Burslem and Wedgwood
Burslem has long been bestowed with the accolade of ‘the mother town.’ During the past it was considered to be the most important of the six towns that now collectively make up the district of North Staffordshire known as ‘the Potteries.’ Until the 18th century Burslem was an isolated moorland settlement, away from any major roads, lying at the intersection of a small number of lanes from the surrounding villages and developing pottery towns.
The first reference to Burslem appears in the Domesday Book in 1086 and suggests a population of about thirty. There was enough cultivated land for two ploughs, although only one was in existence possibly indicating that some economic misfortune had recently occurred. The settlement was surrounded by two acres of trees and the comparatively small value of only ten shillings suggests a poor and underdeveloped community.
Five hundred years later by the middle of the16th century there were 32 dwellings in Burslem with a population of 150. Towards the end of the 17th century there were still less than 70 dwellings suggesting a population of 315.
During the first decade of the 18th century the population of the whole parish - which also included the surrounding hamlets - totalled almost 1,000. This figure doubled during the next forty years and by the end of the century there were almost 7,000 people in the parish of Burslem. The huge rise was largely due to immigration, being a reflection of increased employment opportunities in the pottery and mining industries. Both of these would have appeared extremely attractive to landless labourers with no other means of regular payment.
A number of different maps exist, all supposedly showing Burslem in the mid-18th century. The original, on which all copies are based, was commissioned by Enoch Wood in 1816 and drawn by a surveyor called McPhayl. The map shows how the town would have looked during the 1750s. Details were taken from Wood’s own recollections as well as a number of elderly individuals, interviewed by Wood himself.
The map includes roads, footpaths, fields, pools and watercourses, and makes some attempt at showing undulations. McPhayl also attempted to distinguish the black and white half-timbered buildings.
Although the majority of potworks usually consisted of only one oven, either attached or standing very close to the side of the dwelling, a few people were beginning to invest in ancillary buildings, sometimes forming two or three sides of a rectangle. These included those belonging to John Mitchel, as well as Thomas Mitchel who also had a ‘round house to pound flint in.’
The maypole is clearly shown in what would later become the market place, and two trees standing in what would become St John’s Square where ‘fowls roosted and were not disturbed or stole.’ The map also indicates a large mound in what is now the market place and described as ‘a large shord ruck called Locketts Cob.’ In the absence of any public control, tipping ‘shraff’ (rubbish) on the nearest waste land was the easiest and cheapest method of disposal.
Butty furlong, south-west of the town, was an area of communal farming with ‘long strips, or butts, from the top to the lower end.’ Velvet Croft obtained its name because ‘the earliest grass grew here. From the church it appeared like a field of green velvet every spring.’ In the Big Furlong immediately east of the town the map records that ‘on shrove Tuesdays this field was full of people throwing at cocks and hens.’
The map depicts a number of pools that drain by gutter into the brook course shown near the foot of the map. This gutter had been built in 1719 to drain the local coal mines without the aid of machinery. The pools were the result of ‘the early potters digging their small supplies of clay and marl at free cost.’ John Wesley, during one of his visits, recounted falling from his horse into one of the holes being ‘deep enough to drown both horse and man.’
The road running north-to-south through the Potteries that passed through the centre of the town was not a major highway. The main coaching route ran almost parallel three miles to the west through Newcastle. These roads would have been busy with wagons and packhorses transporting both raw materials and finished goods, and were full of pits and holes.’ Some of these were the result of natural wear and tear although others were formed by early potters as the manorial court rolls reveal. In 1549 Richard Denyell, being one of many, was presented to the court for digging ‘mud called clay in the King’s way at Bronehills Lane and in Burslem.’ Even during the first half of the C18th the roads were described as being in ‘a very wretched plight, narrow, circuitous, miry, and inconvenient.’ It was not until the early 1760s with the turnpiking of a number of roads that their condition improved.
The surname ‘Potter’, along with that of ‘Thrower’ and ‘Tilewright’, had developed in Burslem by the early 14th century. The latter was not only taken by tile-makers but also any whose occupation included the making of earthenware vessels. In 1348 the Court Rolls recorded that ‘William the Pottere gave 6d for a licence to make earthen pots’ and from then on the names begin to occur more frequently.
The earliest identifiable potters in the Burslem area were the Adams family. They first appeared in the Court Rolls in 1448 when William Adams, along with his brother Richard, paid a fine, or levy, for obtaining clay in the common road for that purpose. Thomas Adams, in his will of 1563, bequeathed ‘to Wyllm my son my best yron chimney and to Ellen my daughter my other chimney.’ What is interesting is that it appears that Thomas had more than one oven at this early period of pottery production. In 1617 William Adams described himself as ‘Master Potter’ in his will, as did his son Thomas in his will twelve years later. Thomas’ will also mentions pot-houses, workhouses and ‘implements belonging to the trade of pottinge’, suggesting that he had been working an early form of factory. By the middle of the 17th century more individuals began to describe themselves as ‘potter’ in their wills rather than husbandman or yeoman, suggesting that pottery production had now become a trade.
The antiquarian historian Robert Plot described Burslem of 1680 as ‘one of scant houses and thatched buildings’ although commented that ‘it is the seat of the greatest pottery carried out in the county.’ After describing the process of making pottery, where those activities that could be carried out in the open air were done so, Plot noted that the oven was ‘above 6ft high and about 6ft wide and of copped form.’
The potters of the mid-17th century ‘fired’ and ‘drew out’ one oven a week. Production consisted mostly of bowls, cups, jugs, candlesticks, and in addition to domestic wares there was a growing demand for butter pots for the dairy trade. These tubular pots, produced in common local clay, held 14lb of butter and were used at dairy markets. They were one of the earliest items to be mass produced.
As business increased so too did the unscrupulous practice of packing pots with good-quality butter at the top and poor quality, or even devoid of butter, at the bottom. Dishonesty was not confined to the dairymen. Some pots were found with excessively thick bottoms that cast doubts on the integrity of the potters. The size of the problem grew so much that the Government passed an Act in 1661 ‘…to regulate the abuse of the trade in the make of pot and the false packing of butter. The pot should not exceed 6lb in weight and contain at least 14lb of butter. To prevent these little moorland cheats, than whom no people whatever are esteemed more subtle, every potter shall upon every pot which they shall sell for the packing of butter, mark the just weight … together with the first letter of his Christian name and his surname at length upon pain of every pot one shilling.’ A permanent official attended the markets throughout the season with an instrument that was capable of checking the depth of the butter and the thickness of the pot’s bottom.
During the first decade of the 18th century there were 43 potworks in and around Burslem, 29 of which were in the town centre. By this period only three manufacturers appeared to have specialised in butter pots. Due to the demands of the potters, coal mining to supply fuel for firing the kilns had also begun on the high ground to the east of the town. In addition bricks and tiles were being produced (in the Dale Hall area) by the 1760s.
When John Wesley first arrived at Burslem in 1760 he described it as ‘a scattered town on top of a hill, inhabited almost entirely by Potters.’ While preaching he noted that ‘five or six were laughing and talking ‘til I had near done and one of them threw a clod of earth which struck me on the side of the head.’ Yet this did not deter Wesley who visited the town no less than twelve times in thirty years. On a visit in 1781 he recorded ‘I returned to Burslem. How the whole face of this country has changed in about twenty years! Since which, inhabitants have continually flowed in from every side. Hence the wilderness has literally become a fruit field.’
The local historian John Ward referred to the ‘towns and villages’ of the Potteries, before the turnpiking of roads, including Burslem, as being ‘mean and poor (with very few exceptions) scattered up and down, and mostly covered in thatch. The manners of the inhabitants were not superior to their habitations; and their pleasures and amusements at their wakes and holidays were gross and brutal, such as bull-baiting, cock-throwing and goose-riding. There were no respectable or regular shopkeepers, all the groceries, drapery goods and most of the butcher’s meat were obtained from Newcastle.’
The annual and rowdy wakes were held during the last week of June in the Market Place although with the coming of the industrial era attempts were made to restrict them. Josiah Wedgwood wrote in 1776 that ‘our men have been at play four days this week, it being Burslem Wakes. I have rough’d and smooth’d them over and promis’d them a long Christmas, but I know it is all in vain, for wake’s must be observed though the world was to end with them.’ This demonstrates the importance that the workers attached to the wakes, as these were unpaid holidays, paid holidays being unknown before the 20th century.
So what can you see in Burslem today what would have been familiar to Josiah Wedgwood? The most well-known example of surviving period architecture is ‘The Big House’ named on account of its comparative size. It was built in 1750 by brothers John and Thomas Wedgwood, uncles to Josiah. They found that the old factory they had inherited from their father was incapable of meeting their production requirements. Simeon Shaw, in his History of The Staffordshire Potteries, described the reaction to their new factory which ‘incurred general censure because of their extravagance in erecting so large a manufactory and covering it with tiles (all others being covered with thatch) and for erecting three ovens (later increased to five). Regarding the house Shaw continued ‘the brothers erected a dwelling house so durable and on so scale of extent and style of magnificence far excelling all in the district that it was called The Big House.’ The walled forecourt and entrance gates that originally enclosed a garden on two sides were removed in 1956 and their factory that stood immediately behind it has now disappeared.
On the north side of the market place the shop at number 38 has a bowed mullion window and roof beams made from the reclaimed timbers of Elizabethan ships.
On the south side The Leopard Hotel has a double-bay that was re-fronted during the Victorian period. It was here in the main front room Josiah Wedgwood and James Brindley dined in 1765 and discussed the proposed Trent and Mersey Canal.
The Bulls Head in St John’s Square was known during the mid-18th century as The Bear. It had acquired its present name by the beginning of the 19th century. It was rebuilt during the 1930s with a mock-Georgian frontage behind which were the original flat mullioned windows fixed into the original C17th town house. At the top of St John’s Square is The Duke William although now much altered from the building of the 18th century.
The parish church is very plain, and only dates from the early 16th century. The nave, originally of timber and plaster with a thatched roof, was destroyed by fire in 1717 and rebuilt in brick with a slate roof.
The Mitre was originally built as a private house about 1780 by Joseph Wedgwood, a second cousin to Josiah. By 1795 it was occupied by Thomas Green who had also purchased the Churchyard Works. Bankruptcy forced Green’s departure sometime before 1814, and a decade latter the dwelling was occupied by the Moseley family. By 1830 John Steel, a maltster and victualler, occupied the property which was then known as The Crown and Mitre, the name being shortened to The Mitre twenty years later.
The original Red Lion Inn stood immediately to the right of The Big House and was in existence from at least 1675. The building was one of half-timbered walls with cross beams and a thatched roof. The front carried an embossed tile dated 1675 with the initials RDS. In 1875 it was altered to a mock Tudor style and a wing added to its western end. In 1963 the building was demolished and the current public house of the same name erected upon the site. It was here towards the end of the 17th century that Dr Thomas Wedgwood was licensee, while his own son Carlos ran the Duke William.
Outside the Red Lion stood the old stocks. It is known that they were in existence before 1680, for the manor court roll that year recorded that the jury charged the constable with their repair. It was here where those who were rowdy through too much drink would be kept until sober.
Before the end of the 18th century markets were held on both Saturdays and Mondays. The first town hall was erected in the centre of the market place in 1761. This was a rectangular brick building of two stories, having open arches to the ground floor and a large room with five sash windows along the front above. It was later coated with cement and surmounted by a balustraded parapet with a central clock turret and bell cupola. This was eventually replaced by a second town hall during the mid-19th century.
In 1759 Josiah began renting the Ivy House and attached potworks from his uncles John and Thomas Wedgwood of the Big House. This appears to have been little more than a cottage, built of brick or stone, with stone mullioned windows, probably dating from the late 17th century. It was demolished in 1834 by the market commissioners who incorporated the site into the new market place.
The Turk’s Head public house stood immediately to the left of the Ivy House. An engraving by Edward Brookes shows a two-storied half-timbered building roofed with thatch. The front was spanned with three leaded casement windows on the ground floor with three smaller windows above set into the eaves. The building contained two chimneys and an almost central front entrance which suggests a ground floor plan of at least three rooms. It was, like The Ivy House, demolished to make room for market buildings in 1834.
The ‘Brick House Works’ that Josiah occupied from 1762, obtained its name because the house attached to it was supposedly the first in Burslem to be built entirely of brick. A 19th century illustration shows it to have been a small rectangular building with stone mullioned windows and end gables, with dormer windows to the attic storey. Behind these stand a large irregular group of two-storied brick buildings and five ovens.
As well as the five ovens the factory had a total of thirty-one rooms, each separated for a particular purpose. There were the usual rooms such as the slip house, mill, pressing house, mould chamber and modelling house. Other rooms included the piercing house, engine lathes house, gilding house, glossing house, saggar house and clerk’s chamber. Of the thirty-one rooms two were mentioned as being ‘lower chambers’ and two as ‘upper chambers’, as well as four cellars. However, this is an underestimate, as five of the rooms on the list compiled by Josiah Wedgwood had identical sizes to the preceding room, also suggesting upper chambers. Examples were the packing house which is immediately followed by the chamber to the packing house warehouse, both measuring 17ft by 16ft, and the throwing house and the chamber to the throwing house warehouse, again both 17ft by 16ft. The production of red ware also appears to have been separated with the process executed in specific rooms. The name still survives in Brick House Street, running north from Queen Street indicating the approximate site of the buildings. It was demolished in 1876 and The Wedgwood Memorial Institute erected upon part of the site.
The Overhouse passed to the Wedgwood family through marriage during the early 17th century. This was rebuilt in the late 18th century replacing ‘the site of the old timber-built manor house’. Unfortunately the illustration in Eliza Meteyard’s biography of Wedgwood appears to show the later stone building rather than the earlier and larger timber one.
One of the best sources for examining how people lived and how their homes were furnished is through the use of probate inventories. These were simply lists of what a person had at the time of their death. Unfortunately they do not exist for a large proportion of the population. Those who were elderly may have been living with children or other family members and therefore may have owned relatively little, falsely suggesting a lack of wealth.
These inventories were compiled by appraisers, who were often neighbours or relatives, one of whom would have had sufficient knowledge of the deceased’s trade to accurately value any work tools or materials. The way appraisers worked differed widely from the simplistic total valuations of goods of a certain kind anonymously combined together, through to the extremely detailed that listed all possessions and often compiled on a room by room basis.
John Wedgwood was born in 1654, the eldest son of Thomas Wedgwood who had built the potworks attached to the Churchyard House. John married Alice Beech and about 1678 went to live at The Overhouse. John died at The Overhouse in 1705 and was considered by his appraisers to be a yeoman with a substantial inventory valued at £331.
One thing you can do with some detailed inventories is reconstruct what the house was like at the time of the person’s death. We’re lucky that John’s appraisers compiled a fairly detailed inventory of The Overhouse with its thirteen rooms. So this is what the inside of the Overhouse would have looked like in 1705.
The central houseplace was furnished with a long table and form, a little table, four turned chairs, two joined chairs and a buffet stool. Extra comfort was provided by seven couched cushions and the room was decorated with four flower pots. The room also contained a screen to protect against draughts and to give a certain amount of privacy, as did the ‘hangings before the windows.’
In the parlour was a joined bed and a pair of plain bedsteads complete with respective bedding. The room also contained a folding table with forms and cushions, a press cupboard, coffer and trunk. Pictures decorated the walls and also present was an unspecified quantity of ‘London ware.’ This would have been either white tin-glazed earthenware or brown stoneware.
John had also been prosperous enough to afford an extension to his property as two of the rooms were regarded by his appraisers as being ‘new.’ The ‘new chamber’ had the dual function of being both a sitting room and a bedroom. As well as the joined bed were seven chairs, a press, two chests and three boxes. On the wall hung a looking glass and the room also contained five flower pots and a further unspecified quantity of ‘London ware.’ The ‘little new parlour’ appears to have been built to function exclusively as a dinning room and had been furnished with an oval table, six chairs and a looking glass, and was probably used to entertain guests.
Cooking and the preparation of food took place in the kitchen. Around the grate and fender were arranged the necessary utensils for cooking over the open fire including a clock, jack, sways, potracks and broaches, as well as a fire shovel, tongs ‘and other necessary ironwork belonging to the kitchen.’ The room also contained a screen, six chairs, two dressers of drawers, no doubt used to display his brass and pewter, and cooking utensils included frying pans, dripping pans and gobberts. The attached ‘out kitchen chamber’ appeared to be empty apart from a pair of bedsteads with its associated bedding. This was probably the room in which the cook and servants slept. They probably ate separately from John and his family at the table and form in the Buttery. It may have been here where the trene ware of barrels, looms, tubs, kimnels, turnels and other wooden vessels were kept.
On the first floor there were garrets over both the kitchen and the little new parlour. The former contained a little table, coffer, two boxes and two livery cupboards. The garret over the little new parlour was principally used as a bedroom being furnished with a joined bed, coffer, joined chair and three buffet stools.
As well as having a garret over the little new parlour there was also a separate adjoining chamber containing a pair of bedsteads, five chairs and a buffet stool. This would suggest that this chamber was considerably smaller than the one it was built over, if also taking into account the garret.
The chamber over the older parlour was considerably larger and was able to accommodate a bed, eight couched chairs, a desk, a little table and two chests. Above the fireplace in this upper room, the presence of which was indicated by a grate, probably hung the looking glass that was also mentioned.
The chamber over the kitchen was used solely as a sitting room containing nine cane chairs and a little table, while the chamber over the buttery contained a joined bed, two joined chairs and a chest.
John also had a number of items seemingly valued after the appraisers had finished visiting the individual rooms. These included six pieces of gold, his silver plate and napery ware. His household provisions included beef, bacon, butter, cheese, meal and malt – the latter suggesting some form of involvement in brewing. It also appeared that he was engaged in cheese-making due to the presence of a cheese press, as well as cheese being listed among the provisions.
John combined his occupation of potter with that of mixed farmer. The agricultural element of his inventory was far in excess of that of pottery. His livestock that consisted of cows, bulls, horses, and swine were valued at £51. He had corn growing worth £10 with a further £7 worth of corn and hay stored in his barn. His carts, ploughs, harrows and other item of husbandry were valued at £10 increasing the total for agriculture to £78. This was considerably more than ‘all the materials in the workhouse belonging to the potting trade, together with clay and ware’ valued collectively at £17.
But how accurate was the inventory of John Wedgwood and more importantly how accurately does it portray The Overhouse? The only way of knowing for certain is to be lucky enough to find another inventory for the same dwelling - and fortunately one does survive. Richard Wedgwood was born in 1668 to Aaron Wedgwood, and was a younger brother to Dr Thomas Wedgwood of The Red Lion. After leasing a portion of The Overhouse service yard from John Wedgwood in 1691 he went on to marry John’s only daughter Katherine in 1708 and moved into The Overhouse. However the marriage only lasted ten years as Richard died in 1718. The appraisers who compiled Richard’s inventory also followed an almost identical route to that taken fourteen years earlier and many of the pieces of furniture within the rooms appear to have been the same as those recorded in his father-in-law’s inventory.
Whereas before the old parlour had been used as a bedroom it had now been designated as a sitting room. The new chamber likewise had had its previous dual function of bedroom-sitting room altered to that of sitting room-study and the little new parlour, which appears to have originally been built solely as a dinning room, had been used by Richard as a bedroom. The remainder of the rooms had remained virtually unaltered.
I’d like to finish with a building which should all be familiar to you – The Churchyard Works. A house had been built lying immediately south-east of the church by the middle of the 16th century. By the end of the 16th century it was occupied by Thomas Astbury, the curate of Burslem, who lived in ‘the priest’s chamber’ in the house. It later came into the possession of John Shaw who eventually gave it to his daughter Margaret and her husband Thomas Wedgwood (Josiah’s great-grandfather) on their marriage in 1653. Thomas built the potworks attached to the house that included a horse-drawn mill, probably for pugging the clay, and which remained in the family and was the birthplace of Josiah Wedgwood in 1730. Josiah served his apprenticeship to his eldest brother Thomas here between 1744 and 1751. In 1795 the estate, including the aforementioned house known as The Mitre, was sold to Thomas Green and the original house demolished to allow for the extension of factory buildings. Finally all these were demolished in 1896 when St John’s School was built on the site, the location now being occupied by a colourworks.
Eliza Meteyard, writing 1865, gave a description of the interior of the building. Much of her information was based upon memories handed down from previous generations and it appears to have been a typical small farmhouse of the late 16th/early 17th century. The building, like many contemporary houses, was timber filled with wattle and daub, with leaded casement windows and a thatched roof. A narrow strip of garden divided the cottage from the lane and extended to the churchyard wall. The front door opened to reveal a large ‘houseplace.’ In the gable end was a large chimney place, while at the other end nearest the church, was partitioned off a parlour. Behind the houseplace was the usual back-house where the tasks of brewing, dairy-work, and washing were performed. The pot oven and other areas for pottery production were also outside at the rear. The illustration in Meteyard was made from memory and should be treated with caution although it is interesting as it portrays the original church with its thatched roof. The relationship between the lane, house and church in Meteyard’s illustration differs considerably with the map drawn by McPhayl. Rather than identifying the dwelling that runs parallel with the lane, that corresponds to the illustration drawn by Meteyard, McPhayl chose a smaller dwelling to the left of this and nearer to the boundary of the churchyard. Beneath this, rather than the one nearer to the lane, McPhayl clearly wrote ‘Jos. Wedgwood Born Here.’
The only probate inventory that still survives for the dwelling is that of Thomas Wedgwood (Josiah’s grandfather) dated 1716.
Unfortunately Thomas’ appraisers simply stated the value of each room rather than listing the individual contents. However, it may still be used to confirm the layout of the dwelling. The property consisted of a central houseplace, parlour and with a passage in between these two rooms. There were chambers above the houseplace and parlour, as well as the buttery which the appraisers neglected to mention, possibly on the account of it being empty. Based upon this evidence, the Churchyard House was considerably smaller than the illustration in Meteyard’s book and the evidence of McPhayl’s map suggests that the illustration may even have been the wrong building. Unfortunately no other probate inventory exists for the Churchyard House.
Burslem was originally a small and nondescript settlement. During the 15th century a localised craft slowly developed, which, 300 years later turned the settlement into a gold town. That gold was clay and coal, the raw materials with which these individuals continually practiced and perfected their art.
The success of the industry naturally contributed to the development of the town, improvements in transportation and the necessity of commerce through its markets. Despite the success of the industry many potters were still actively engaged in agriculture with only minimal investment in the pottery trade. Through hard work, experimentation and determination these 18th century potters established Burslem as the principle place of pottery production in North Staffordshire – the ‘mother town.’
 Alternatively, this may suggest the practice of communal farming with the plough shared between the inhabitants.
 Greenslade. Burslem, p108. Unfortunately Greenslade does not cite his original source for this figure; Hughes also mentions this but simply states ‘Church Records’, Hughes, Fred, Mother Town, p26.
 The population estimate valid assuming this obscure list of the 1560s to be correct.
 SHC, vol.1919, p259. This figure doubtless applied to the whole Burslem area excluding Cobridge which is mentioned separately. Greenslade, p105.
 70 Dwellings multiplied by 4.5 = 315.
 These hamlets within the parish comprised of Sneyd Green, Smallthorne, Brownhills, Hot Lane and Cobridge.
 Ward, History of Stoke Upon Trent, p209.
 Ward, History of Stoke Upon Trent, p237;Greenslade, Burslem, p226.
 Hodgkiss, Mother Burslem, p15.
 Ward, History of Stoke Upon Trent, p28.
 Ward, History of Stoke Upon Trent, p28.
 Wedgwood, Josiah C, Staffordshire Pottery, p5-6.
 Wedgwood, Josiah C, Staffordshire Pottery, p5-6.
 Wedgwood, Josiah C, Staffordshire Pottery, p5-6.
 Plot, Robert, Natural History of Staffordshire, p___
 Hodgkiss, BJ, Mother Burslem – A Burslem History.
 Wedgwood, Josiah, Commonplace Book, ‘Potworks in Burslem, Hot Lane, Cobridge and Sneyd Green About The Year 1710 to 1715. There were 35 at Burslem (2 not worked), 4 at Cobridge, 2 at Sneyd Green, and one each at Rushton Grange, Holden Lane and Brownhills.
 Only 33 of the 43 manufacturers were listed. 4 were not being worked with a further 6 where their type of ware was unrecorded.
 Greenslade. Burslem, p140.
 Ward, History of Stoke Upon Trent, p32.
 Ward, History of Stoke Upon Trent, p33.
 Ward, History of Stoke Upon Trent, p31.
 Letter from Josiah Wedgwood to Thomas Bentley, 5th July, 1776.
 Ward, History of Stoke Upon Trent, p221.
 Jewett, Ceramic Art in Great Britain, p439.
 Jewett, Ceramic Art in Great Britain, p439.
 Greenslade, Burslem, p110.
 Greenslade, Burslem, p110.
 Steel, Social Conditions in Burslem, p37.
 Greenslade, Burslem, p130.
 Wedgwood, Josiah, ‘Dimensions of Workhouses, etc, now in my occupation in Burslem, January 1768.’ WMSS 28630-43.
 Greenslade, Burslem, p117-8
 Freehold and copyhold property were excluded as they did not fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction and many items may already have been disposed of.
 Meteyard’s own description is not dissimilar to that gleaned from Thomas Wedgwood’s probate inventory and does not support the illustration in her book.