University of Virginia Library

The Printing of Sir George Croke's Reports
by
Lois Spencer

An anonymous single sheet in the Thomason Collection, together with certain entries in the MS Court Book of the Stationers' Company, tells the story of a contest which ranged from printing-house to Parliament and which illustrates not only the keen competition within the London trade during the mid-seventeenth century, but also the complexities that arose with reference to the printing of legal text-books.

The pamphlet (BM 669. f.20 [74]), which has no date, title, or name of printer, is catalogued by Fortescue under March 1658. Thomason's MS. Legal Year dating is "March 1657". It tells how

After two more unsuccessful attempts in October and January, Whiting complained

On the 20th of October, 1657,[2] Hodginson began to print "the 17 yeeres of King Charles". During the process, Whiting frequently visited "the Work-house" alone and with friends, to whom, and to the workmen, he declared that he had contracted with Hodgkinson to print the whole series, of which the present section amounted to less than one third.

He also, before the workmen, chid Hodgkinson because he was still completing some other contracts, and "forbad him to entertain any other worke, assuring him that he would finde him worke for 7 yeers. And he hath", says the pamphlet, "driven Customers from his the said Hodg. house." An instance of two unnamed Booksellers who on March 23rd vainly asked Hodgkinson to undertake as much as he would of the printing of Lord Hubbard's reports is quoted, and Whiting is said to have urged Hodgkinson to hurry on and take no other work because "there were reports of one Bulstrode[3] Whitlocks printing, which he would not for 100 l. should come out before his 11 yeers of King James", which he urged Hodgkinson to finish for him by Michaelmas.

Shortly before he had finished the Caroline copy, therefore, Hodgkinson asked Whiting whether that for

Here the pamphlet infuriatingly ends, leaving the reader to check its accuracy for himself.[4] The Stationers' Register has an entry under 4 July 1656 (Eyre & Rivington, Transcript), headed "Thos. Warren", which runs:—

There is no attempt at deletion, such as was ordered by the judges according to the pamphlet; nor is there any entry of the book to Hodgkinson. Wing, (Short-Title Catalogue of English Books, 1641-1700) has no Hodgkinson entry either.

In the British Museum, however, though not in Wing, is 6128.f.4, entitled:—

A Parliamentary Order prefaced to the book and dated "Tuesday 9 June 1657", states that:—

The Order is signed in the customary way by Scobell. The book contains a recommendation, "Wee all, knowing the great Learning, Wisdome, and Integrity of the Author, do (for the common benefit) approve and allow of the publishing of this Book", signed by Judges Glynne, St. John, Atkins, Nicholas, Hale, Wyndham, Warburton, and Parker. It also contains the Preface by Grimston addressed "To the Students of the Common-laws of England" which is quoted below. This is dated "From my Manor-house of Gorhambury, May 7, 1657". On the final page is a list of Errata numbering 45 in all.

Wing, under 'Sir George Croke', lists only one 1657 volume:—'The reports of. By J. S., 1657 fol.' This volume (BM 6121 i 1 is entitled —

It is much more roughly printed than the very attractive Hodgkinson copy. It has a different portrait-engraving as frontispiece and lacks the final emblem-engraving with which Hodgkinson concluded his book. It does not contain the Parliamentary Order. It compresses, by close printing, into 438 pages the section on which Hodgkinson lavished 603, and is therefore much more difficult to read. While Hodgkinson's Errata appear to be corrected, an equally long fresh list is inserted between Tables I and II, where it would not readily be observed. It contains the Preface, and the Judges' Recommendation, and the following Note to the Reader. This volume is too distinctly dated to be that referred to by J. M. Rigg under Grimston, Sir Harbottle, in the Dictionary of National Biography (ed. 1890), which, after commenting that the "first volume of Grimston's translation of Croke's reports was published, with a life of the author, in 1657", adds, "There is also a very inaccurate edition of early but uncertain date". It is difficult to see which edition(s) Rigg is referring to here. Since the corrections indicated in Hodgkinson's "Errata" are carried out in the J. S. copy, one would, but for the dating, have thought that the Hodgkinson edition must be the "former" one referred to both in J. S.'s foreword and by Rigg as "inaccurate". But Hodgkinson too is clearly dated. It thus seems doubtful whether the "inaccurate edition of early date" referred to by the D.N.B. exists, unless Rigg never saw the Hodgkinson edition and referred to it.[5] Rigg does, however, mention the Parliamentary Order, which appears only in Hodgkinson.

Before turning to the version of the story in the Court Books of the Stationers' Company, some facts about the situation and certain of the characters should be summarised.

The controversy about the printing of law-books which this story exemplifies is of particular interest between 1641 and 1660, because the future of a monopoly was in doubt. Edward VI had granted to Richard Tottel by letters patent, endorsed by Elizabeth,[6] the exclusive right of printing common law books. This patent passed by grant through various hands until in the reign of James I it was granted to John More for forty years.[7] More assigned his rights to Miles Fletcher, in return for an annuity plus a third of the profits. More died in 1638, leaving the annuity to Martha, his daughter, wife of Richard Atkyns, who thus through her acquired the patent.[8]

Fletcher, trying to evade payment of the annuity, bought up More's stock and equipment, and sought to sell the rights to the Company of Stationers. The action which Atkyns brought against him and the Company was interrupted by the Civil War. From then until the Restoration, therefore, the issue was undecided. The Company of Stationers, anxious that so important and lucrative a right should be in their own hands, sought mean-while to establish a tradition of authorization via priority of entry in their register. After the Restoration, complicated litigation eventually favoured Atkyns; the Company, however, was able in 1661 to purchase the right, but had still to contend with counter-claims by the Fletchers. It was during the previous indeterminate period that, as described in the pamphlet, Sir Harbottle Grimston sought to publish the legal reports of Sir George Croke.

Sir George Croke is most generally known as one of the two judges who, in 1638, found against King Charles I on the question of the legality of ship-money. He died in 1642, leaving his legal Reports, covering three reigns and ranging from 1580 to 1640, in the charge of his son-in-law, Harbottle Grimston. This was fitting, for Croke had made it a condition of the marriage of his daughter, Mary, to Grimston in 1629 that the legal practice which the latter, who was a barrister of Lincoln's Inn, had at that time discarded, should be resumed. It was excellent advice; Grimston rose rapidly in his profession, becoming in 1634 Recorder of Harwich, which he represented in Parliament from 1638, Recorder of Colchester (1638-49), and Colchester's representative in the Short and Long Parliaments, of which he was a conspicuous member. Politically, his position was complicated. Son of a Puritan baronet, he became Deputy Lieutenant of Essex and Chairman of the Committee which in 1647 investigated Charles I's escape from Hampton Court. Rushforth lists him as having taken the Covenant. Burnet, who later became his chaplain, says he did not. He led the Isle of Wight negotiations for a personal treaty, opposed regicide, and was purged by Pride in 1648, imprisoned for a short time, and, when returned to Parliament in 1656, excluded. From 1649-1660 he lived in retirement, latterly at Gorhambury, an estate which he had acquired through a second marriage — once more an alliance with a great legal family — to Anne, daughter of Sir Nathaniel Bacon.[9] Part of this leisure (which was ended by his being elected Speaker of the Convention Parliament, in which capacity he rather floridly welcomed Charles II at the Restoration) he spent in wrestling with his former father-in-law's Reports.

This was no easy task. The Reports, extending over so many years and by so eminent an authority, would necessarily form a legal reference-book of first importance. The current demand for such works, together with the unsatisfactory way in which it then was often met, is described by Grimston in the Preface to the Reports, vol. i.

Grimston therefore took upon himself "the resolution and task of extracting and extricating" the Reports "out of their dark originalls". Dark not only because in accordance with Parliamentary policy they must now be published in English, not French, but also because they were exceedingly difficult to read, "being written in so small and close an hand, that I may truly say they are folia sybillina, as difficult as excellent." Grimston therefore used the help of "better eyes" than his own.

That Richard Hodgkinson should have been much sought after at this time is not surprising. After difficulties financial, political, and professional, he had just reached the zenith of his fame as the printer (in 1655) of one of the most exacting and superbly printed books of the century, Sir William Dugdale's Monasticon Anglicanum (vol. I). In 1656 he printed, at the request of Sir Henry Spelman: "Villare Anglicum / OR / A VIEW OF THE TOWNES / of ENGLAND". (BM E.484[3]) which contains an attractively written foreword from the Printer to the Reader. Sir Henry Spelman had first recommended Dugdale to serve in the Office of Arms, and first introduced him to Roger Dodsworth, who originated, and probably wrote most of Monasticon but died before its completion.[10] But the second volume of Monasticon was to come in 1661 from the press of Alice Warren,

Thomas's widow,[11] and in 1656 Dugdale's Antiquities of Warwickshire was printed by Thomas Warren. It seems possible, therefore, that round about 1655-56 rivalry existed between Hodgkinson and Warren towards the Dugdale-Spelman antiquarian axis. Warren was a skilful printer: he specialised in "portraictures cut in wood" (Stat. Reg. 4 April 1656), and on 7 April 1656 is referred to as the printer of a 7-sheet map of London. He probably saw Hodgkinson's technical virtuosity, displayed in the first volume of Monasticon, as a menace to his own prospects.

The Clement Spelman mentioned in the pamphlet was probably Sir Henry's fourth son (1598-1679), barrister, and from 1660 bencher of Gray's Inn. He wrote in 1647 a tract entitled Reasons for admitting the King to a Personal Treaty in Parlt. and not by Commissioners [12] and in 1648 a Letter to the Assembly of Divines concerning Sacrilege. According to the D.N.B., "there was another member of his family of somewhat similar age and the same name" who may have been the Clement Spelman listed on 24 April 1648 as a sequestered delinquent; he may also have been the Clement Spelman of the pamphlet.

The number of members of the Bacon family "of somewhat similar age and the same name" during the 1650s has made it impossible to identify with certainly the Bacon[13] mentioned in the pamphlet. It seems unlikely that Nathaniel Bacon, Member for Ipswich, is intended, as he was by now probably too well known to be mentioned by the vague "one Master Bacon". The Nicholas Bacon referred to at the end of this article may be a more likely candidate.

The important question of the identity of Whiting is discussed later.

The Court Book (1654-79) gives a more detailed account of the facts covered in the Thomason pamphlet, and adds much more. On 6 October 1656 Thomason and Leake were two of those present when

A further entry on 9 February 1656/7 runs:— On 2 March 1656/7,

At this point there is a year's gap before the next relevant Court Book entry. It seems that between March 2nd and June 9th, 1657, application was made to Parliament by Whiting and Hodgkinson for vindication of the Judges' ruling, which was secured by the Parliamentary order: and that Hodgkinson's was the edition referred to by Bulstrode Whitlocke as published on 25th June. Between that date and January-March 1657/8 appeared the unauthorised "J. S." edition. It will be remembered that this edition purported to be sold "by the Stationers of London". It would be interesting

to know how much truth lay behind this expression. In 1664, John Streator printed under the name of Richard Atkyns the pamphlet entitled The Original and Growth of Printing, in which the previous attitude of the Stationers (to which the writer of the 1664 pamphlet is opposed) is summed up thus:—

In contrast to this policy, the Parliamentary Order of 9 June, 1657, might suggest some willingness on the part of the Commons to arrogate to themselves the previously royal right of granting the monopoly.[15] Such an attitude might appear as a threat to the procedure of right by entry in the Register which the Stationers sought to establish. It may be that in our instance the retention of the Warren entry, the refusal of a Hodgkinson entry, the postponements and the varying reasons given for them, are factors in a coherent if improvised policy which, on 9 February 1656/7, when blocked by the Judges over the question of printing rights, introduced the issue of inherent right so that action on the other count might again be postponed.

If so, it might seem possible that the J. S. edition could have been printed or initiated with the concealed (or open) support of the Stationers' Company, though the legally non-committal phrase "Stationers of London" may equally well indicate the contrary. The identity of J. S. is, however, a question here. The obvious claimants are the two men thus initialled who participated in printing subsequent abridgements of the Reports: John Starkey and John Streator. Streator, who partnered Warren in this the very next year, seems the more closely linked, since he was, as assign of Richard Atkyns, deeply and frequently involved in litigation about the printing of law books; he was certainly and emphatically the advocate, in 1664, of individual (royal) rights, against the sale of the monopoly to the company of Stationers.

Whatever the identity of J. S., we know that Whiting appealed to the House of Commons against the J. S. edition, for, while the Journal of the

House for 20 Jan. 1657/8 has the entry "The humble petition[16] of John Whiteing, of Lincoln's-Inn, Esquire, was this day read", Burton's Parliamentary Diary for the same day reports the following discussion:

There is also evidence that Grimston himself, if he was disappointed at the number of Errata in Hodgkinson's edition, was enraged by those of the J. S. edition, for in his Preface to the second volume of the Reports[17] he says,

He adds that if despite his efforts some errors have slipped in "You will

find them particularly corrected, in the usual place, after the end of this Book".[19]

Whether because he had indeed previously made other arrangements, or because he felt that Hodgkinson had worked less accurately than the task demanded, or because he wanted no more bother with Whiting, Grimston seems to have decided to make a break over the printing of the Reports for King James's reign, which had for a time been placed in Hodgkinson's hands by Whiting. The Court Book on 19 Feb. 1657/8 has the entry that

Hodgkinson secured suspension of the entry of the Book to anybody, pending his proof of his allegations, which he promised to produce at the next Court. On 19th March 1657/8, says the Court Book, Godby brought to the Court a letter from Grimston repeating the request of Feb. 16th and affirming the right to be in Godby only, "and that Mr. Hodgkinson was only employed in printing the Judiciall Reports which (if it had been Entred) he was to have given Bond for the copie." Hodgkinson presented a paper "purporting an assertion of his right in the Copie of the above Reports not only with consent but speciall approbation & direction of . . . Grimstone and protesting against what shall be done to the prejudice of such his right." The Table decided to decide nothing at present but told the Clerk to go to Gorhambury, taking Hodgkinson's paper, and give Grimston a copy of it, asking to be fully informed about it. On March 26th, 1658, Godby presented to the Table Grimston's reply, which stated that Grimston "denies he ever assigned to Mr. Whiting his interests in any of Judge Crook's Reports except the Judiciall Reports in the first seventeen yeares of King Charles 2ndly That Mr. Whiting's promise to Mr. Hodgkinson of printing the other parts . . . cannot devest Sr Harbottle of his property . . . But admitting Mr. Hodg. had such a promise from Mr. Whiting or himself (which he utterly denies) he has no remedy upon failure of performance but to bring his case . . . to recover his Damages. . . ."

It would not, says Grimston, be for the Company to "meddle" with such action, but to "leave him to a legall way". Grimston then repeats his request for assignment to Godby.

The court at last decided, at the end of the sitting, that though Hodgkinson had shown the Table a copy signed by several witnesses to the agreement with Whiting, this was, as Grimston urged, a legal matter, not a case for them to decide: since Hodgkinson's possible redress would not be prejudiced by entry of the Reports to Godby, it was decided to assign the Jacobean volume to him.[20]

Hodgkinson had thus won the first round only to be defeated in the second. But though he appears to have sought no legal redress, he did take what is now called unilateral action, for a Court Book minute of 7 February 1658/9 records that he had been found at some previous date "printing Judge Crook's Reports contrary to order" and his goods were seized and taken to Stationers' Hall. A "friendly agreement" having now been reached between Hodgkinson and Field (the bookseller for whom Godby and Newcomb issued the Jacobean volume in 1659) it was decided that these should be restored.

Grimston's labours continued. The second Part, commended by eight Judges and without Parliamentary Order, was duly printed by T. Newcomb and W. Godbie, to be sold by John Field at the Seven Stars in Fleet-Street, in 1659. Both of the copies I have seen (BM 6128.f.3 and that in the Library of the Institute of Historical Research, London) have been rebound, which may possibly account for the absence in each of the Errata, referred to by Grimston in the Preface. (The Second Edition of Part II (1669) describes itself as "corrected".) The First Part (for Elizabeth's reign) appeared in 1661 "Printed by and for John Field and Tho. Newcomb: Also for W. Lee, D. Pakeman, and Gabriel Bedell." It has a highly rhetorical Dedication to King Charles II in which Grimston avers that the Third and Second Parts would have been similarly dedicated but for "the extream difficulty of publick Address to Your Majesties Sacred Person, divided from Your good Subjects, by the cruel, wicked, bloody, and desperate practises of horrid Intruders and Usurpers", which had forced him to send them abroad with only a Preface. The names of eleven Judges, but no Parliamentary Order, commend it. The Errata, inserted between the reports and the Tables, form a staggering list of 57 lines in each of two columns in very small print. Perhaps, after all, Grimston would have been better advised to stick to Hodgkinson.

The equivocal part played by Whiting in this story deserves comment. The chief clue to his identity is the "of Lincolne's-Inn" description in the Parliamentary Journal for 20 January 1657/8, which seems to fix him as the John Whiting, son and heir of Thomas Whiting of Saxlingham, Norfolk, who was admitted on 10 November 1624, and had been admitted pensioner

at Caius, Cambridge, on 28 May 1619, "son of Thos. Gent., of Saxlingham, Norfolk". The BM catalogue describes him as "Bookseller", on the strength of the word "Proprietor" in the Thomason pamphlet, one supposes, for his name occurs in no other place where a bookseller's should, so far as I can discover.

It will have been noticed that throughout the story Grimston never appears in person. He would scarcely have felt himself persona grata in London during the year following his exclusion from Parliament. He may therefore in the first instance have acted through a friend, representative, or associate rather than a stationer. In the Preface to the Hodgkinson volume he mentions the help of "better eyes" than his own. Such a helper would need to have had a legal training and/or practice with documents. John Whiting of Lincoln's Inn would possess these qualifications. Roger Dodsworth, in a letter to Sir William Dugdale dated by Hamper (Life, Diary & Correspondence of Sir William Dugdale, 1827) March 1649/50, says: "Mr. Whiting was wth me this morning, and tells me ther is a great man called Paston, whose father was a studious man after antiquities, especially Abbey Books, and hath left Collections out of divers, wch Mr. Whiting is to p'use. He will serve you by Sir Charles Mordants' deeds", and on 10 May, 1651, he tells Dugdale that Mr. Whiting has "come up last weeke but is gone today wth rare Historical notes out of several Registers he found in Suffolke, touching St. Edmundsbury."

In an article by Falconer Madan in the Athenaeum (3 November 1888) which reprints the previously missing section of Dugdale's diary for 1656, occurs, under 14 September, the entry:—"Sent to Mr. Martin the Register at Lichfield 6s, whereof 2s6d I am to receive of Mr. Whiting the Lawyere,[21] it being for the search of the will of one Thwaites of Henoure." Since "Mr. Dugdale", according to the Court Book, accompanied Whiting on his Hodgkinson negotiations, it seems that the Whiting referred to above, who may have been recommended to Grimston by the Dugdales as one competent to help in deciphering Croke's sibylline leaves, would be a not unlikely person for Grimston to choose as his negotiator. If he made any subsequent excursions into the world of the printers of law books, he would have needed to walk warily after the Restoration, for Grimston then became Master of the Rolls.

There remains a faint and very conjectural possibility that after the Restoration two, or perhaps three, of the participants in this story ("Master" Bacon, Grimston, and very improbably J. S.) encountered each other again. In the case of le Roy versus Bacon (Mich. 16 Car. II BR) the latter

was indicted (I quote Levinz[22]) "for intending to murder the Master of the Rolls, and for offering 100 l. to J. S.. to do it and saying, that if he would not he would do it himself."

Keble[23] gives the accomplice's name as Parry and agrees with Siderfin[24] and Levinz about the cause, that Grimston "on Misdemeanours in a Cause in Chancery referred to him, made an order which displeased the Defendant." The D.N.B. refers to this Bacon as Nathaniel.[25] It is clear, however, from Heathcote MSS November, 1664, p. 170 (News Letter) that this is an error: "Mr. Nicholas Bacon, a barrister of Grey's Inn, being found guilty of endeavouring the death of Sir Harbottle Grimston, Master of the Rolls, has been sentenced to 1,000 Marks fine, 3 months' imprisonment, and to make public acknowledgment of his offence at the Kings Bench Bar & Chancery." And the Christian name is confirmed by an entry in Cal. St. Pa. Dom. Ch. II, 1667, vol. ii, p. 116, 23rd May: "Warrant for a grant to Sir John Denham, surveyor of works, and Thos. Killigrew, groom of the bedchamber, of a fine of 600 l. imposed on Nich. Bacon, of Gray's Inn, convicted four years ago for contriving the death of Sir Harbottle Grimstone, Master of the Rolls."

Whether this Nicholas was the "Master Bacon" of the Thomason pamphlet, one cannot tell. There can however be little doubt that he was the writer of the letter to Grimston which in H.M.C. Report on the MSS of the Earl of Verulam at Gorhambury, 1906 is headed (p.95) "Anonymous letter to Sir Harbottle Grimston, Master of the Rolls", and which suggests an enmity of longer standing than the immediate issue; part of it runs:—

The attempt and not the deed confounded Bacon. Grimston continued to wear the "robes of justice and power" until 1685, when Cooke's letter in the Lefroy Papers informs us, under 2nd January, that "the Old Master of the Rolls, Sir Harbottle Grimston, hath made shift to die at last from apoplexy."

Note: The records of the Stationers' and Newspaper Makers' Company were made accessible to me by courtesy of the Clerk, Mr. R. T. Rivington, which I acknowledge with thanks. I am also indebted, initially, to Mr. J. Crow; and subsequently to Mr. Cyprian Bladgen, who from his great knowledge of the Company's history has generously given information and advice.

Notes