The little that we know of the composition of the paste, or rather pastes, for there were two or more varieties used for the fine and common ware respectively, is derived from a paper (now in the possession of Mr. Binns) drawn up in 1764 by Richard Holdship, one of the original partners. In that year Holdship (he was an engraver who had been associated with the introduction of the transfer process) became bankrupt, and now entered the service of Duesbury and Heath at Derby. From this paper we learn that the ordinary paste used at Worcester contained about two-thirds of a glassy material (a mixture of flint-glass, crown-glass, and a specially prepared frit), and one-third of a soapy rock, that is to say of a steatite, from Cornwall. The composition of the glaze is interesting:--it contained, besides the usual constituents, 14 per cent. of ‘foreign china,’ 2½ per cent. of ‘tin-ashes,’ and 0·3 per cent. of smalt. We should add that on the whole the glaze of Worcester china is somewhat harder than that of other English soft-paste wares. Along with this recipe is ‘a process for making porcelain ware, without soapy rock or glass, in imitation of Nanquin, being an opaque body.’ This ‘Nanquin’ ware was made by mixing bone-ash with an equal weight of a very silicious frit: to the mixture 8 per cent. of Barnstaple clay and a small quantity of smalt were added. We learn from other sources (_e.g._ Borlase’s _History of Cornwall_, 1758) that the agents of the Worcester company were busy searching for and purchasing steatite rock, especially at Mullion, in the Lizard district.[239] Of the porcelain produced during the first sixteen years of the Worcester factory we know a little more than of that of the corresponding time at Derby. This was an eclectic period: the wares (and the marks also) of Chantilly, Meissen, and Chelsea were copied. It was the Oriental models, however, that were most in favour, especially the blue and white of China, small pieces of which were imitated with some success. For the enamelled ware, the brocaded Imari, our ‘old Japan,’ rather than the older Kakiyemon ware, served as a type. At this time, too, a strange attempt was made to copy the marks of the Chinese porcelain. We can trace, sometimes, the well-known characters of the Ming dynasty (‘great’ and ‘bright’) (PL. E. 76). In other cases Arabic numerals are arranged so as roughly to resemble a Chinese character. The idea was probably taken from old Delft ware on which similar marks are found, as also occasionally on Bow and on some Salopian porcelain. Again, we find a degenerate seal character, perhaps derived from the popular Japanese mark _Fu_ (happiness), taking a form something like the design of a Union Jack (PL. E. 78). The decoration of the Chinese _famille rouge_ was also copied--we find it, for example, on the edges of little white cups and bowls with basket-work designs in low relief, of which there are some specimens at South Kensington.