INDUSTRIES 



will help us to conjecture what kind of pot- 

 tery may have been made in the county. We 

 may no doubt presume that rough earthen- 

 ware utensils such as would meet the ordinary 

 domestic requirements of the inhabitants were 

 in every period made at most places where 

 suitable clay was to be found. Thus amongst 

 the wills of the Archdeaconry Court of Sur- 

 rey we have one in 1544 of Clement Mon- 

 ger of Ash, a ' pottmaker,' and sixty years 

 later another of a probable descendant of his, 

 John Monger of the same parish, a potter. 

 In a return of strangers dwelling in London 

 and Southwark, made probably in May 1571 

 by the Lord Mayor to the Privy Council, 

 the one foreigner described as a potter appears 

 in St. Saviour's parish, Southwark. He is 

 entered amongst the ' sojourners ' as ' Simon 

 Vandolen, potter, and Barbara his wif, borne 

 in Braborne ; here iiij yeres ; Duch 2." 

 In a similar list made in November of the 

 same year his name does not appear. Ap- 

 proaching the period at which we are on 

 surer and wider ground there is preserved the 

 token coin of ' Charles Weston Poter in the 

 Burrow 1666.'^ A thorough search in the 

 wills of the county and in the rate books and 

 other records of its many parishes would no 

 doubt bring to light facts that would amplify 

 these meagre evidences of the existence of 

 the industry. In the meantime it is hardly 

 to be hoped from the absence of any specific 

 mention in more available sources, or of the 

 preservation to us of any other pieces to be 

 readily identified as the product of the county, 

 that the industry could ever have attained to 

 any considerable degree of artistic excellence. 



We may now most conveniently consider 

 our subject under the heads of the different 

 localities in which the manufacture of pottery 

 was and is chiefly carried on, taking them in 

 the possible order of their importance and 

 beginning therefore with Lambeth. 



Lambeth. — Further research into the 

 vexed question of the origin of these potteries 

 does not tend to lessen the obscurity in which 

 our authorities on ceramics have found them 

 so much involved. Of the characteristic 

 brown-ware pitchers, tygs, and the like, which 

 according to Mr. Llewellynn Jewett were 

 made here in medieval times, we know 

 nothing. That Thomas Rous (or Rius) and 

 Abraham Cullyn, who in 1626 obtained a 

 patent for the manufacture of stone pots, 

 stone jugs, and stone bottles^ may have estab- 



' Kirk, Returns of Aliens, etc. (Hug. Soc. Publ. 

 X.), i. 465, and S. P. Dom. Eliz. Ixxxiv. 2. 

 ^ Mrs. E. Boger, Bygone Southwark, 243. 

 ' Pat. 2 Chas. I. pt. 21, No. 30. 



lished themselves (as the same authority 

 thought likely) at Lambeth is purely con- 

 jectural.* In the patent they are styled mer- 

 chants of London. Many years later, some 

 time in the reign of Charles II., a Thomas 

 Rouse paid his assessment on eleven hearths 

 in the parish of St. Saviour, Southwark.^ 

 The long interval of time between the oc- 

 currence of the two names makes it impossible 

 in the absence of further evidence to con- 

 sider the possible identity of the two. 



' That one Edward {sic) Warner of Lam- 

 beth,' says Professor Church, ' had sold pot- 

 ters' clay there to London potters at least as 

 early as 1668, and had also exported large 

 quantities of the same material to potteries in 

 Holland, does not conclusively prove that 

 earthenware or stoneware was made in Lam- 

 beth.' ' Unfortunately also there is nothing 

 in the record of the proceedings in the Ex- 

 chequer trial of 1693, to connect Edmund 

 Warner and his business proceedings in any 

 way with Lambeth. Mr. Jewett printed the 

 record in full in his account of the Lambeth 

 potteries on the bare supposition that of the 

 five London potters whose evidence is re- 

 ported some of them may have belonged to 

 Lambeth.' 



In 1671 John D wight obtained his patent 

 for the manufacture of transparent earthen- 

 ware commonly known as porcelain or china 

 and Persian ware and for stoneware or Co- 

 logne ware, as it was called, and established 

 his famous salt-glazing works at Fulham.' 

 The grant of this patent seems to mark a new 

 era in the history of English pottery and to 

 have been followed with a revived interest in 

 the native production. In the next year a 

 proclamation was issued which prohibited the 

 importation of all kinds of painted earthen- 

 ware except those of china and stone bottles 

 or jugs.® The latter exception leads us to 

 infer that the attempt of Rous and Cullyn 

 to establish the English manufacture of these 

 articles had been hardly successful. 



On 27 October 1676 John Ariens van 

 Hamme, who we learn had in pursuance of 

 the encouragement he had received from the 

 English ambassador at the Hague come over 

 with his family to this country, received a 

 patent for the exercise of his art of ' making 

 tiles and porcelain and other earthenwares 

 after the way practised in Holland, which 



* ]evrett. Ceramic Jrt 0/ Great Britain, i. 133. 



6 Lay Subsidies, cclviii. No. 7. 



« Church, op. cit. 3;. 



' Jewett, op. cit. i. 1 3 5 seq. 



8 Pat. 23 Chas. II. pt. 10, No. 6 ; Church, 

 op. cit. 



9 S. P. Dom. Proclam. iii. No. 301. 



283 



