the early productions of the Fulham Pottery was purchased by Mr. Baylis, of Prior's Bank, from the last representative of the Dwight family, in 1862. A description of it appeared in the October number of the Art Journal in that year The collection subsequently passed from the hands of Mr. Baylis to those of Mr. Reynolds, by whom it was unhappily sold piecemeal and thus dispersed.

One of the most beautiful specimens fortunately found its way into the South Kensington Museum, where it may be inspected by the curious. It is the exquisite half-length figure, in grés or stoneware, of a dead child lying upon a pillow, with closed eyes, and hands clasping flowers to her breast. "Lydia Dwight dyed March 3, 1672," is the inscription on this work of consummate art. It was but a year since Dwight had taken out his first patent, so by this can be seen to what perfection in so short a time had his work attained. Truly, the artist's reputation needs no other basis than this upon which to rest securely. Even Dr. Plot's florid Promethean figure finds its excuse as one looks on the pathetic image of this little dead child who, after two centuries of the grave, seems almost by her father's art to breathe again.

A statuette of the same child wrapped in a shroud, with a skull at her feet, is also at South Kensington. It is a matter for lasting regret that the whole collection could not have been there preserved.

There were but twenty-five objects in all, and these, having been carefully handed down as heirlooms in the Dwight family, were probably regarded with justice as masterpieces of its founder's art. The statuettes and busts are of the imitation Cologne grés and include a life-size bust of Charles II., wearing the order of the George and collar, smaller busts of Charles and Katherine of Braganza, James II.1 and Mary d'Este, with various full-length figures of classical divinities, some being coloured in imitation of bronze.

Among a variety of smaller specimens of later date the collection included a large faïence plateau 23 inches in diameter, in exact imitation of the early Nevers ware, covered with rich blue de Perse enamel, decorated with white flowers and scrolls, the centre being filled with the royal arms and monogram of Charles II. This is supposed to have been the sole surviving piece of a dinner service made by John Dwight for the king.

There are some very fine examples of Fulham stoneware in the British Museum; the splendid bust of Prince Rupert is probably the finest specimen in existence.

M. Solon, in "The Art of the Old English Potter," remarks of John Dwight that "to him must be attributed the foundation of an important industry. By his unremitting researches and their practical application, he not only found the means of supplying in larger quantities the daily wants of the people with an article superior to anything that had ever been known before, but besides, by the exercise of his refined taste and uncommon skill, he raised his craft to a high level. Nothing amongst the masterpieces of ceramic art of all other countries can excel the beauty of Dwight's brown stoneware figures, either for design, modelling, or fineness of material."

Mr. Chaffers says: "We are astonished at the variety of Dwight's productions and the great perfection to which he brought the potter's art, both in the manipulation and in the enamel colours used in decoration. The figures, busts, and groups are exquisitely modelled, and will bear comparison with any contemporary manufactures in Europe; and a careful inspection will convince any unprejudiced mind of the erroneous impression which exists that, until the time of Wedgwood, the potter's art in England was at a very low ebb, and none but the most modest description of pottery was made, without any attempt to display artistic excellence. Here we have examples of English pottery a century before Wedgwood's time, which would not disgrace the atelier of the distinguished potter himself." "

1 The bust of James II. is in the South Kensington Museum.

2 Chaffers' Marks and Monograms.

It is superfluous to add anything to the weighty words of M. Solon and Mr. Chaffers. That Dwight was a great and original artist, who has received something less than his meed of fame, is a fact that may hardly now be disputed by unprejudiced people.

The Gentleman's Magazine records the death, at Fulham in 1737, of Dr. Dwight, "author of several curious treatises in physick; he was the first who found out the secret of colouring earthenware like china." This Dr. Dwight has been rather hastily assumed to have been the original John Dwight. This, however, is impossible, for three reasons: first, that as John Dwight must have been a man of mature years when he filled the post of secretary to Brian Walton, who died in the year of the Restoration (1660), a comparison of dates would show him to have been at least a centenarian if he had survived until 1737; but John Dwight never had any claim to the title of Doctor, and, lastly, the learned author of "De febribus symptomaticis deque earum curatione," "De hydropibus," and "De vomitatione ejusque excessu curando necnon de emeticis medicamentis," was not a John Dwight at all, but Dr. Samuel Dwight. Mr. Llewellyn Jewitt suggests that he was the son and successor of John Dwight— which seems probable. They were a talented family, and there is no reason why John Dwight's son should not have been a doctor and man of science first and a potter afterwards. Probably his chemical knowledge taught him some valuable secret in colouring earthenware, which justifies the paragraph in the Gentleman's Magazine. He apparently had not much sympathy with the artistic side of the business, for the buried porcelain models were not dug up, and the production of the finely modelled figures in grey clay was stopped at this time.

There was, according to Falkner, a Dr. Dwight who was Vicar of Fulham from 1708 to 1733. This could hardly have been either potter or physician. probability he was another son or a nephew of the first Dwight. The representative of the family when Samuel Dwight died was his daughter Margaret, who carried on the

In all

It took them nine years Then Margaret married

Pottery in partnership with Mr. Warland. to land the business in bankruptcy. William White, who re-established the Pottery, which remained in the White family from generation to generation, until the last of the Whites died in 1862. The next proprietors, Messrs. Mackintosh & Clements, sold the Pottery in 1864 to Mr. Bailey, whose connection with it still continues, although the concern has recently been converted into a joint-stock company.

Although Fulham has finally, as it may seem, deserted the artistic

for the utilitarian side of the potter's craft, the genius loci makes occasional manifestations. Once, in 1873, Mr. Bailey started the manufacture of china, the body being from John Dwight's original receipt as revealed in the MS. memorandum book to which I have already referred. I do not know what became of the experiment ; probably it was discontinued as not being commercially successful.

What is most interesting, however, is the curious fact that the only art pottery that is executed in or about London nowadays owes in one sense its origin to Fulham. John Doulton, the father of Sir Henry Doulton, who started stoneware works at Vauxhall in partnership with John Watts in 1818, and afterwards removed to the now world-renowned Pottery at High Street, Lambeth, served his time as an apprentice to White, of Fulham.

Robert Wallace Martin, the sculptor, the eldest of the Martin Brothers, who produced the beautiful and artistic Martin-ware at their own little Southall Pottery, began his work also at Fulham.

Mr. Llewellyn Jewitt is incorrect, by-the-by, in stating that Wallace Martin was ever engaged as modeller and designer by the Fulham Pottery proprietors.1 He designed his own ware at their Pottery, and it was fired in their kilns under special and independent terms of arrangement. There is nevertheless something extremely interesting in the circumstance that connects the first production of the Martins' brilliant revival of the glories of artistic stoneware with the old works where John Dwight successfully essayed in his day to rival the celebrated grès of continental Europe.

Lambeth, to whose great modern Pottery reference has already been made, may be regarded as having been the centre of the Metropolitan pottery industry in the seventeenth century. It was from early times a perfect nest of Dutchmen, who came over and set up manufactories of delft, which has little or nothing to distinguish it from ware of the same character made in other parts of England, or in Holland. The delft makers eventually gave way to stoneware manufacturers. China was made in 1760. There is a patent for "the art of making Tiles and Porcelane" on record as having been granted to John Ariens von Hamm in 1676. At the close of the seventeenth century there were at least twenty potteries at work in Lambeth. Although possibly existing works may occupy the sites of some of these, they have no history. The High Street Pottery of Messrs. Doulton occupies one of these old sites. It is itself but a comparatively recent establishment, whose origin dates from the present century only.

1 See The Ceramic Art of Great Britain.