A HISTORY OF SUFFOLK 



on bodies imported from the east. 1 In subse- 

 quent editions of Marks and Monograms, Mr. 

 Chaffers brought evidence to show that no 

 porcelain was painted at Lowestoft which had 

 not previously been potted there. 2 This indeed 

 seems to be confirmed by subsequent investiga- 

 tion, but no very substantial evidence was adduced 

 by Mr. Chaffers in support of his contention that 

 a great part of the china thus potted and painted 

 was of hard paste. Perhaps the greatest obstacle 

 in the way of the general acceptance of this con- 

 tention lav in the fact that the china thus attributed 

 to Lowestoft was of a kind to be met with all over 

 Europe in such quantities as could not have been 

 produced by many factories as large as that at 

 Lowestoft. The further fact that much of this 

 china decorated in accordance with local require- 

 ments is to be found in the neighbourhood of the 

 ports trading with the East Indies, in Sweden 

 and Holland as well as in England, has suggested 

 the possibility that it may have been manufactured 

 in the East in fulfilment of special orders sent 

 out by firms in touch with local demand and 

 accompanied by designs for decoration. This is 

 the view adopted by Mr. Frederick Litchfield, 

 who edited the last edition of Marks and Mono- 

 grams. In an interesting note on the section 

 dealing with Lowestoft he says : — 



When the Editor was in Gothenburg some few 

 years ago he bought there a tea service, evidently of 

 Oriental porcelain, decorated on one side with an 

 East Indiaman flying the Swedish flag, and a Swedish 

 coat of arms and monogram on the other side . . . 

 Another service which p.issed through his hands was 

 of Oriental porcelain, but represented some Dutch 

 merchants presenting a petition to some governor ; 

 this had been painted for some Dutch family in- 

 terested in a charter. Other similar instances could 

 be quoted . . . 3 



As the mistaken attribution of the Oriental china 

 to Lowestoft must have been founded on its 

 having in some cases passed through the hands 

 of the Lowestoft firm, it is extremely probable 

 that their trading connexion with Holland led 

 them to become dealers in Eastern porcelain. 

 The confusion between the ware thus imported 

 and that produced at Lowestoft may not have 

 been intended, but it must certainly have been 

 assisted by the fact, noted by Mr. Litchfield, that 

 some of the armorially decorated china was not 

 of Oriental, but of English, and probably of 

 Lowestoft make. A service of this kind is in 

 the possession of Capt. Meade, of Earsham Hall, 

 Bungay, and the existence of such specimens no 

 doubt helped to confirm Mr. Chaffers in what 

 now seems universally admitted to be a mistaken 

 theory. * 



The controversy had already reached this 



1 Art Journ. July, 1863. 



' Chaffers, op. cit. 809-10. * Ibid. 816. 



' Ibid. The question is discussed at some length in 

 Mr. LI. lewitt's Ceramic Art in Great Britain, vol. i, 

 452 ; Mr. Litchfield's Pottery and Porcelain (1900), 



point when in 1902 a mass of fresh evidence was 

 discovered which, while confirming the negative 

 conclusions above stated, furnished at the same 

 time a solid basis for a more positive knowledge 

 as to the nature of the porcelain actually made 

 at Lowestoft. In that year, and in 1904, 

 explorations made on the site of the old china 

 factory, which had since been occupied by a 

 1 malting,' brought to light a large number of 

 moulds and of broken pieces of china in every 

 stage of manufacture. With the exception of a 

 few pieces of earthenware of a common Stafford- 

 shire type, apparently dinner basins used by the 

 workmen, and some fragments of distinctly 

 Oriental china, presumably used as copies for 

 designing, the whole of both finds is of the same 

 species of soft paste, to which the early signed 

 and dated pieces of Lowestoft belong. Not a 

 single fragment was found of china of the sub- 

 stance or bearing the decoration attributed by 

 Mr. Chaffers to Lowestoft. The first 'find' 

 passed into the hands of Mr. Crisp of Denmark 

 Hill, and a portion of it has been deposited in 

 the British Museum. The second is in the 

 possession of Mr. W. W. Spelman, who has 

 published an exhaustive description and analysis 

 of his collection, illustrated by a great many 

 photographs and coloured plates. 



Amongst the debris were found a large piece 

 of clay, ready mixed for use, a piece of finest 

 quality white biscuit, and a piece of a sort of poor 

 Jasper ware of a lavender hue. These Mr. 

 Spelman has had analysed with the results given 

 below. 6 The clay is much like other soft paste 

 china clay ; it has a bone-earth bottom. The 

 earlier clay is much the better in quality, the 

 later being more like ironstone. ' The paste,' 

 says Mr. Spelman, 



has a creamy look which in many cases is disguised 

 by a colour in the glaze so as to resemble Oriental 

 china ; but if the glaze is slightly chipped the true 

 colour of the paste at once appears. . . . Some is 

 exceedingly soft, so that if filed it is like chalk, whilst 

 some ... is equal to Worcester china in its hardness.' 



194 ; Mr. Solon's Hist, of Old English Porcelain, 

 210; Mr. Burton's Hist, and Description of Eng. 

 Porcelain, 154; Prof. Church's Eng. Porcelain, 92, 

 and in an article by Mr. Casley, specially dealing 

 with Lowestoft china, published in the Journal of the 

 Suff. Inst. Arch. (1903), vol. xi. 



r White Lavender 



Biscuit Jasper Biscuit 



4 Silica . . 38-20 41-60 37-21 



Alumina . 2222 19-1+ 17-32 



Bone earth 28-74 2 5' 81 3 2 '43 



(phosphate of lime) 



Lime . . 767 >°- 8 ° 8 7I 



Magnesia . 1-65 1-22 no 



Potash . . -93 -+i 2 - 25 



Soda . . "59 1-02 -98 



ioo-oo ioo-oo ioo-oo 

 Louestoft China, p. 16. 

 ' Spelman, op. cit. 36. 



280 



