When first commenced they were, of course, of a very small size, and were, it is said, principally confined to painting and finishing Oriental china, which was imported for that purpose. There is a tradition--but only tradition--that the origin of the Chelsea works took its rise from the fact of clay being brought as ballast in vessels from Chinese ports, which was found to be the veritable clay used by the Oriental potters. This clay is said to have been used both at Chelsea and at Bow, and to have enabled the workmen successfully to compete with their Eastern rivals. The tradition, however, goes on to recount that the Chinese, finding that the uses of this clay had been discovered, and perceiving that they were losing trade in consequence, wisely “stopped the supplies,” and peremptorily refused to allow any more to leave their ports. The workmen were then driven to seek elsewhere for material, and, as a matter of course, soon found enough to use in our country. By whom the works were carried on in their early days is not recorded, but in the year 1745 the art had evidently attained a high continental as well as home celebrity. In this year the French company, in their petition for the exclusive privilege of establishing a porcelain manufactory at Vincennes, urged the benefit which France might be expected to derive by having a manufactory of porcelain which should counteract the reputation of English and German make, and stop their importation into France. There is nothing to show that Chelsea, any more than Bow, was intended by this; but as ten years later, according to Rouquet, “that of Chelsea is the most considerable” of the three or four china manufactories in the neighbourhood of London, it is probable it was then one of the seats of manufacture of which France was jealous.