« PreviousContinue »
gathering fragments of rough and glazed pottery, not only there but in other sites of the Ancona March.
A document proves that toward the end of 1411 one Bartolomeo de Luca Vasaro of Perugia, with one Nicolo di Biagio, worked at Archevia, &c., p. 142.
Gubbio yields nothing of Faenza, and it is sad to learn that she only possesses three lustred pieces, one by Cencio; but among fragments he finds one, decorated with peacock's feathers, in the manner of Faenza.
The collections at Milan yield but little of Faenza ware. Parma has a remarkable one. We recollect some fine pieces at Modena which Professor Argnani does not seem to have been able to examine. Florence has a plate dated 1507, and the S. Sebastian plaque (formerly we believe in M. Piot's possession), with the monogram composed of T and B by the same band as the Resurrection plaque in the S. K. M. (Forlì or Faenza ?).
He does not notice the S. Cecilia dish signed in monogram and dated by Nicolo da Urbino, which we have referred to.
subject the Deposition, seen by him
1518 in the Zanti-Naldi Collection, now belongs to Mr. Salting and is lent by him for exhibition to the S. K. M., where he also has a singularly fine piece of the Gonzaga-Este service from the Spitzer collection.
On Tav. xix. are shown a number of fragments which are described as “ Stile decorativo finora esclusivamente ed erroneamente assegnato alla fabbrica di Cafaggiolo di Toscana. Fine del xv. e principio del xvi. secolo. We confess that there is not one of these pieces which we should ever have mistaken as of the Cafaggiolo botega ; all are purely Faentine, and only the ardour of a Jacquemart or the inaccuracy of a Demmin or a Genolini could have otherwise attributed them.
It is idle now to make any more ado about Luca della Robbia's claims to have invented the stanniferous glaze; he may have improved it for his own special purposes, but there is no doubt that it was known at Faenza, and probably at other potteries, anterior to his application of it to his admirable terra-cottas.
On Tav. xxii. Professor Argnani gives copies of pieces from other localities showing Faentine influence, this is manifest; one fragment, found at Gubbio, would tend to confirm our conjectures that to that place and to Deruta it is probable that pieces were sent to receive the additional enrichment of the metallic lustre, an art that seems to have been almost special to them and not practised at Faenza.
A very interesting fragment is figured on Tav, xxv., on which we have the portraits of Astorgio the Third Manfredi and his betrothed, Bianca Riario, daughter of the heroic Catarina Sforza. On another, Tav. xxxii., is the portrait of Scipione Manfredi, natural son of Galeotto and la Pavona.
The extraordinary beauty and richness of many of the designs on pieces of the later fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries, so admirably reproduced, render these volumes of the highest value for suggestions to the manufacturing potter of the present day.
On Tav. xxxiv. is a fragment, the rim of a large plate, on which is painted a frieze, in purely Renaissance taste, of rabeschi, half figures of sylphs terminating in scrolls, with goats head terminals, &c., of the greatest beauty, and much in the manner of those pieces produced, as we believe, by M. Benedetto at Siena, but in a somewhat larger style according with the larger vessel. This serves to prove the influence of Faenza designs on the Siena artist, who may have passed his apprenticeship in that great centre of the art.
On Tav. xxxvi.-vii.-viii.- and ix. are given admirable chromolithograph reproductions of the Solomon plate of the Correr service, the Resurrection plaque of S. K. M., the fine Ca Pirota plate at Arezzo, and the Baldasare Manara of the Ashmolean Museum.
The last, Tav. xl., is given to marks, some of which are new, and varieties of those well known. On these our space will not permit us to descant; nor may we do more than allude to the large collection of documents referring to the potteries and potters of Faenza, mainly derived from the patient research of Signor Malagola. An accurate alphabetic index of all names recorded therein would have been of much value.
We have now pointed out what we consider as grave errors in this otherwise very valuable work; they go to prove that its author, though indefatigable as a collector of facts, is somewhat wanting in unbiassed judgment in regard to them, and perhaps in adequate knowledge of the productions of other potteries than those of Faenza 3
The careful and thorough way in which these are illustrated from fragments and whole pieces, the gradual development of the use of glaze and enamel, of colouring and design, which his admirable plates show us, and which, for nearly all purposes of reference and study are almost equal to the pieces themselves, is beyond all praise. This, indeed, is the most valuable, as it is the larger, portion of Professor Argnani's work, rendering it of high importance for historical reference, as regards the wares produced at the numerous potteries of Faenza, fully confirming their ancient renown and proving their high antiquity. . .
C. D. E. FORTNUM.
' A few unimportant errors occur, as in names: p. 5, ' Rubinson ' for Robinson ; p. 6, foot note, Clarered on' for Clarendon ; •Lazzari' for Lazari also occurs, and on p. 142, fig. vi. of Tav. xxii, ought to read fig. v.
THE LONDON WATER SUPPLY
In his article on the London water question published in the December number of this Review, Mr. Shaw Lefevre has put the case for the London County Council, and, like a good advocate, he has made the most of it. He urges three propositions: (1), that the water supply must be placed in the hands of the Council; (2), that a fresh supply must be brought from Wales, and (3), that the companies must be bought out cheap at a considerable reduction on the market value of their undertakings. It may be doubted if the question is quite so momentous as he says; but it is certainly important, and therefore the public should have full opportunity of regarding it from more than one point of view. Mr. Lefevre's one-sided statement of the case is likely, if uncorrected, to mislead those who have not the time to study all the facts of an intricate subject for themselves. In the zeal of his advocacy he has fallen into some inaccuracies; he has assumed many things and insinuated others without warrant; he has omitted material considerations and interpreted facts in a sense which is open to serious criticism. There is nothing to complain of in that if the public is allowed to hear the criticism and to judge how much weight is then to be attached to the arguments that have been advanced with so much vigour by Mr. Lefevre. I ask leave, therefore, to point out some of the more serious flaws in his article, as they appear to me, not for the sake of the water companies, who can look after their own interests, but for the sake of fair play and a right understanding of the water question.
Let me begin by reversing the order of his discourse and taking his concluding sentence first. I do so because it embodies a fundamental misconception of fact which distorts and prejudices the whole question ab initio. He says (p. 990) .... the day is at hand when London will realise its just demands and will come into possession of the heritage from which it ought never to have been dispossessed, the supply of its own water.' Now, to be dispossessed of anything you must first be possessed of it, and the sentence quoted, if it means anything, implies that London was once in possession of this “ heritage' but was somehow ousted by the usurping companies. What are the facts ? The only heritage that London ever possessed in this matter was the privilege of fetching water from the river in buckets, and that privilege it possesses still. Until private enterprise came to the rescue the Londoner had no other means of supply but to fetch it himself, or buy it by the bucket from somebody else, and as late as 1834 people on the Surrey side were still buying water from perambulating carts at 2d. the pailful—water taken from the tidal Thames in the middle of London and were appealing to the water companies to extend their pipe supply. The smallest household could hardly do with less than two pails a day-say half a crown a week or 61. 108. per annum. That is the heritage from which London has been dispossessed by the companies, who charge the same house 108. or so per annum for filtered water laid on day and night. No public authority would help the people. The City Corporation expressly declined to do so, when the scheme of bringing the New River springs from Hertfordshire was brought forward by Sir Hugh Myddleton. They had powers to carry it out, but the Mayor, Commonality, and Citizens, weighing the great charge and expense the work would require, and doubting as to whether the loss might fall upon the Chamber of the City in case the work should not be gainful, forbore to undertake that work and so the same lay long neglected and unlike by them to be performed.' Hence the New River Company. Private individuals came forward and risked their money in this beneficent enterprise, which was for a long time a dead pecuniary loss. Similarly in later times the town of Woolwich obtained parliamentary powers to supply its own water, but after two years it begged the Kent Company to take over the business, and for years the shareholders got nothing for their money.
The story of all the companies is essentially the same. So far from being dispossessed,' London would never have had any water supply at all but for them. They were regarded as public benefactors, and with reason. Most--if not all-of them went through a period of great financial difficulty while they were extending and improving the supply to meet the needs of the public; and for years the shareholders received no dividends. Mr. Lefevre says (p. 989) that they • baulked the intentions of Parliament by coming to terms among themselves, and by dividing London into districts, and establishing monopolies within these districts.' The truth is that the companies came into existence at different times and in separate localities, in response to the public demand as each locality grew populous and important. There was first the City; then the East End with the hamlets of Wapping, Shadwell, and Mile End; then came Chelsea, followed by the Borough, Paddington, Lambeth, Greenwich, Fulham, and Hammersmith. These were all distinct townships or hamlets, separated by fields and open spaces. As no one else would help them, a company was formed for supplying the needs of the people in each centre, and the area of supply expanded with the natural growth of population and the increasing demands of new neighbourhoods. In many cases smaller companies were merged in the larger ones, until, by a natural process, the whole metropolitan area became covered. It is true that competition was carried on in three or four parishes between 1810 and 1817, and then stopped by arrangement between the companies ; but in 1821 the whole question was fully investigated by a Select Committee of the House of Commons, which issued a report disapproving of competition and suggesting fixed rates instead. Again in 1852, when the metropolis had been for many years under the régime of the present companies, the question came before Parliament, which then deliberately recognised their position and formally sanctioned it by passing the Metropolis Water Act, a general measure for the control and regulation of the water supply. The six companies which came before Parliament in that year with private Bills to enable them to comply with the provisions of the Metropolis Water Act were put under obligation to lay pipes and extend supply in their respective districts as and when called upon, subject to the following proviso:
Provided that the company shall not be bound to furnish any such supply of water or lay down any pipes for such purpose in any part of the district which part is for the time being supplied with water by any other company.
Since 1852 other general Acts have been passed, laying down further regulations for the companies; the whole story is one of increasing statutory control. Every step has been taken under the authority, and often by the orders, of Parliament; charges have been fixed, methods of raising capital prescribed, dividends limited, and conditions of supply laid down by Parliament, which has thereby repeatedly accepted responsibility for the system. In short, the history of the origin and development of the companies absolutely contradicts Mr. Lefevre's assertion that they 'baulked the intentions of Parliament,' and reduces his insinuation that London was dispossessed' by them of its own water supply, to a grotesque inversion of the facts. Of course it does not follow that they are necessarily to go on for ever, but it does follow that they are entitled to full and fair consideration at the hands of the public, which was once only too eager to accept the convenience provided by their enterprise, and of Parliament which encouraged and ordered them to spend money in carrying out its wishes.
To pass on to the more immediate question. Mr. Lefevre begins his argument by asserting that : ' The great majority of ratepayers, through their representatives, have long urged the necessity for purchasing the existing companies and for obtaining a fresh supply of pure water from Wales.' This involves the assumption that whatever the majority of the County Council desires is also the wish of