ed framed with gilt scrolls and painted in enamel
colours with flowers, birds or figure-subjects in absolute rivalry with
the pieces manufactured at Sevres.

The Chelsea works appears to have come to an end through the ill-health
of Sprimont, and it was sold in 1769-1770 to Duesbury, the proprietor of
the Derby works. He carried on the establishment from 1770 to 1784, but
in this period a great change is noticeable in the product of the
factory. The "rococo" forms and decorations of the true Chelsea
porcelain were replaced by works in the neo-classical style already
rendered popular by the success of Josiah Wedgwood, and the
Derby-Chelsea porcelain is quite a distinct production from the early
works of Chelsea. The most distinctive mark of the Chelsea porcelain is
an anchor--either embossed in the paste or painted in gold or colour.
Often the anchors occur in pairs, and it is frequently associated with
other marks such as a dagger or a cross. Some of the Derby-Chelsea
pieces are marked with a conjoined D and an anchor.

[Illustration: Chelsea Potters' marks.]

_Bow._--The date of the establishment of the factory at
Stratford-le-Bow, in what is now the East End of London, is quite
uncertain, but in 1744 Edward Heylyn and Thomas Frye, who were connected
with this factory, took out a patent for the manufacture of porcelain.
The materials mentioned in this patent are not such as would produce
porcelain at all, and it appears likely that the specification was made
purposely defective. In 1748 a further patent was applied for in which
we get the first mention of bone-ash, so that from the technical point
of view the wares made at the Bow factory are of the utmost importance
as indicating the experimental beginnings of our English porcelain in
which bone-ash plays such an important part. In 1750 the works at Bow
belonged to Messrs Weatherby & Crowther, and was then known as "New
Canton," and as 300 workpeople were employed, the operations must have
been conducted on a large scale; but ultimately, from causes that can
only be surmised, the partnership was dissolved and the business failed,
so that in 1775 the works was bought for a very small sum by the William
Duesbury already mentioned, who transferred part of the plant and moulds
to his more prosperous works at Derby. It would appear from what we know
of the factory and its productions that the business was conducted on
simpler lines than at the Chelsea works. We have, for