(William), an ingenious though unsuccessful artist, who was a goldsmith in Edinburgh, deserves to be recorded for his attempt to introduce an improvement in the art of printing. The invention, first practised by Ged in 1735, was simply this. From any types of Greek or Roman, or any other character, he formed a plate for every page, or sheet, of a book, from which he printed, instead of using a type for every letter, as is done in the common way. This was first practised, but on blocks of wood, by the Chinese and Japanese, and pursued in the first essays of Coifer the European inventor of the present art. "This improvement (says James Ged the inventor's son) is principally considerate in three most important articles, viz., expense, correctness, beauty and uniformity." But these improvements are controverted.

In July 1729, William Ged entered into partnership with William Fenner, a London stationer, who was to have half the profits, in consideration of his advancing all the money requisite. To supply this, Mr John James, then an architect at Greenwich (who built Sir Gregory Page's house, Bloomsbury church, &c.) was taken into the scheme, and afterwards his brother Mr Thomas James, a letter-founder, and James Ged the inventor's son. In 1730, these partners applied to the university of Cambridge for printing bibles. and common-prayer books by blocks instead of single types; and, in consequence, a lease was fealed to them April 23d 1731. In their attempt they sunk a large sum of money, and finished only two prayer-books; so that it was forced to be relinquished, and the lease was given up in 1738. Ged imputed his disappointment to the villany of the pressmen and the ill treatment of his partners (which he specifies at large), particularly Fenner, whom John James and he were advised to prosecute, but declined it. He returned to Scotland in 1733, where he gave his friends a specimen of his performance, by an edition of Sallust. But being still unsuccessful, and having failed in obtaining redress from Fenner, who died insolvent, he was preparing again to set out for London, in order to join with his son James as a printer there, when he died October 19, 1749. Thus ended his life and project; which, ingenious as it seems, is not likely to be revived, if, as Mr. Mores suggests, "it must, had it at first succeeded, have soon sunk under its own burden," for reasons needful here to recapitulate.