garded Branston’s copies as the best possible adver- 
tisement for their siderography and they offered 
to furnish every purchaser of Sir William Congreve’s 
work with the original note, free of charge, and are 
desirous of giving the greatest possible publicity to Sir 
William’s published imitations.!° 
Congreve was known as a troublemaker and in his 
dispute with Perkins public sympathy was on the side 
of the American. But the skirmish had no practical 
effect as the Bank competition had already been 
judged and closed by 1820, and both Perkins and 
Congreve soon found other applications for their 
processes. 
The single compound print in Congreve’s Analysis 
consisted of a short chain of interlocking rings in a 
red and black pattern with delicate white line engrav- 
ing through the two colors. The engraving was so 
fine that it became almost scratchy, and the relatively 
large gap between the two metals disturbed the course 
of the engraving tool. The result was less satisfactory 
than later coarser engravings. In the final ‘‘ Notice” 
at the end of the book Congreve apologized for this 
bad example of his process and promised better ones 
to follow: 
A variety of Specimens of the work of the Compound 
Plate illustrative of the foregoing principles, and formed 
on the test of inimitability except by original means, 
are in preparation, and will be published, with due 
explanations, as a sequel to this volume, containing 
both partial and complete Designs for Bank Notes, 
and all other public documents, the security of which 
against Forgery is important. ‘The Specimens hitherto 
produced are to be considered merely as progressive 
Experiments. 
So far as I know, the promised sample prints never 
appeared. 
Congreve had a compound-printing press already 
established in the government offices at Somerset 
House, London, by the time he took out his patent 
of 1820. The patent specification refers to the use 
of this press for printing government stamps on the 
backs of private bankers’ notes as an extra precaution 
against counterfeit.'" In 1822 Congreve issued a 
15 London Journal (London, 1820), p. 209. 
16 In his Memoir, Thomas Bewick, the wood engraver, claimed 
that the idea of printing stamps on the backs of country bank 
notes was his, and that the credit had been unjustly taken by 
Congreve. Bewick wrote a letter to the Monthly Magazine to 
this effect and made the same accusations as Ibbetson against 
Congreve as Bank Commissioner. Congreve gave no public 
reply, though he sent a “‘very impudently written’? reply by 
hand. Memoir of Thomas Bewick (London, 1862), p. 171. 
PAPER 71: SIR WILLIAM CONGREVE AND HIS COMPOUND-PLATE PRINTING 
notice to draw the attention of private bankers to 
these government stamps, and to the fact that his 
“triple paper” was obtainable from his office, ‘The 
New Bank Paper Office for the Prevention of Forgery” 
at Somerset House.'? The bank-note stamps con- 
tinued in use for some years, often on the backs of 
notes printed from Perkins’ siderographic plates. 
They must have been the earliest important applica- 
tion of Congreve’s process. But bank notes were not 
often dated, and it is difficult to know which of those 
that survive were the earliest. The first dated com- 
pound prints that I have seen (apart from those in 
the Principles of 1819 and the Analysis of 1820) were 
tickets to the coronation of George IV in 1821. 
about this time compound prints became quite com- 
mon on tickets, labels, bank bills, and posters. Most 
of the blocks were engraved by Robert Branston, the 
wood engraver, and they were printed either by the 
Somerset House press or by James Whiting. Whiting 
From 
had been associated with Congreve as early as 1804 
when they were involved in a libel action together '* 
and had printed most of Congreve’s numerous 
pamphlets since then. 
The coronation tickets of 1821 were the joint pro- 
duction of Branston and Whiting along with Charles 
Dobbs, one of the great 19th-century masters of em- 
bossing. In the ticket illustrated in figure 3 there 
is a red and black compound pattern of roses and 
circles surrounding a blue centerpiece which was 
apparently printed at the same time. The blue 
ticket numbers in the top corners were printed sepa- 
rately. The print is surrounded by a border richly 
embossed by Dobbs. The enlarged detail from this 
ticket in figure 4 shows how the red printing plate 
fitted into the black, and how the combined surface 
was cut away in some places and engraved in others. 
Branston and Whiting made at least two other designs 
of tickets for the same event. Their ‘Procession Pass 
Ticket’? (figure 7) was produced by conventional 
means with two engraved plates printed separately 
to give a moiré effect in the overprinting. The 
general design echoes the style of the compound 

17 A. D. MacKENZIE, op. cit. (footnote 1), p. 73. 
18 The action was brought by the Hon. G. C. Berkeley 
against William Congreve, John Parsons, and James Whiting 
who were the proprietor, publisher, and printer of the news- 
paper, Royal Standard, in which Admiral Berkeley was accused 
of cowardice in battle. Congreve asked that the fine of £1000 
be imposed entirely on him, as the others were young men 
who would be ruined by it. Trial of Whiting, Parsons and 
Congreve (Buckingham, 1804). 
