I

LEEDS ARTS CALENDAR MICROFILMED!>t;>rtin>»»ith thr f>rst issue publ>shed >n l947, thccntin I ii ii) »fili Calindar is now availabl< on mi< ro-film. I'>'rit( I'(>r inlIt deroration im thidie» ii hy dli ion Combe, lhe hat by Diane Logan for Bill6'i bb, the shoe> by Chelsea Cobbler for Bill Gibb. Photographedby Trevor Parr. The dreis bought Lotherton EndowmentFund for lhe fasihion eollertion at Lotherton Hall, s97B.

'I'h>s >( i>i»tppri>l t(i all 'w'h(l;n'('nt('>'('sll'd it> th< A> ts. 'I'h<I.«ds Art Collious Fund is tl>< s'(( I'undo f()rhuff«>» works of'rt Ii)r th< I.ril'I yours( If with th('>'t (»>f)l(.c'wsan»: '('c('>v('ol«' Ilti Cilli'lliliii''('(', >'. In writin>» lr an appli( a>ii fi>r»i Io (h(.

Hr»n I ii'

LEl:.DS ARTS CALENiDAR No. 73 1973 THE LIBRARIES ANDA:.ITS COMMITTEESThe Lord Xlasr

Contents

Editorial 2

The Rothwell Potterv and its Wares 4

An exceptional Bureau-Plat by BA'.R.B. I:)

An oak Cupboard made in Lancashire 19

A Leeds Collectors Notebook: 2 Crcamwar< 21

Sir Thomas Gascoigne's Snuff Boxes 29

Alderman Mrs. A. Malcolm /Chairman)Alderman R. I. Ellis, A.R.A.M.Alderman T. W. KirkbyAlderman A. SmithAlderman J. T. V. Watson, LL.B.Councillor A. Beevers, M.p.s.Councillor J. S. DixonCouncillor Mrs. E. HaughtonCouncillor Rev. E.J. IllingCouncillor Mrs. D. E. JenkinsCouncillor J. KitchenCouncillor J. R. Sherwin, M.B., BH.B.Councillor Mrs. S. M. C. 1'omlinsi r. Tern/)li, 'I'e;i )inn Hou)eI)'hristophcr C»ilt)('I l. M.A., B.M.A,

h i »per.. I rt I'll( r).')Iiss VI. Stri( kland-('.onstable. B.A..A.'.>I.A.

Keeper, Der«ra)i)» .Irt Stndi»)Terry I'. Iiricdman, B.A., pn.n

C'uiatiir, I'rint Rnom am/»Irt library. (lcxanclcl'ot)('I'i a) iiimkl

Editorial

The cover of this issue of the Calendartakes on a new look and provides us with ataste of things to come. The dress by BillGibb in many shades of red is amongst thenew acquisitions for the fashion collectionat Lotherton. It was Lotherton that gavethe collection of historical costume its firstpermanent home and the part playedby Sir Alvary and Lady Gascoigne in thishas already been acknowledged. It wasdifficult at one time to see how thiscollection should develop without repeatingthe work of other museums in the North.As is so often the case the solution wassuggested by the collection itself whichconsists mainly of fashionable costumes asdistinct f'rom everyday dress. It has alwaysbeen the intention to acquire f'r Lothertonfine examples of the decorative arts up toour own day, and indeed this has beenhappening with furniture, ceramics andsilver for some time. Why then not compli-ment these with modern clothes, and whatbetter way to begin than to acquire the moreextravagant creations of some of our bestyounger fashion designers. Bill Gibb's workis much admired and probably needs nointroduction. Besides the dress shown onthe cover Bill Gibb is now also representedby an exotic dress decorated with snowowls, delicately painted and embroideredby Valerie Yorston, which has a maribouhat and shoulder decoration by AlisonCombe; she was responsible for the 'water-fall'ecoration on the cover dress too.The collection of modern studio pottery

has a rather similar history to that of thecostume collection in that it was begun along time ago but never had the rightconditions to make it grow. Lotherton hasprovided the inspiration, and indeed thehard cash in the form of the Endowmentfund, behind its development. A number

of'odernpots were seen at the last Acquisi-tions Exhibition and caused much interest.Included in this year's purchases are a pot

from a very individual series by DaveCohen decorated with coloured glazes usedto create landscape effects. Coloured glazeshave a long history in the English ceramictradition as does the use of tin-glaze whichis used by Alan Caiger-Smith of the Alder-maston pottery whose bowl, decorated inblue and wax-resist, is another recentpurchase.An eighteenth century tin-glazed bowl

and the superb Impressionist painting, LesChamps, by Alfred Sisley (1839—99) were thetwo major purchases which took accountof the entire purchase grant this year. Evenso their acquisition was only made possibleby taking advantage of the Estate Dutylegislation, government grants and the helpof dealers. Les Champs, which was formerlyin the collection of Lord and Lady Marks,was valued for probate purposes in 1971 at$45,000, but owing to its exemption fromestate duty could be off'ered to Leeds, or forthat matter any other public museum, at$18,000.This sum was met with the aid ofa50/o government grant, so in effect Leedshas bought for $9,000 a painting of out-standing importance and attraction worthmany times that figure. Sisley painted LesChamps in 1874, the year in which his circlebecame known as the 'Impressionists'ndit forms a fascinating comparison withanother work, Soleil Couchant, already inthe Leeds collection, which was painted inthe following year. That picture is a moreconservative, more classical landscape inthe eighteenth century tradition and itsmood is quiet and contemplative. Thedelftware bowl —which is probably unique—was sold anonymously at Sothebys in 1970,for what was then a record price, and wassubsequently bought from Jellinek andSampson at a specially reduced price of$3,000. It also attracted a 50/o govern-ment grant. This tall, elegant if ratherlop-sided bowl is decorated in blue mono-chrome with medallion portraits of James

Francis Edward Stuart, the 'OldPretender'nd

the rather mysterious inscription T:Lilley 1732. It is undoubtedly one of themost important pieces of delftware to cometo light for some time.The government grant-in-aid adminis-

tered by the Victoria and Albert Museumhas been considerably increased this year,otherwise it would not have been possibleto acquire the fine oak cupboard discussedelsewhere in this edition of the Calendar orsome pieces of early nineteenth centuryporcelain, including a pair of superlativeSwansea botanical dishes from the GosfordCastle service now displayed at Lotherton.It is good to be able to report that at long

last the alterations to Smithfield whichinclude accommodation f'r the reservecollections and study rooms are almostcomplete. This is not before time as thereis considerable pressure already from a

number of educational groups who arewanting to use the new f'acilities. Work onthe old chapel and the restoration of thesplendid eighteenth century library arewell advanced too.In June we welcomed Emmeline Leary to

the staff as Trainee Assistant. She is alreadymaking a valuable contribution in manydifferent activities including her work onthe costume collection.It is always sad to say goodbye to students

who have worked at Temple Newsam, butnone more than Karin Walton who was apost-graduate student here for two years.In particular we are gratef'ul and f'ull ofadmiration for the work that she put intothe recent and very successful exhibition ofEnglish upholstery. Our best wishes gowith her to Bristol where she is nowAssistant Curator of'Applied Arts.

Alfred Sisley (r88g—ggj, Les Champs (Fieldsl, oil on canvas, d6x 6r cm.

BE

The Rothwell Pottery and Its Wares

Recent studies have successfully identifiedcream-coloured earthenware made atfactories in Staffordshire, Derbyshire andthe West Country whose products hadpreviously been unknown. One of theresults of these studies has been to diminishthe reputation of the creamware made inYorkshire, particularly since a significantproportion of the pottery at one timethought to have been manufactured atLeeds can now be shown to have come fromeither Staffordshire or Derbyshire. Nodoubt some of this reputation will berecovered, and a better understanding ofthe creamware made at the Leeds Potterywill be gained, as more becomes knownabout the products of the other factories inSouth Yorkshire which made creamwarein the late eighteenth century. One of themore important of these factories was theRothwell Pottery which, as trial excava-tions have proved, made a creamwareequal in quality to much of that made atLeeds. This article is an endeavour torewrite the history of the Rothwell Potteryfrom contemporary sources —a task longoverdue as modern writers have reliedalmost exclusively on the accounts givenby the Kidsons and Grabham.'t is also arecord of recent attempts to identify thewares made at Rothwell from the excavatedevidence now available.The history of the Pottery at Rothwell,

which is about four miles south east ofLeeds, began in 1767 when a disused glasshouse and its adjoining buildings, situatedbetween the market cross and the beck inan area now known as Pottery Fold,were leased from Sir William Lowther for aperiod of twenty one years at a rent of$15a year. The lessees were named as JohnSmith of Silkstone and John Pullen, a

mason from Wath, and they also agreed totake the lease of Broomhill Close with itshouse and outbuildings from 1772 forseventeen years, the rent being g7 a year.They were granted the 'liberty of gettingclay for the making of brick and other usesin the works of a Pottery which they oreither of them shall carry on upon theabove demised premises in any such of thewaste grounds of the Manor of Rothwell'.2The glasshouse was converted into apottery in 1768 and it has been recordedthat the pots produced there were 'such asare made in Burslem in Staffordshire'ndthat the business was 'very briskly carriedon by Mr. J. Smith, Paintor'.s The Potteryexpanded rapidly and a flint mill and ahouse were built on Breary Royd Bottom.In 1770 there were three partners at

Rothwell but it appears that one of them,probably John Pullen, wanted to with-draw from the concern, as from May untilthe July of that year John Smith advertisedin the Leeds Mercury in the following way:'ROTHWELL POTWORKS One thirdshare of Rothwell Potworks to be disposedof. Any person intending to purchase, mayapply to Mr. Smith at Rothwell, one of theproprietors,'4 and in September 1770 thethree partners were named as John Smith,William Neild and John Sacheverele.Shortly after this James Ramsay becamethe fourth partner. A deed dated 1770shows that Sir William Lowther leasedto William Neild, a Leeds gentleman,'that building commonly called the glass-house but now used as a Pottery'. Thisdocument also provides us with a usefuldescription of the potworks at that time.There were 'three Ovens... for thebaking of Delpht-ware, and also five otherbuildings adjoining... called the Ware-

p P~.

1. Plate, d. a55 cm, pale cream, painted with manganese,green and yellow under the glaze. Heather Law renceCollection.

2. Plate, d. a55 cm, pale cream, painted with green andpurPle enamels. Heather Lawrence Collection.

house, the Hot-house, the Turning-house,the Damp-house, and the Slip-house, witha Slip-Pan and two stone Gisterns in thesame, also two Sun Pans a slip-Pan and anOven in the Yard...'.s The lease was forone year only, but it could be renewedannually for the sum of f34.

Sadly, as was so often the case withsimilar ventures in Yorkshire, the RothwellPottery was not a financial success. By1772 it was being operated at a loss andJohn Platt, the architect and potter whohad recently sold his own share in a potteryat Rotherham, was called in to value theworks at Rothwell. In December 1772 herecorded in his Diary that he was at'Rothwell valuing Building & Stock ofJ.Smith ye Painter and three more partnersof a Pottery at Rothwell near Leeds, whichthey gave up, the works not answering norcould they carry on without more capitalspent...'a A transcript of Platt's manu-script valuation, recently acquired by theBritish Museum Library, is printed as anappendix to this article.'he documentshows that the Rothwell Pottery was a fair-sized business, but tiny compared to thatat Leeds. The value of the building and itscontents, excluding models, moulds andpatterns was put at nearly $450. Plattvalued the flint mill and its contents at justover $440. Included in this valuation were63 tons of Devonshire clay at 29s. per ton,flint, white and red lead, finished wares, alarge quantity of fired and unfired wareand various types of bricks. Plat t remarkedthat the flint mill 'is believed to be the mostcompleat of the kind in England'nd thatit had not cost less than $600. The modelsmoulds etc. had cost nearly $200. Thiscould be compared to the same valuer'sassessment of the worth of the Leeds Potteryin 1791,which was $53,860. 14s. 8fd.In the January of 1773 the partners

agreed to make an immediate assignmentof their copartnership estate, stock andeffects for the benefit of creditors, and ameeting was called for 11th February to'chuse assignees'. Messrs. Fenton, Walker& Keeling were appointed. William Neildremained as agent in the warehouse, whichwe learn from an advertisement was 'openf'r sale as usual'Appendix I). The Roth-well Pottery was advertised for sale from

April until June, 1773'ut no purchasercould be found and the pottery wasadvertised again a year later in April andMay 1774, this time probably with success.No record of a sale has been traced but thePottery was not bought by Samuel Shaw, aStaffordshire potter, as the Kidsons sup-posed.'annah and Samuel Shaw's potteryin Rothwell was obviously a differentconcern (see Appendix IV). It seems likelythat the Rothwell Pottery was bought byWilliam Neild who remained there untilhis death in the late 1770's and that thenhis widow, Ann, carried on the business.Ann Neild married William Taylor

of'horpin July 1780~s and the Taylorsworked the pottery 1'r a further five yearsbefore —joining William Thompson at theCastleford Pottery and later establishingthe Swillington Bridge Pottery. In 1785 or1786 the Rothwell Pottery was let to E.Medley who advertised in February 1786:'ROTHWELL POTTERY E. Medley ofRothwell, Begs Leave to inform the Publicthat she has purchased the Stock in Trade,and all the Untersils belonging to thePottery at Rothwell near Leeds and hasalso taken the Pot Works there, latelyoccupied by Mr. Taylor.All persons who please to favor her withtheir Orders may depend upon being wellsupplied with the very best Articles, bothin the Fine and Common Ware and at themost reasonable

prices'.'he

lease of the Rothwell Pottery expiredin 1788 and there is no evidence to suggestthat any pottery was produced there afterthat date. William Taylor is given as thetenant in the Land Tax Assessments until1788, and presumably he sub-let the worksto E. Medley. Messrs. Burton &. Willanswere the tenants from 1789—90, but theiroccupation is not known.~s Batty recordsthat the tower at the pottery fell down in1808.'ottages were built on Pottery Foldand although these have been demolishedand the site is now vacant, the ground hasbeen much disturbed and a trial excavationin June 1972 yielded only a small amountof evidence for the wares made at theRothwell Pottery." Nevertheless, this addedto the evidence of shards found in the banksof the beck which runs along the northernboundary of the site, have enabled us to

Fig. t. Dratoings of fragments of tohite salt-glazedstonetoare found on Pottery Fold.

Fig. u. Moulded border patterns peculia~ to the RothtoellPottery; unglazed creamtoare shards.

Fig. d. Handle types, teapot necks, conical knob and anapplied terminal, unglazed creamvvare. Fragment of amoulded spout; pale creamvvare vvith a lemon glaze.

Fig. o. Moulded border patterns; unglazed creamuiareshards. The gadrooned toad-edged fragment is impressed onthe underside vvith the letter B.

identify, with some confidence, a numberof pots which were made at the RothwellPottery.

As we have seen the wares made atRothwell can be divided into two maingroups: those made from the coarse localclays which the owners were allowed by the1767 lease 'the liberty of getting'romland in the Rothwell district and thosemade from imported West Country claysand flint. A single shard of tin-glazedpottery was found on the site in June 1972.Obviously this does not constitute

proof'hat

delftware was made there, althoughthe 1770 deed mentions 'Delpht-ware'ndJewitt records a tradition that tin-glazedpottery was made in Yorkshire.'s The localred clay was in fact used to make a greatvariety of'domestic wares which were oftencovered in a white slip and 'blotched'itha manganese glaze. Numerous shards

of'his

ware have been found on the site,though little can be deduced from theseabout the shapes of the finished pieces.Of'ore interest are the so-called fine-

wares, and to get some idea of the range ofproducts made at Rothwell we must look,amusingly enough, at the records of'heWakefield sessions, for in January 1775Thomas Carr, who worked in the ware-house at the Pottery, was charged withstealing three 'Earthen plain Table plates,...twelve small plain Earthen plates,...three small painted Earthen plates,... fourEarthen Dishes and one Earthen Terene'

3. Teapot and lid, h. r6 cm, deep cream decorated toithmottled manganese and green glazes. National Trust,Treasurer's House, Torh.

belonging to the assignees, and 'three otherEarthen Dishes,... three other Earthenplates,... three Earthen Basons... threeEarthen painted Juggs,... one Earthenpicle leaf;... and one Earthen Terene',the property of Smith, Neild and Sacher-verele. Carr was found guilty and publiclywhipped. On the same occasion, when thewarehouse was broken into 'thirty sixdozen of the best plates called Queen'ware, several pieces of enamelled ware andseveral quantities of pottery of differentsorts'ere 'feloniously stolen thereout'.We now know that a white salt-glazed

stoneware of the type usually associatedwith the Staffordshire potters was made ata number of Yorkshire factories, althoughthe Kidsons thought that this idea waspreposterous.'hite salt-glaze was cer-tainly made at Rotherham for a trade-carddating from the time of Platt's partnershipwith Walker, which has been illustrated byKidell, lists 'White Stone Ware's one ofthe staple products of the Pottery.2o Thiswas during the early years of Rothwell and

there is some reason to suppose that a salt-glaze kiln was operating there as well.Unfortunately Platt's valuation (AppendixII) records nothing that would confirm thisbut several white salt-glazed fragmentshave been found on the site, three ofwhichare illustrated in Fig. 1.These do little morethan cast doubts on the widely held beliefthat all stoneware of this type was made inStaffordshire, but they are no less useful forthat. It must be said, however, thatattributions of white salt-glazed stonewareto Yorkshire factories, such as the juginscribed 'John Platt', recently discoveredby John Mallet, 're regarded verysceptically by some historians of Englishpottery.In an otherwise rather negative report

something positive can be said about thecream-coloured earthenware made at theRothwell Pottery. Numerous cream-coloured shards were found, both glazedand unglazed. They show that Rothwellcreamware was of a good quality andapparently well potted. The glaze coloursvaried greatly, but the most commonseems to have been a rather bright lemonyellow, often tinged with green. Anothertype of glaze —probably a later one —wasgreyish-green, rather like that found onlater Leeds pottery and some of the cream-ware thought to have been made at Castle-ford. A number of unglazed shards showborder patterns for plates which seem tohave been peculiar to Rothwell and fromthese it has been possible to identify anumber of pieces which were almostcertainly made there. Drawings of theseborders can be seen in Fig. 2. Fig. 2a, whichcould be called the leaf, cross and beadborder, occurs on a plate in HeatherLawrence's Collection in which the mould-ed pattern has been stained deep-green,and on another rather similar example inthe Yorkshire Museum, York (pl. 4) .Fig. 2b shows the Rothwell version of thefeather border which consists of eightequally spaced barbs and which has alreadybeen illustrated by Towner along withvariations used at Melbourne and Leedsand by Wedgwood and W. B. Fenton.Quite obviously we cannot expect to findthat factories were consistent in their useof the feather border —a very common

4. Plate, d. 36 cm, pale cream, the moulded border staineddeep green. 1orhshire Museum, forts.

5. Plate, d. g5 7 cm, pale cream, the moulded borderstained green. Heather Lawrence Collection.

pattern —and, for instance, the Melbournevariation is f'ound also on a block removedfrom the Leeds Pottery by the Kidsons inthe late nineteenth century and on acreamware sauceboat with Leeds-type ter-minals at Temple Newsam House. All theRothwell feather edge shards show thesame characteristics, however, and it seemsreasonable to attribute a number ofplates inHeather Lawrence's collection, two ofwhichare illustrated here (pls. 1 and 2) to Roth-well. The other borders which seem to havebeen peculiar to Rothwell are the 'cocks

tail'Fig

2c) and the very strange 'entwinedribbon'Fig. 2d). No complete piece ofcreamware with the ribbon border has beenfound, but Heather Lawrence possesses aplate on which the 'cocks tail'order hasbeen stained green (pl. 5). It should benoted that two rather similar 'cocks

tail'ordersused at Melbourne have beenillustrated by Towner.The other border patterns found at

Rothwell are by no means unique, butdrawings of them can be found in Fig. 3.which shows the bead edge (a), the gad-rooned border which seems to have beenused on wavy-edged as well as on octagonalplates (b), two borders described in theLeeds Pottery Pattern Book as 'Royal'nd'Queens'c and d respectively), a ribbedmoulding (e) and a simple moulding (f).On an unglazed shard with one of theseborders (Fig. 3b) was found the only markwhich has so far come from the site. Thiswas an impressed upper case letter B andno doubt belonged to a potter. Apart f'romthe border mouldings very few of the otherfeatures ofRothwell creamware are known.Fig. 4 shows some of the rather meagreevidence recovered from Pottery Fold. Thehandles used seem to have been much likethose used at Leeds: simple ribbed loops,loops with a single central groove and thedouble intertwined loop, either made fromcord-like pieces of clay or f'rom ribbedstrips of'lattened section. It would seemthat both square and globular teapots weremade with cable or bead mouldings andthat a conical knob was used. Evidence f'rone terminal only has been found a singleleaf—and a sauceboat in the YorkshireMuseum possesses this feature. There isevidence for slip-cast cream wares with

6. Part ofa tea service, deep cream, decorated tvith a mottled manganese glaze. Colonial 8'illiamsburg Foundation, Virginia.

elaborate moulded designs —perhaps likethose associated with William Greatbatch.A plate in the Treasurer's House, York,

which has cable borders of the type shownin Fig. 3b. Admittedly the type which ismottled with various coloured glazes iswell-known in Staffordshire, but we knowthat it was also produced at a number offactories in South Yorkshire as well, in-cluding Leeds. A number of shards withcoloured glazes have been found at Roth-well and on this particular plate in theTreasurer's House are found the marksmade by the type of stilts excavated atRothwell along with other kiln furniture.In the past some very un-Staffordshire

looking creamware with coloured glazeshas been called 'Wheildon'nd classed asStaffordshire. The Kidsons knew ofmarkedLeeds pottery decorated with metallicoxides but warned collectors that thesepieces were of the 'utmost rarity'nd thatit was not safe to assign this type ofware toLeeds in the absence of a mark.~n Morerecently Towner has attempted to identifysome of the unmarked Leeds 'tortoise-shellware'ncluding a now famous manganese-coloured coffee pot at Temple NewsamHouse.24 It was Donald Towner also whofirst began, on the evidence of the colourand appearance of shards belonging toHeather Lawrence, to attribute coloured-glazed creamware to Rothwell. Some time

ago he singled out a jug in the FitzwilliamMuseum, Cambridge as being possiblyfrom the Rothwell Pottery and he hasvery tentatively suggested that a teapotat Temple Newsam House could havebeen made there too. Since then a numberofpieces belonging to this group have cometo light including teapots in the Treasurer'sHouse, York (pl. 3), the Yorkshire Museumand in the Zeitlin collection and part of atea service in the Colonial WilliamsburgMuseum, Virginia (pl. 6) . It must beemphasised that the attribution of thisgroup to Rothwell is very tentative indeedat this stage, but we feel instinctively thatthe group was made in Yorkshire.Another type of ware which was

obviously made at Rothwell —certainlynear the end of the Pottery's existence —wasdecorated with 'marbled'lips which appearblack and brick-red in their unglazedstate, but this is a common Yorkshire typeand the shards found at Rothwell do notprovide enough evidence to suggest theforms used.Finally some progress has been made

towards identifying the painting done atRothwell. We have seen (p. 7 above andadvertisement, appendix I) that there isdocumentary evidence to show that thepainting was done at the works. Two platesin Heather Lawrence's collection, bothwith the moulded feather edge shown in

10

Fig. 2b, give us a clue as to what this lookedlike. One is painted in high temperaturecolours under the glaze with a bird designand the other in rather thick but delicatelyused enamel colours with flowers andfoliage (pls. 1 and 2).Admittedly the evidence for Rothwell

pottery is very slight. The pots which have

been positively identified are few andof'rchaeologicalrather than aesthetic signi-

ficance, but it is hoped, that by recordingwhat is known about Rothwell, an impor-tant Yorkshire factory will begin to receivemuch more serious consideration.

HEATHER LAWRENCEPETER WALTON

1. Joseph R. Kidson and Frank Kidson, HistoricalJVofices of the Leeds Old Pottery, Leeds, 1892,pp. 114—117;Oxley Grabham, Torkshirc potteries,Pots and Potters, York, 1916, pp. 95—6.The historical material used in this article is aresult of research done by Heather Lawrence onthe potteries ofYorkshire, much ofwhich will beincluded in her book Pots and Potteries of Torkshireto be published by David fk Charles later thisyear. We are grateful to the publishers forallowing this article to precede the publicationof the book. p.w.

2. From a deed in the Cusworth Hall Museum,Doncaster. I am indebted to Mr. John Goodchildfor this information. H.L.

3. From an anonymous 18th century M.S. history ofRothwell in the Leeds Reference Library.

4. Leeds Mercury, 29 May, 19 June and July 1770.The 29 May advertisement was first quoted bythe Kidsons, p. 114.

5. In Cusworth Hall Museum, Doncaster.6. A. J. B. Kidell, john Platt of Rofherham, Poller and

Mason —Architec/, in Transactions of'he EnglishCeramic Circle, vol. 5, pt. 3, 1962, p. 174.

7. Sold Christies, 2 December, 1970, Lot 186,British Museum Library, Department ot'anu-scripts.

8. Kidell, as above, p. 174.9. Leeds Mercury, 29 January, 1773.10. Leeds Mercury, 13April, 8 and 15June, 1773. The

Kidsons quoted the advertisement dated 13April,p. 115.For the text see Appendix I.

11. Leeds Mercury, 26 April and 3 May, 1774.

12. Kidson, p. 117.13. Leeds Intelfigencer, 11 July, 1780.14. Leeds Mercury, 21 February, 1786.15. From Land Tax Assessment in the West Riding

Registry of Deeds, Wakefield.16. John Batty, The History ofRolhtcelf, published by

the author, 1877.17. The authors are gratef'ul to Eileen Marshall of

Rothwell Public Library for locating aneighteenth century map of'othwell. Theyare also grateful to Peter C. D. Brears for hisinvaluable help and for that of Steven Clayton,Brian Donaghey and Simon, Penny and TobyLawrence during the investigation of the site.Thanks are also due to Mr. A. T. S. Robertson,the Town Clerk of Rothwell Urban DistrictCouncil for permission to carry out the investi-gation. The drawings of shards from PotteryFold in the possession of Heather Lawrence andTemple Newsam House were made by VandaWalton, for which thanks.

18. Llewellyn Jewitt, The Ceramic Art of Great Britain,I.ondon, 1878, vol. ii, p. 467.

19. Kidson, p. 15320. Kidell, as abov

ware on the premises, are intended to be sold to the best bidder, on Tuesday, the 22nd day ofJune next, betweenthe hours of 3 and 6 in the afternoon, at the house ofMrs. Cooke, the Old King's Arms, in Leeds, according toconditions then and there to be produced, unless before sold by private contract, ofwhich timely notice will begiven. For further particulars enquire of Thomas Fenton, Esq., of Rothwell Haigh, and Mr. Thomas Walker,of the Glass House, both in the parish of Rothwell, and Mr. Samuel Keeling of Rothwell, aforesaid, to whomJohn Smith 8c. Company, the late proprietors of the said Pottery, have assigned the same, together with therest ol their copartnership effects, in trust for the benefit of their partnership creditors, and all such persons asdo now stand indebted to the same copartnership are desired forthwith to pay the same to the said trustees, orthey will be sued without further notice.

And for a view of the premises to be sold enquire at the Pottery.The works are carried on, and the warehouse open for sale, as usual.

APPENDIX IIAN EDITED TRANSCRIPT OF JOHN PLATT'S VALUATION OF THE ROTHWELLPOTTERY, 1772By courtesy of the British Library Board.

An Inventory of the Stock in Trade Utensils Book Debts and Credits, Buildings and Improvements appertainingto the Pottery at Rothwell in the County of York the joint property ofJohn Smith John Sacheverele WilliamNeild & the Reprobative ofJames Ramsey Esq., Deceased taken by John Platt & Thomas Allot lin as Accuratea manner as the time &. information they were able to get would admit of....

ec

o0

CI'act

CI

The amount of the wares in the Warehouses the Green Ware & Bisketjincluded

Brick in Clamp 8r. in the yard 33 ThousandFirebricks Cupboard bricks 8t. QuarryWhite & Red LeadSundries in the Sliphouse 8t Mill for Glaze &Sundry Boards, paste, Benches, Barrows, 2 Carts, Drums, Planks, ScaleBeams & Weights, Dark Saggars & frames ..Sundries in the preparing Rooms including two throwing wheels 3Lathes with Chocks &c.The Pans, Shelves, Table &c. in the 2d. WarehouseThe Do...Belt Warehouse ..Building. The new Warehouse part of the Sliphouse. 3 Sheds & oneShed in the yard 2 kilns & the pot kiln in the Hovel ..Devonshire Clays 63 Tons 29/—..Cypruss Lawns N'. 66 34/—pr DoznA Large Quantity of Models, Moulds, patterns 8r. also the Working iMoulds, Blocks, Spout blocks Spout & Handle moulds the original cost ofwhich would be a considerable sum but had not time to particularize ..Total valuation of'he pottery

167. 9. 3.13. 4.6. 8. 4.13.22. 3. 3.29. —. 9.

12. 3. 10.2. 19.5. 8. 9.77. 6.91. 7.9. 9. 9.

L449. 19. 11.

60

CI

20 Tons of Flint Stones4d''urnt1350 Pecks of Ground Flint4 Tons of plaistor1$ Chaldron of Lime ..8000 Crate Rods2 Tons of ground fire Clay & Brick ..Sundry Ends of Timber &c...12 oak polesBarrow Wire Sieves & working Tools1$ Tons of SlateFlint kiln ............3.2 Brick building, slated over flint cistern .... 12.Building over the water wheel ......5.The Flint Mill including all the wheels Millwrights

[ 420work Machinery &c. as taken from particulars..

Total Valuation of pottery & Mill &c.

(a 20/—Cw 23/-

1 1 d.10,10/622/—

18. 5.

20.4. 12.61. 17.2.

15.8. 16.

11.2. 5.1. 16.2. 5.

18.

441. 6. 5.

f997. 2. 7.

Then follorvs a summary of the financial state of the Pottery uhich shows that on rd December, r77a the business wasinsolvent to the amount of gui5. ros. rod., the assets amounting to gr396. iys. zd. and the debt being gr6rz 8s. Thisisfollowed by an 'Account of the Securities for money and other Effects'hich formed part of the estate of Colonel games Ramsay.They amounted to gz r ag. rs. 8d.

12

Finally there are some general remarks which give a very graphic picture of the costings involved in e'tghteenth century earthen-ware manufacture:'The finished wares on a second valuation for the amounted to $200. The Bisket wares & Greenware included

in the valuation of the finished wares in the first Article if fixed up will cost abt $30 in labour & Materials &produce F130 at least.—'The buildings have certainly cost a great deal more money, but they are valued at a price a purchaser need

not scruple to give 1'r them.—

'Clays will Require as under for 63 Tons the following materials to make up into saleable wares4 Tons ofWhite Lead at f30 ..Coals to the amount ofCarriageWages to Manufacturers at L 10 pr. weekSundry contingent materials

$120$120$130630150

$1150

'This Sum of /1150 to be laid out in Manufacturing the materials on hand will produce weekly 2 kilns offinished ware at f24 pr. kiln which in 63 weeks will amount to $3024.'The Models moulds &c. cost nearly $200.'The Mill with the Machinery (exclusive of'all the materials) has not cost less than $600 and is believed to be

the most compleat of the kind in England, it's—supposed to clear (over & above our own Consumption during6 Rainy months 8. pounds per week-'In the summer season it used by Day only to grind plaistor clay & other materials for the General use

of'he

work, well work $20 pr. year.—'The annual Rent of the pottery with about 10 acres ofGrass Land (in the middle ofwhich the Mill is erected)

we made on a lease for 24 years renewable twice at the end of seven years during the life of the Lessor for L'44 —'.w.

APPENDIX IH

List of Potters mentioned in the Rothwell Parish Register.Thomas Wood, 1768—70Enoch Ball 1770—73Richard March 1770William Astbury 1770-1Thomas Nichels 1771Benjamin Taylor 1771John Wagstaff 1772Richard Taylor 1775Philip Porter 1778Handley Pool 1789Note: Hanley Pool is known to have worked at the Rothwell Pottery before moving to the Castleford Potteryand later to the Ferrybridge Pottery. Enoch Ball is later mentioned as living in Hunslet.

H.L.

APPENDIX IVTHE SHAW'S POTTERY AT ROTHWELLThe Shaw's Pottery has, in the past, been contused with the Rothwell Pottery.In February 1774 Hannah and Samuel Shaw demised two cottages and a barn, part of'which 'is now used as

an Oven or Firestead for the burning of'otts or Earthenware'.'annah Shaw had inherited this propertyfrom her father in 1767. She married Samuel Shaw at Rothwell in 1771 at which date they secre both describedas being of that parish.In June 1774 Samuel Shaw advertised in the I'ollowing way:'A New Pottery. This is to inform the Public, that Samuel Shaw of Rothwell, Potter (late of Sta(fordshirc)

makes and sells all sorts of Cream-coloured, Red, Yellow and Painted Ware, at his New Pottery in Rothwcll,where Tradesmen and Others may depend on being served at the very lowest Prices, Wholesale and

Retail.'haw

died in 1776 and on July 23rd of that year the following announcement appeared in the Leeds hdercury;'To be sold, by Wholesale or Retail, at the House of the late Samuel Shaw, in Rothwell, deceased, All sorts of

Cream-colour'd &. Painted Earthenware, also all kinds of Coarse Ware.The House, Workhouse, and all the Tools and Implements belonging to the Pottery to be Lett'.Nothing further is known of the Shaw's Pottery at Rothwell. Samuel Shaw's widow died in 1786. It is clear

that this Pottery was a di(ferent concern to the one on Pottery Fold, though it seems to have made very similarwares. The site of'he Shaw's Pottery has not been located.

H.LIn the West Riding Registry of Deeds; BR 244 316.Leeds ltdercury, 21 June, 1774; quoted by the Kidsons, p. 117,who interpretted it to mean that it was SamuelShaw who bought the Rothwell Pottery after the May 3rd advertisement of thc same year.

1. Detail of espagnolette mask dressed with vines, one of a pair of ormolu end mounts.

An Exceptional Bureau -Platbp B.V.R.B.

When the sumptuous early-Georgianlibrary at Temple Newsam is re-f'urnishedit will have for a centre-piece the recentlyacquired French table of impressive qualityand art-historical importance at presentdisplayed in the Chinese drawing room(Fig. 2). This table is stamped three times'BVRB'or Bernard van Risenburgh I I,one of the most admired Parisian cbenistcsof his day; it is not, however, just one morespectacular example of French f'urniturebecause there exists, in the DrawingsCollection of the Royal Institute of'BritishArchitects, an elegant pen and washdrawing of this very table (Fig. 4) in-scribed: 'J. Vardy delin at Mr.

Arundales'.'he

artist can readily be identified as JohnVardy, the celebrated mid-18th centuryarchitect, while Mr. Arundale is obviouslyRichard Arundale who commissionedVardy to design his country house atAllerton Park, Yorkshire in 1746;2 thistable evidently formed part of the furnish-ings of that building or perhaps his Londonhouse. It is significant that a prominentBritish architect, who had many oppor-tunities for influencing the taste ofhis fellowcountrymen, should have made a carefulpictorial record of this table; at that timeit was surmounted by an imposing carton-nier with a clock, candlebranches andsloping desk.The table is constructed with a pine top

and under boards, has oak rails and legs,walnut drawer linings and a tooled redmorocco leather writing surface. The king-wood veneer is inset with contrasting heart-shaped panels on the drawer fronts. Thecentral drawer is flanked by narrow con-cealed drawers (Fig. 3) between thelateral pair and the opposite side is facedwith a matching arrangement of dummydrawers. The long rails are impressedrather hesitantly in three places

'BVRB'nd

once with the letters 'FL'Fig. 6).None of the mounts carry stamps, althoughmost are incised with file marks corres-ponding to cuts on the framework to ensurecorrect positioning. One ormolu spray hasbeen re-cast from its twin component.Stamping of furniture with the ebeniste's

name or mark was first adumbrated insome draft amendments to the statues ofthe Corporation des Mcnuisiers-Ebcnistes in1743; these were given preliminary officialfbrm by letters patent signed by Louis XVin March 1744 and were ratified by theParliament in August 1751, so there wasno obligation to stamp a piece before 1751.There were three Parisian cbcnistes with theinitials B.V.R.B. but only the last twoemployed a stamp, for Bernard I died in1738.Bernard II, author of this table, hadbecome a maitre cbeniste by 1730 and diedin 1765/6.The earliest precisely datable bureau-plat

by B.V.R.B.II is one made for the Dauphinat Versailles in 1745. This (unstamped)example is in a considerably more fluentstyle that the Temple Newsam table which,in its rather severe silhouette, suggests adate round about 1740.s It is difficult toreconcile the early style with the presenceof van Risenburgh's stamp unless RichardArundale deliberately ordered a slightlyarchaic piece. The obscure mark 'FL'ayone day provide a clue to this puzzle.Unfortunately Vardy's drawing is undated,but on the evidence of'is designs forAllerton Park (dated 1746) it can hardly beearlier than that year. Accordingly perhapsthe most satisfactory provisional date 1'rthis table is circa 1745.Richard Arundale was a political figure

with architectural connections. He wasappointed at the age of'hirty SurveyorGeneral to the Office of'orks (1726—37)moving on to various posts including Master

15

of the Mint, Lord of the Treasury andCofferer of the Royal Household. He wasapparently regarded by contemporaries assomething of a dilettante aesthete.4 Arun-dale presumably became acquainted withVardy during his spell at the Office ofWorks and after 1746 engaged him toenlarge his seat in Yorkshire. A corres-pondent wrote to him in July 1750:"...yourPhilosophy must be great indeed that canat once transfer yourself from the Grandeurand pleasure of a Court life to the humb!e,but quiet and honest enjoyment of OldAllerton."s His letters disclose many con-tinental contacts, but do not reveal howthe table was acquired.Richard Arundale died without issue in

1759 and ten years later his estate passed toa nephew, the 2nd Viscount Galway ofSerlby Hall, Nottinghamshire where thistable, together with its companion carton-nier (which has since disappeared) wereremoved. Both items are recorded in aninventory of Serlby dated 25 Dec. 1774:

'Book Room —One writeing Table inlaidwith Brass R. Covered with Leather... ACase inlaid with brass and a Clock uponit.'he table passed by descent to thepresent Dowager Viscountess Galway whosold it at Christies on 23March 1972, lot 97.John Vardy was trained as a Palladian

architect and enjoyed a long career in theservice of the King's Works; the commissionto build Spencer House, London providesan indication of his stature. Drawingspreserved in the Victoria and AlbertMuseum and R.LB.A.Drawings Collectioninclude interesting designs for furnitureafter the manner of William Kent and inthe rococo idiom.'is brother Thomas, ahighly skilled ornamental carver engagedin decorating interiors and possibly f'urni-ture, may have worked closely with him.The art-historical significance of this

table resides not only in the fact that oneof the foremost British architects of the daywas moved to make a very detailed studyof its countenance, possibly with a view to

2. Bureau-plat made by Bernard van Risenburgh ll about t7dd and acquired by Richard Arundale of Allerton Park,?orkshire; 88 x 38 in. Purchased by Leeds Corporation anth the aid of a special government grant and contributions from t eyl; A.C.F., Christies, Sir George Afartin and the L.A.C.F. in egypt.

4. Pen and toash dratoing of the bureau-plat, c. t7d5—5o(6$ x top) inscribed 'j. Vardy delin at Mr. Arundales'.Lent to Temple Xetosam by the Royal Institute of BritishA rchitects.

using the repertoire of ornament later or inorder to create a library for Arundalecentred on this masterpiece. Vardy (andmore speculatively his brother) was in aposition to exert powerful influence ondecorative craftsmanship during the vitalfbrmative phase of the English rococo styleand this table with its allied portrait, helpsto illuminate the cross currents of taste atthe time.The table is also important as one of'the

few pieces of French furniture known tohave been in England prior to the SevenYears War, which ended in 1763. Thereis little evidence of a demand for Frenchcabinet work during the 1740's and 50'salthough Thomas Chippendale supplied aFrench Boulle commode to the Earl ofDumfries in 1759. The vogue reallydeveloped during the following decadewhen, for instance, Chippendale visitedFrance and arranged to import chairframes and the Parisian ebeniste PierreLanglois, who established a shop in London,was widely patronised by the nobility and

gentry. Richard Arundale, in acquiringthis handsome table almost certainly duringthe 1740's, anticipated by some fifteenyears the exclusive taste f'r fine qualityFrench furniture.Viewed in terms of the Temple Newsam

furniture collection this table represents,for the first time, French ebenisterie of elitequality. The top, of unpanelled boardconstruction and the walnut drawer liningsoffer an instructive comparison with tradi-tional English craft methods and the hightechnical finish of the veneered surfacesmakes an interesting comment on equiva-lent native work. However, it is the massivematurity of outline, carefully studied pro-portions and sophisticated ormolu mountsinvested with sculptural qualities elevatingthem to minor works of art in their ownright that are most striking and makemuch of the English rococo furniturealready at Temple Newsam appear dis-tinctly modest in character.

CHRISTOPHER GILBERT

17

~ IRg» s

6. Imprint of the maker's mark (stamped three limes) andunidentified impressed initials F.L.

3. Detail showing one of the pair of narrow concealed drauurn

5. Detail of ormolu mount on veneered kinguood groundinset neith contrasting panels.

NQ. K9/17.H.M. Colvin, Dictz'onai> of English .4rchitect.s,p. 642.I am gratel'ul to Sir Francis Watson for this andother observations concerned with dating thepiece.I am indebted to Howard Colvin for particularsabout Arundale's career.

5. Nottingham University Library, Galway M.S.P.C. 0/3/20.

6. Nottingham University Library, Galway M.C.5/3: 12, 701.

7. P. Ward-Jackson, English Furniture Designs of theEighteenth Century, pp. 36-7 and pls. 39-45.

8. C. Gilbert, 'Thomas Chippendale at DumfriesHouse', Burlington, Nov. 1969.

I am grateful to Peter Thornton for perceptive com-ments on the art-historical ramifications ol'hc table.

An Oak Cupboard made in Lancashire

One of the highlights of the exhibition ofOak Furniture from Lancashire and theLake District held at Temple Newsamduring the autumn was a handsome cup-board bought for the Leeds collectionsearlier in the year with the aid of a govern-ment grant (Fig. I).Ofoak, it is constructedin two stages, the lower with two drawersabove a pair of doors, the upper slightlyrecessed, with a door either side of a fixedcentral panel. The frieze above projectsand has a drop finial at each end. Thecornice is missing and the knobs are re-placements, but otherwise the cupboard isin original condition throughout. Vigorouscarved decoration, for the most part in arather distinctive flat manner, is concen-trated on the upper stage. The lower iscarved too, and sports inlaid bands in twosimple designs, giving a certain variety ofcolour, yellow and black contrasting withthe almost luminous reddish brown of therest of the cupboard. There are raisedpanels in the front and sides, and these,together with the moulded drawer fronts,would in themselves have indicated a dateof c. 1700 were the top frieze not anywaydated 1705 and initialled RSM. Theinitials are probably those of the originalowners but so far they have not beenidentified.It is known, however, where the cup-

board was made, for a verbal tradition hasit that it came from a farmhouse in theTrough of Bowland. This can be corrobo-rated by the similarity of a number ofotherpieces of furniture also connected withnorth Lancashire, in particular a finecupboard, somewhat smaller in scale andwith a different arrangement of drawers,at Towneley Hall, Burnley. It is initialledand dated IDM 1706. The latest relatedexample yet discovered is a cupboard which

crossed the Atlantic and was formerly in thecollection of the Philadelphia Museum ofArt.'his one was made in 1712.The sevenyears that separate it from the cupboardnow in Leeds made all the difference. Thetradition clearly declined, for the exuberantdecoration held in check on the earlier gaveway to a riot of carving and a dazzlingdisplay of inlay. Two motifs only, withvariations, account for nearly all thecarving on the Temple Newsam example,and give it a balanced appearance that waslost on the later cupboard and on muchother furniture made at the end of the'Jacobean'radition. It is not certain wherethe motifs came from, but sources ofinspiration other than printed patternbooks are probably involved as they canhardly have made inroads far into the moreisolated parts of the country. It is perhapsworth noting, therefore, that the leaf andbunch of grapes on the topmost frieze andelsewhere (Fig. 2) do occur on a pre-Norman cross at Lancaster, although notquite in this form.2The immediate ancestry of the Temple

Newsam cupboard and the other membersof the same family can be traced back to1657.This is the date carved on the earliestmember of a distinctly related group,3 evenmore numerous but just as certainly madein north Lancashire. The common factorhere is a characteristic band of carving notunlike the pattern that was used most on theLeeds cupboard, and a delightful paneldesign that grew out of it. The two are seentogether on a beautiful dark chest at St.Mary's Lancaster which, made in 1706, alsohappens to be the latest of that series yetdiscovered.4 They also occur on the pulpitof 1684 at Over Wyresdale in the Troughof Bowland and it is satisfying that at leastone of the places where the craftsmen

19

1. Oak cupboard initialled and dated RSM t7o5, 2. Detail of the upper stage.probably from a farmhouse in the 7 rough of Botoland.

responsible were working can be pin-pointed with certainty.Taken together, the two groups of

furniture well demonstrate the survival oftraditional forms and carved designs incountry areas away from London. Thissurvival was entirely unselfconscious: it hadnothing of the deliberation of the Arts RCrafts movement two centuries later, butrested on the conservative taste of the land-

owners for whom the furniture was made,and the adherence of the craftsmen to localtimbers, well-tried methods and establisheddesigns. The Temple Newsam cupboard isa shining example of this tradition inLancashire and, being dated, is a piece ofconsiderable documentary importance.

ANTHONY WELLS-COLE

1. J. D. Morse ted.l, Country Cabinettoork and SimpleCity Furniture, Winterthur Conference Report1969, Fig. 2.

2. W. G. Collingwood, Xorthumbrian Crosses of thePre-~vorman Age, 1927, Fig. 74.

3. Christies 25 iv 1968 lot 119.4. Temple Newsam, Leeds, Oak Furniture from

Lancashire and the Lake District, 1973, no. 10.

20

3 Leeds Collectors JVotebook:z Creamware

The nineteenth century use of the term'Leeds Ware's a convenient label for allcream-coloured earthenware was discussedin an earlier article in the Calendar.'hatThomas Hollings, who gave his largecollection of English pottery to TempleNewsam House in 1946—7, used a similarterminology is shown by the way in whichhe kept his Notebook, for in this Hollingsdivided his collection into two clearlydefined groups. The slipware, salt-glazeand early lead-glazed wares, which Hollingsattributed mainly to Staffordshire andwhich formed one of these groups, was thesubject of the first part of this article.~ Theother group, which Hollings described in alist numbered 1—667, included

'pearlware'nd

blackware but consisted mainly ofcream-coloured earthenware invariablyattributed to Leeds. In a letter, writtentowards the end of his life, ThomasHollings emphasised this division withinhis collection which he described as acollection 'of Leeds and other Pottery'.3It is difficult to appreciate why so much

creamware came to be attributed to theLeeds Pottery, especially as we know thatcollectors have always been aware that itwas made by a great many other factoriesas we11,4 but as early as 1892 Joseph andFrank Kidson in their monograph, Historicalnotices of the Leeds Old Pottery, found itnecessary to 'remind the collector that allCream ware is not Leeds, as, unfortunately,many collectors and curators of museumsappear to think'.s The mania for collecting'Leeds Ware'as at its height at this time,and no doubt the acquisition and displayof the creamware in the John HolmesCollection by the new Leeds MunicipalArt Gallery in 1892 added fresh impetus tothe craze in Yorkshire. It is rather amusingto note that a creamware plate in theHolmes Collection which is clearly im-pressed 'WEDGWOOD's described in theearly records of the Art Gallery as 'Leeds'.This uncritical use of the term persisted

amongst historians of ceramics until atleast 1957when the first work to be devotedentirely to English cream-coloured earthen-ware was published and Donald Townerestablished a classification for creamware.In 1924, for example, Rackham and Readin their important work on English potterypublished a rather fine creamware cruetin the R. T. Walker Collection at TempleNewsam as Leeds. It is, in fact, verypositively impressed with the mark of Peterand Francis Warburton who were Stafford-shire potters (pl.

2).'he

subscribers'ist in the Kidson's bookprovides us with a useful directory of thecollectors of 'Leeds Ware'n the lastquarter of the nineteenth century. A greatmany of them lived in the Leeds area, andalthough Hollings travelled all over thecountry to assemble his collection of LeedsPottery the majority of it came directly orindirectly from great local collectionslike those of Edward Bond, T. PridgenTeale, John Rhodes, John Manning, JohnMarshall Barwick and Richard Wilson.Much of the pottery in these collections wasdispersed in the Leeds salerooms ofHepper&, Sons, Hollis &.Webb and Abraham Riley&. Son which had for so long been themarket place for collectors ofLeeds potteryin Yorkshire. The other main source wasthe Kidsons'hop in Albion Street, thestock of which was also drawn from themajor Leeds collections. It is of interest thatHollings rarely bought 'Leeds Ware'nLondon although he bought comprehen-sively at many of the great London sales ofEnglish pottery in the twenties and thirties.The fashion for collecting creamware seemsto have been centred in the north ofEngland.Much of the 'Leeds Ware'n the Hollings

collection then, can be traced —with theaid of his Notebook —to local sources. Inaddition a lot of it can be shown to have aprovenance which goes back to the mid-nineteenth century when the collecting of

21

o't

1. Thomas Hollings zoith 'Leeds Ware'rom his collectz'on in t9d6.Photo: Torkshire Post Aezzzspapers Ltd.

English pottery was in its infancy. A tea-kettle and stand (4.3/46 and 16.75/47), f'rinstance, came from one of the earliest ofthe Leeds collections —that formed byEdward Bond in the eighteen sixties andseventies and sold almost ten years befbrethe publication of the Kidsons'ook. Infact the piece is illustrated by the Kidsonsin a photograph taken from the Heppersale catalogue of 1884.9 Some pieces suchas the 'pearlware'uzzle jug (16.134/47)illustrated by Jewitt'elonged to theBritten family who were proprietors of the

Leeds Pottery from 1850 until 1878. Thisand a great many other pots in theHollings Collection came from the vastcollection assembled by Richard Wilson

of'rmley.Some of these were bought at theWilson sales in Leeds and others at thesale ofH. C. Embleton in Newcastle UponTyne in 1930."Embleton, who incidentallygave a considerable amount of'Leeds Ware'o

Temple Newsam just before his sale, hadacquired a major part of the WilsonCollection when it was dispersed between1910 and 1918. Fortunately the three

22

volumes of the manuscript catalogue ofRichard Wilson's Collection are now atTemple Newsam, and besides the Note-book described in part one of this articleanother book kept by Thomas Hollings hasrecently come to light. These five volumesprovide a great deal of information aboutthe creamware in the Leeds Art Museums.The provenance of English pottery hasrarely been taken seriously by writers on thesubject, but the advantages of a collection,a major part ofwhich can be shown to comefrom local sources in an area with a longhistory of potting, are obvious. No doubtwhen the present furore in the world ofceramic history, which has lead to the re-attribution of so much 'Leeds Ware'ofactories other than Leeds, has died down, agreat deal of the creamware at TempleNewsam will again be recognised as Leedspottery. Before this happy day arrives thecollections in Leeds will have to undergo arigorous critical reappraisal and the mainpurpose of this article is to isolate somegroups of creamware at Temple Newsamwhich were definitely not made at the LeedsPottery.One of the earliest pieces of creamware

in the Hollings Collection is a deep creamteapot decorated with applied decorationstained with various colours (pl. 3) .Hollings, who bought the pot from theClarke Sale in 1919,'s attributed it to

Wheildon. His attribution can be con-firmed since the recent excavation on theFenton Low site in Staffordshire. The tea-pot was almost certainly made duringThomas Wheildon's partnership withJosiah Wedgwood from 1754 to 1759beforeWedgwood began the experiments whichwere to change the face of the pottingindustry.'s It is worth noting that Hollingswas well aware of a difference betweenStaffordshire coloured-glazed wares andthose ofYorkshire —not a recent distinctionas we tend to think —and he attributed anumber of these wares to Leeds, including asmall chocolate pot with a mottled blueglaze (16.299(47).Two Potteries which the early collectors

in Leeds would never have thought toconsider as possible manufacturers of thecreamware in their collections were inDerbyshire. One of these —the Cock PitHill Factory in Derby was known to them,but for some reason it was considered tohave been more important as a centre forthe making of slipware than for the manu-facture of creamware.'4 The other, atMelbourne, a few miles south of Derby,was completely unknown until 1957 whenan excavation, which has since caused agreat deal ofinterest, was carried out.'hecreamware which is linked, on the strengthof marked transfer-printed pieces, to theDerby Pot Works is a now well recognised

3. Teapot and lid, h. tq5 cm, deep cream, the applieddecoration stained yellow, green and deep brown. Made byThomas Wheildon and josiah Wedgtoood at Fenton Low,175$—59. Bequeathed by Thomas Hollings 19/7.

2. Cruet with three bottles and two castors, h. a85 cm,pale cream, the inscriptions in light-red. Made by Peter andFrancis Warburton, Cobridge c. s79o. Bequeathed by R. T.Walker s9or.

group. Two pieces at Temple NewsamHouse were discussed in a Calendar articlein 1955.'ne of'these was a teapot in thecollection of Mrs. Arthur Smith (10.6/38)painted in black and iron-red with theinscription 'Wilkes and Liberty'. The otherpiece, which Thomas Hollings clearlythought of as a product of Leeds (16.162/47), was a deep cream teapot withbroad bead mouldings and a charmingpainted chinoiserie design. This group ofcreamware has now been better defined byTowner," and since then a number ofotherpieces in the Hollings Collection have beenattributed to Derby including an ovoid tea-pot with a foliate scroll handle cut square —atypical Derby feature —and painted inbright iron-red with bouquets of flowers(16.110 47). Hollings refused to commithimself to an attribution for this pot whichhe no doubt recognised as being verydifferent to anything else which he associ-ated with Leeds. He did, however, enter itin his 'Leeds Ware'ist. The painting on thispiece is interesting as it occurred in exactlythe same form on a teapot with very dis-tinctive Melbourne features in the LowyCollection.'ndeed it seems not unsur-prisingly —that the two Derbyshire factoriesoften used the same decorators as a coffeepot, convincingly attributed to Melbourneby Donald Towner, is painted in brightiron-red and green in the rather clumsystyle associated with the wares of Cock PitHill (pl. 4). It would seem also—again notunsurprisingly —that painters from Leedsworked in Derbyshire for one of the mostconvincing Melbourne pots in the wholecollection is painted in the Leeds style asoriginally defined by Towner s althoughit is in the purple monochrome typical ofmuch Melbourne painting rather than inthe iron-red and black associated withLeeds (pl. 5).This teapot, which comes fromthe Richard Wilson Collection via H. C.Embleton and Thomas Hollings, has manyof the features which occur on shards fromthe Melbourne site: a pierced acorn knob,straight spout, rather straggly terminalswhich also occur on a cake stand in DonaldTowner's Collection'~ and borders of dia-mond pattern. Richard Wilson consideredthe pot to have been made in Leeds,recording as he so of'ten did: 'no mark.

Leeds'. The Kidsons, who illustrated theteapot, were clearly unsure of it as theysuggested that the decoration was of'German type and that the pot could wellhave been painted abroad."Although there is as yet no documentary

evidence, it can be convincingly demons-trated that the Derbyshire Potteries senttheir wares to Leeds to be decorated.~~This idea disturbs the now long establishedgroup of early that is pre-1770 Leedscreamware as many of the pots in thisgroup were attributed to Leeds by Towneron the grounds that they bore Leedspainting. The more one examines thisgroup the more tempting it is to make newattributions. A beautiful teapot (16.161/47)in the Hollings Collection, moulded with agilt band and painted in iron-red and blackin the Leeds style with quaint buildingswithin landscapes is a case in point as itsshape and general appearance are likemany of the pots already attributed toDerbyshire. In this context it is interestingto consider a bowl (pl. 6), recently acquiredfor Temple Newsam. This has beenattributed to Derby, presumably becausethe painting, which is in iron-red, black andgreen, occurs on recognisable Cock Pit Hillpieces. The painting is, however, far morelikely to have been done at Leeds and thereis no reason at all why both the bowl andthe teapot should not have been sent toLeeds for decoration. Much work will haveto be done in the future on this early groupand so much rests on the date of'heestablishment of the Leeds Pottery whichis still debatable. It is rather interesting todiscover that the nineteenth century Leedscollectors possessed very little of this earlycreamware. Certainly very little, if any,can be identified in the Richard Wilsoncatalogue, and the Kidsons do not appearto have illustrated a single piece. Most ofthe early creamware in the HollingsCollection, including the teapot mentionedabove, was bought in London.A number of other 'Leeds'ieces in the

Temple Newsam collection have recentlybeen re-attributed to Derbyshire. One ofthese, a deep cream teapot on three paw1'eet and transfer-printed in black withlovers in a landscape (16.221/47), wasbought by Hollings from Kidson. Hollings

24

I IMIl IS Sl

S il

j

4. Goree pot and lid, h. en 5 cm, deep cream, paintediron-red, green and brown. Melbourne, Derbyshire, c. s77o.Given by Thomas Hotlings sctd6.

attributed it to Leeds which is strangebecause it is quite unlike most of'the cream-ware associated with the factory, althoughas late as 1958 it was exhibited in the 'LeedsCreamware'xhibition at Kenwood. Thepot with its distinctively crackled glaze isundoubtedly a Cock Pit Hill piece as isanother teapot moulded with a pineappledesign (16.323/47) and stained withcoloured glazes. A teapot which is similarto one identified by Towner as Melbourne(4.27/46) is a charming example with verycharacteristic 'briar'erminals and is decor-ated in iron-red and black with a diaperpattern. A lobed plate pierced with designswhich form crown-shapes —a type ofdecora-tion which occurs amongst the Melbourne

shards —is printed in purple monochromewith flower sprays (16.338/47). A plaincreamware basket (16.241/47), related inform to the plate, also has some verycharacteristic features, including the ribbedmoulding and 'straggly'erminals.In 1850, Joseph Marryat in his sf History

of Pottery and Porcelain, referred to the LeedsPottery Pattern Book in the British MuseumLibrary which, he said, was 'interesting asidentifying the ware by comparison withthe engravings.'t is rather surprising thatsince then there have been so few scientificattempts to relate articles of creamware topattern book designs, for the pattern bookspublished by the late eighteenth centurymanuf'acturers like those of'edgwood(1774), Leeds (1783), Dunderdale (1796)and Whiteheads of Hanley (1798) providea wealth of information about shapes,pierced designs and moulded details. It istrue of course that as the manufacturerscopied each other's designs, many of theengravings in their pattern books aresimilar and sometimes almost identical tothose of their competitors, and thereforethe ability to relate a piece of creamware toan engraved design does not constitutecomplete evidence f'r an attribution. Onthe other hand a serious and thorough-going attempt to correlate whole collectionsof creamware with manufacturers'esignswill undoubtedly prove to be a rewardingexercise and a valuable contribution toeighteenth century ceramic studies.One of the first of the Yorkshire collectors

to use pattern books was probably RichardWilson who tentatively distinguished un-marked creamware made at Castlefordfrom that made at Leeds. That he did thiswas undoubtedly due to the fact that hepossessed a copy of'he engraved patternbook ofDavid Dunderdale 8t Co.24 as wellas the better known pattern book of theLeeds Pottery. None ofhis Castleford piecesappear to have come to Temple Newsam,although a number of'ots in othercollections here have been identified fromthe engravings, including a water cisternf'rom Lord Airedale (15.13/42) which corres-ponds exactly to design number one:'Lavemain f'ait a fbntaine, uni'. The Kid-sons illustrated a similar cistern —if not thesame one —f'rom the Walker Joy Collection,

25

5. TeaPot and lid, h. s8 8 cm, deeP cream, Painted in PurPle monochrome and gilt. Melbourne, Derbyshire, c. r77o.Bequeathed by Thomas Hottings 1947.

and, in spite of their strictures about'museum curators who ought to knowbetter', they attributed it to the LeedsPottery. It is difficult to gauge the qualityof Castleford creamware for it is so littleknown. Even at the height of the collectingmania the organisers of the Old LeedsExhibition in 1908 were obviously hardpressed to find even seven pieces of cream-ware for the Castleford section whichincluded thirty-two exhibits. Jewitt, whohad no doubt handled a number ofmarkedpieces, considered Gastleford creamwareto be 'of an excellent quality and goodcolour',s6 but later writers, notably Arch-deacon H. A. Hall, did not share thisopinion. He thought that it was 'verybadly designed and badly potted'.s'er-tainly the pieces so far identified at TempleNewsam are not of a particularly goodquality. They all have a very white bodycovered with a rather 'sticky'reyish glaze.

A cruet stand in the Hollings Collection(16.324/47) is made of a very similarcreamware and corresponds very closely toengraving number twenty three: 'Plat-menage garni de 5 pieces'.Over half the designs in the Castleford

Pattern Book are copied from the Leedsbook and many others are very similar.This makes it very difficult indeed todistinguish between the late wares of'hetwo Yorkshire factories, although many

of'he

engravings show slight differences,particularly in moulded details, and thesecan make all the difference in the identifi-cation of the finished product. Anotherf'actory whose wares have undoubtedlybeen confused with those of Leeds was thatowned by James and Charles Whiteheadin Hanley, Staffordshire, whose patternbook has actually been mistaken f'r theLeeds Pattern Book. A copy in the Wedg-wood Museum at Barlaston has, at some

26

time, been inscribed 'Not Wedgwood...Hartley Greens & Co., Leeds'. The White-head book was discovered some time ago inthe Solon Library by Reginald Haggar,but it was Michael Parkinson, writing inthis Calendar, who made some of the firstattributions to Whiteheads.2s Amongst thepieces identified then were a pair of vasecandlesticks (16.88/47) which Hollingsbought from Kidson in 1930 and recordedin his 'Leeds Ware'ist. These are made ofa very white, hard and thickly pottedcreamware —so distinctive in fact that itseems that the Whitehead products willprove quite easy to identify. A fluted waterewer (16.82/47) with a ribbed doubleintertwined loop handle in the HollingsCollection, which was not mentioned inMichael Parkinson's article, is made froma very similar material and appears in theWhitehead book as engraving number 115.There is another, rather similar ewer, in theHollings Collection (16.80/47), but thebody material is a lot softer and moreyellow. Furthermore it does not have therather distinctive feature ofmoulded scroll-work at the rim near the handle whichoccurs on the other ewer and on the White-heads engraving. Now that the WhiteheadPattern Book has been reprinted this groupof creamware will become better known.2~

One class of creamware which is stilloften confused with the products ofHartleyGreens & Co. is the modern creamwaremade by the Senior family, althoughcollectors have long known of its existence.In fact this very white, rather brittlematerial with a grey and very finelycrackled glaze is visually fairly easy todistinguish from its eighteenth centurycounterpart, but it is good to have con-firmation of attributions to Senior in theform of the catalogue of 'Reproductions ofLeeds Pottery'ublished by W. W. Slee in1913.s This catalogue was sadly the cause ofsome bitterness between the Seniors andSlee since nowhere does it acknowledge theSeniors work. A rather strange quatrefoil'egg tray'n a high foot in Lord Airedale'sCollection, which was formerly attributed-if rather suspiciously —to Hartley Greens& Co., corresponds to design number 555in Slee's catalogue and apparently cost$1.1.0in 1913.A number of other pieces

in the collection are modern including twoshell dishes, one of which is impressed'LEEDS * POTTERY'. They correspondto design number 571 in the catalogue andalso to eighteenth century blocks from theLeeds Pottery which are at Temple NewsamHouse. Two modern creamware figures ofBachus (16.192/47) and Venus (16.195/47)are also taken from eighteenth centurymoulds. Unfortunately these figures havenot been traced in the Hollings Note-book, but it is fairly obvious that themodern creamware deceived collectors inthe early part of the century and changedhands in the salerooms in Leeds as eight-eenth century creamware. A vase in theH. C. Embleton Collection (1928.94), forinstance, is obviously a modern productbut formerly belonged to Richard Wilsonwho does not seem to have had manydoubts about it.The photograph on page 22, taken in

1946, shows Thomas Hollings with one ofthe most intriguing pieces of 'Leeds

Ware'n

the whole of his collection —a coffee potwhich he had bought in London aboutten years previously. Undoubtedly hisinterest in it lay in the fact that it is in-scribed GREEN LEEDS 1768 (16.90/47).On close examination, however, the baseon which the inscription has been incisedcan be seen to be a false one, although itwould seem to be contemporary with thepot which was actually made by Wedgwoodand is marked as such on the true base. Thesignificance of the coflee pot, and partic-ularly the date, remains as much of amystery as do the products of the Leedscreamware factory before 1770. Unfortun-ately Hollings made no comment about thepiece in his Notebook. It appears that heaccepted the inscription as a genuine one.Quite what he would have made of recentattempts to attribute his 'Leeds Ware'ofactories other than Leeds we shall neverknow. No doubt he would have consideredthat the origin of a piece of creamware wasof far less importance than its quality andthe quality of the creamware in the ThomasHollings Collection bears witness to thetaste and discrimination of a great York-shire collector.

PETER WALTON

27

hl ~u6. Bowl, d. F5 cm, deep cream, pa nted t'n iron-red, black and green. Derbyshire or 7orkshire, probably painted in Leeds,c. r77o. Bought t973.1.

2.

Michael R. Parkinson, Mr. Greg's 'Leeds Ware',L.A.C., no. 67, 1970, pp. 18—27.L.A.C., no. 67, 1970, pp. 4—11.Thomas Hollings to Mr. Hendy, 10 July, 1945ITemple Newsam House).Parkinson, as above, pp. 18—19.

5. Kidson, p. 52.6. Donald C. '1'owner, English Cream-Coloured Earthen-

ware, Faber, 1957. The book is presently beingrevised by Mr. Towner.

7. Bernard Rackham & Herbert Read, Engl'tshPottery, Ernest Berm, 1924 (republished E.P.Publishing Ltd., 1972), Fig. 193.

8. L.A.C., no. 67, p. 4.9. Edward Bond; sale Hepper, Leeds, 8—9 October,

1884, Lot 89. Kidson pl. 8.10. Llewellyn Jewitt, The Ceramic Art of Great Britain,

1878, vol. 1, p. 480—81, ill. Fig. 857.11. H. C. Embleton; sale, Anderson & Garland,

Newcastle-upon-Tyne, 14 April, 1930.12. A. E. Clarke; sale Sothebys, 18 June, 1919,

Lot 251.13. I am grateful to Arnold Mountford, Director ol

the City ivluseum and Art Gallery, Stoke-on-Trent, for help with the attribution of Statford-shire pottery at Temple Newsam.

14. Rackham and Read op. cit. pp. 26—27.15. Franklin A. Barrett and Arthur C. Thorpe in

Transactions of the English Ceramic Society,vol. 5, pt. 3, 1962.

16. Geoff'rey Godden, A Derby Tea-Pot in the LeedsCollection, L.A.C., no, 15, pp. 15—18 and p. 20.

17. Donald C. Towner, The Cock Pit H'tll PotteryDerby, in Transactions of the English CeramicCircle, vol. 6, pt. 3, 1967.

18. Sold Sothebys, 2 May, 1972, Lot 47.19. Donald C. Towner, The Leeds Pottery, 1963,

pp. 30—32.20. Donald C. Towner, The Melbourne Pottery, in

Trans. E.C.C. vol. 8, pt. 1, pl. 22a.21. Kidson p. 126, pl. 13.22. Helen Whybrow, Enamel Painting Cream-Coloured

Earthenware Between r76o and t78o, unpublisheddissertation for the University of'eeds, 1972,p. 17.

23. Miss Joan Elliot-Smith; sold Sothebys, 17 April,1973, Lot 73.

24. The Castleford Pottery Pattern Book, 1796 Ire-printed by E.P. Publishing Ltd., 1973).Wilson*scopy was exhibited in 1908 at the 'Old LeedsExhibition'n the City Art Gallery, Leeds.Catalogue no. 164.

25. Kidson, p. 52. The cistern is illustrated in plate11.

26. Jewitt, Ceramic Art, vol. 1, p. 278.27. Old Leeds Exhibition Catalogue, 1908, p. 41.28. L.A.C., no. 67, p. 20.29. james and Charles Whitehead, Manufacturers, Hanley,

Stajfordshire, Designs of Sundry Articles of Earthen-ware, 1798.

30. W. W. Slee, 30 Duncan Street, Leeds, Repro-ductions of Leeds Pottery, Queen's Ware, Leeds,October 1913.

28

Sir Thomas Gascoigne's Snug Boxes

In the huge art collection given to Leeds bySir Alvary and Lady Gascoigne in 1968 arenearly a dozen-and-a-half'oxes made byEuropean and Scandinavian golds mithsduring the eighteenth and early nineteenthcenturies. They are boxes for snuff; patchesand smelling salts and many are English,including a simple but masterly box fromthat prolific craftsman A. J. Strachan. Butthe most interesting are the continental.Two are the sort of box available in Paris inthe 1760s and 70s. The earlier was madeby Antoine Blocquet in 1769—70 and isa straightforward, all-gold box made foreveryday use.'t was probably bought newin Paris by Sir Thomas Gascoigne, 8thBaronet, for he spent a good deal of his lifethere. It was certainly in the family in 1810as it is engraved inside the lid with thecrests of the Gascoignes and the Olivers ofGastle Oliver in Co. Limerick: Sir Thomasdied that year and was succeeded byRichard Oliver who took Gascoigne for hissurname. So no doubt it was he that hadthe crests put there. The later of the twoboxes (Fig. 2) probably has the samehistory although for some reason it was notengraved with the family crests. It wasmade in 1772—3 by Jean-Baptiste-Sebastiende Saint-Julien whose work is rare. Likethe earlier it is of fine quality and showssigns of the wear it would have receivedthrough constant handling.Sir Thomas acquired a much more

important if less practical box in Paris, bytradition as a gift from Marie Antoinettewhose miniature portrait on ivory appearson the lid. Of tortoiseshell mounted in gold(Fig. 3), it was made in 1772—3, probablyby Joseph Gibert or Alexandre Gaucher:the maker's mark is almost completelyunreadable. The box is remarkable not somuch in itself, although it is distinguished

enough, as 1'r its associations: it appears inthe portrait of Sir Thomas, complete withall the correct accoutrements of a man offashion, that Pompeo Batoni painted inRome in 1779 (Fig. 1). The box couldhardly have more handsome documentarysupport than this. It is disappointing that thesword which 1'eatures in the portrait hasnot remained in the collection: it looks likea Parisian one of the 1770s and would havebeen the only example of this branch ofthe goldsmiths'rt in Leeds.A delightful circular box hollowed out of

red porphyry and fitted with simple gilt-metal mounts must be Italian (Fig. 4). Ithas on the lid a mosaic scene showing dovesdrinking f'rom a golden basin, taken fromthe mosaic emblema discovered in the floorof Hadrian's Villa at Tivoli in 1737. Thisbecame a popular subject and it is foundon two snuff'oxes in the Victoria andAlbert Museum.'ther subjects were usedas well: Sir Thomas Lawrence, on a visitto Rome in 1819, was given a box with aview of the Temple of Vesta at Tivoli.s Itseems likely that Sir Thomas Gascoigneacquired his box in Italy about 1779, thedate of the Batoni portrait, and the style ofthe mounts is consistent with this.One other box deserves a mention

although we do not know how it came intothe Gascoignes'ollection. It is a circularbox of'ortoiseshell with gold mounts(Fig. 5) and just enough of the marks canbe made out to show that it was made inParis in 1789: the maker cannot be identi-fied. The ivory plaque on the lid is paintedin gouache and depicts Leda and the Swan.There was apparently a vogue in Paris justbefore the Revolution for circular boxesdecorated with grisaille scenes.4 This onehas been altered at some time: a rounddepression now concealed by the ivory

29

I '~

I

«jl.,ka

mP."

g

«.

««IMI

:.' Illlg

= ~1@3%1@.',at ~ ai.,~~i ~ gi ~~

/Ill

2. Paris r77z—8, maker jB. S. de Saint-3ulien l. 8 8 cm.

1. Lef/i Detail of Pompeo Batoni's portrait of Sir Thomas Gascoigne painted in Rome in s77ct. It shows the MarieAntoinette box (Fig. 8) and a gold sword-hilt probably made in Paris.

3. Paris t77o—8, maker PerhaPs gosePh Gibert miniature Portrait of Marie Antoinette l. 8 cm.

' rt Q >u>al~ I

I IIe@[' in.

indicates that the lid once had a smallermedallion, and the ivory itself has beenchanged f'rom square to circular by clippingthe corners and making up the curves witha piece of'paper glued on behind. Pencilledon the back of'he paper are the wordsGalon / et Gorge / Dug, the significance ofwhich remains a mystery.

Although these boxes are not intrinsicallyas important as the best in the Fulfordcollection they reveal some fascinatingassociations and show us the taste, not

of'he

twentieth century collector, but of'heeighteenth century English aristocrat casu-ally gathering things about him as he livedand travelled on the Continent.

ANTHONY WELLS-COLE

4. /talion c. t77g. A souoenir /rom Tiooli diam. t> g .

5. Paris t78g, maker unknou'n, diam. 7 7 cm.

Details ol'he makers mentioned in the text:Antoine Btocctuet, maitre 1756, working 1781;pean-Baptiste-Sebastian de Saint-gutien, maitre 1761working 1781; joseph Gibert, maitre 1759, died1775; Alexandre Gaucher, maitre 1761, living 1791.Henri 1

tVia

ESTABLISHED 1867

REMOVERSSTORERSPACKERS

SHIPPERS

'287 ROUNDHAY ROAD, LEEDS 8Phones 629282-3

').„,,C I papier

STUDIO ATELIERS LTD21a Chapel Lane, offCARDIGAN ROADLeeds 6

Telephone 757825

OPEN9.30—6.00 c/osedMonday afternoon

.„,,'Ii'paper I

' '

,CSTUDIO ATELIERS LTD14 Headingley LaneHYDE PARK CORNERLeeds 6

Telephone 757825

OPEN10.00—6.00c/osed Wednesday after noon

'l~'li paper

ll IJ

STUDIO ATELIERS LTD15/17 Olley RoadHEADINGLEYLeeds 6

Telephone 757825OPEN9 30—6.00 c/osedMonday afternoon

Designed and Printed bl E.j Arnold C~ Son Limited a/ /herr Broadway Factory, Leeds 7 t.