| ||
The "Company" of Printers
by
Cyprian Blagden
Christopher Barker was perhaps the first to perceive, as he was certainly the first to record, the shift of power in the Stationers' Company away from the printers who had worked for the charter of incorporation and towards the booksellers who were the chief beneficiaries by it. In his "note of the state of the Company of Printers, Bookesellers, and Bookebynders comprehended vnder the name of Stacioners"[1] he regretted firstly that, by the charter, printing had not been confined to "Printers-Stacioners" but had been allowed to any member of the Company; and secondly that, by the operation of economic necessity, the valuable copyrights had passed from the printers to the booksellers who "keepe no printing howse, neither beare any charge of letter, or other furniture but onlie paye for the workmanship, and haue the benefit, both of the imprinting, and the sale" of such books. Barker did not presume to offer his detailed solution of the problem unless Lord Burleigh were to ask for it; but he put his finger on the two main grievances of master-printers for the next 100 years: the practice of the printer's craft by those not trained to it, and the power of the booksellers—dominance in the trade leading to dominance in the corporation—to make rules for what had taken shape in 1557 as a Company of Printers.
Some of the new group of 'trade' printers, like Danter and Creede, staked claims to the printing of certain books, regardless of who owned the 'copy', and recorded these in the register.[2] This was an ingenious way of stopping the rot, but it could operate only under the supervision of the Court of Assistants and it was perhaps likely to operate only while printers still exercised power on the Court; by 1603 they were already outnumbered and in 1640 there were only two. The possession
George Unwin has shown[5] how similar developments occurred in other London companies during the sixteenth century and how, for instance, an industrial section, the Feltmakers, rebelled successfully against the dominating merchant interest in the Haberdashers' Company and won, by Act of Parliament in 1604, independent corporate existence. It would be surprising if the printers had not worked for their separation from the Stationers, but the evidence for such a movement in the first half of the seventeenth century is limited to one document. This is "The Petition of the Masters and Workmen Printers of London" to the knights, citizens and burgesses then (probably 1628) assembled in Parliament.[6] It refers to the incorporation in 1557 of the "Printers together with some Booke-Binders and Booke-Sellers"
The Star Chamber Decree of 1637, a neat piece of cooperation between the central government and the Company against heretical, seditious and piratical printing, limited the number of master-printers in London to twenty and the King's Printers, and to the three each allowed at Oxford and Cambridge. But on 5 July 1641 Charles I gave his consent to the abolition of the Court of Star Chamber and removed the basis for the authority which the booksellers had exercised, with some success, over the printers. For the next few years the printers flourished and multiplied; when the Council of State was constrained in the autumn of 1649 to take recognizances from printers against the production of seditious and unlicensed books, the twenty in London had grown to thirty-six and the printers were strong enough to break, more blatantly than before and often with impunity, the rules of the Company—particularly by binding, at Scriveners, apprentices in excess of their permitted number and by employing, as journeymen, those not free of the City. That the printers as a group made no attempt in 1645 to exploit the Sparke-led revolution in the Company[7] shows, I think, not weakness but a determination to go their own way; and in the course of 1651 they petitioned the Committee for the Regulating of Printing that they might be made a Fraternity or Company distinct
With the return of Charles II in May 1660 the Stationers looked to see "their wonted power confirmed", the absence of which they had admitted to Thomason in Court on 5 February 1655; and the printers, scenting a return to pre-1641 conditions, made another bid for separate incorporation. The first bill for the regulation of printing was dropped in July 1661 because the House of Commons would not accept a Lords amendment that the houses of peers be exempt from search.[9] But early in 1662 a new bill was introduced and, after representations to the Lords from certain printers and a counter-petition from the Company[10], "An Act for preventing the frequent Abuses in
On 11 May 1663 the printers were again ordered to present themselves and their journeymen at the Hall at ten o'clock the following morning, so that a count of printing houses and operatives could be made. "59 Mr. Printers were acknowledged; some of ym seemed to be angry at their sumons."[13] Within the next few months, and probably before 15 August when Sir Roger L'Estrange was appointed Surveyor of the Press, eleven of them had petitioned the King to grant them independence. This petition, which is in manuscript and which has three manuscript enclosures[14], has been tentatively dated 1660/1. The
In the petition itself the eleven signatories, pointing out that men will always find ways of avoiding rules laid down by Act of Parliament, appeal directly to the King that the printers may be incorporated and thereby provide the only possible answer to irregularities in the press. The supporting "Reasons" can be divided into those which might carry weight with the King and his advisers and those which were important to the printers themselves. The former were, first, that only printers had enough technical knowledge to make effective searchers of printers' premises for seditious and heretical books, papers and pamphlets; second, that only by incorporation will printers be sufficiently encouraged to expose these dangerous publications and that twelve months' good management will show results; third, that the Stationers' Company had grown so large that a man reached a place
These fundamental reasons were elaborated in A brief discourse concerning printing and printers, which was printed "for a Society of Printers" in 1663. The charter of 1557 "and concorporation, . . were without doubt made in favour of Printers, and for their encouragement and security . . . [and] might conduce to their well-being then, when the Book-sellers were very few, and as inconsiderable, and so the Printers sufficient to hold the balance even." But in 1663 the booksellers "are grown so bulkie and numerous (together with many of several other Trades that they have taken in) and so considerable withal (being much enriched by Printers impoverishment . . .) that there is hardly one Printer to ten others that have a share in the Government of the Company". Moreover, few young master-printers had in recent years been able to make a bid for the copies of an old printer and "the Booksellers having engros'd almost all, it is become a question among them, whether a Printer ought to have any copy or no: or if he have, they (keeping the Register) will hardly enter it. . . ." Worst of all, "to compleat the abuse, and to encourage others in the like, they erect a Printing-house by a joynt stock of their own, and call it, The Companies House".[18] The only solution was that the printers be
The most interesting of the enclosures (no. I) sets out in twenty-four clauses the methods by which incorporation would lead to efficient management of the press. The new company would have power to draft by-laws for the approval of the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of London in addition to the statutory approval of the Lord Chancellor and the Lords Chief Justice, and power to search not only printing houses but, because a protectionist policy would encourage the printing of, for instance, the classics rather than dangerous pamphlets, any shop or warehouse suspected of harbouring imported books. Master-printers would have to enter into bonds of b300 and journeymen into bonds of g50 not to print seditious matter and to report any rumour of such printing known to them; for a first offence the bond would be forfeited and for a second offence a printer would suffer disfranchisement and further fines if he continued printing. Everyone engaged in the craft would have to serve a seven-year apprenticeship, and thereafter to be free of the new company and licensed before setting up (penalties b100 per press and b50 per month). The corporation would be fined if it allowed the binding of an apprentice in excess of the agreed numbers. The high cost of serving "the King and the Kingdom" would be met by fines and by remission of all dues to the City, and the King would be financially responsible for prosecutions.
The new Society would be incorporated as a "ffellowship of Master, and Wardens, and Assistants",[19] who would hold a Court at least once a month; but one Warden and six Assistants would be chosen commissioners for three months at a time, to meet every Monday, to conduct searches, to bring offenders against Church or State before a Justice of the Peace, and to provide evidence for offences against copyright. Records would be kept of the homes and working places of all printers, with changes of address, so that "every particular mans Actions and ffootsteps may be the better observed and traced" (an echo from the earlier "Expedients" in which one of the duties of the new corporation
Why was the appeal unsuccessful? In the first place, there was opposition from the Stationers' Company; any corporation would protest against the breaking away of a third of its members and the booksellers were able not only to muster an overwhelming majority on the Court but to make direct approaches to those close to the King—to Secretary Nicholas, for instance, as I have already mentioned, and to Lauderdale (over the patent for printing in Scotland). Moreover, there would be a strong temptation for the King's advisers rather to pin their faith to an arrangement which, but for the Civil War, might have worked satisfactorily than to sponsor a quite untried method. The Star Chamber Decree of 1637 may have seemed to them, as it did to the author of The London printer his lamentation,[20] "the best and most exquisite Form and Constitution for the good Government and regulation of the Press"; and the Decree had been supported by, and could only be worked with the aid of, the Stationers' Company.
In the second place, L'Estrange was not in favour of a Printers' Company, and he had sufficient influence at Court to obtain the post of Surveyor of the Press in August 1663. On 28 May he procured a licence for his Considerations and proposals in order to the regulation of the press,[21] just over a fortnight after the meeting at Stationers' Hall when the printers had been 'angry'. L'Estrange says some hard, and interesting, things about the booksellers, and he maintains that there "must be some way to Disengage the Printers from that Servile and Mercenary Dependence upon the Stationers, unto which they are at present subjected". But, in his opinion, the solution was not, as the printers proposed, by separate incorporation, for "It were a hard
In the third place, the printers themselves were not united. Why did only eleven out of about sixty master-printers sign the petition to the King? Even if the eleven were acting on behalf of a majority of their fellow employers, how far were their journeymen, for whom they said they were speaking, in favour of the break? Between 1650 and 1658 there were seven complaints to the Court by workmen printers against various malpractices of their masters, and in 1660 the London Printer in his Lamentation bewailed the excessive number of printing houses and the complete lack of training and experience in some of those who ran them. It is possible that the grumblers no more represented the general body of workmen than the eleven spoke for the masters; but the existence among the printers of even a small element which was inclined to seek support from the booksellers on the Court would provide a further argument, for anyone looking for such, against giving the masters even more power over their employees.
Support was sometimes sought from higher authority than the Court of the Stationers' Company. In a petition,[22] probably to the Archbishop of Canterbury, the journeymen hark back nostalgically to the provisions of the 1637 Decree, with particular reference to the limitation in the numbers of apprentices, and draw attention to the increase, since the abolition of the Star Chamber Court, both of presses and of Dutch and other unfree workmen, some of whom were trained in the University printing-houses. The foreigners are said to outnumber free workmen Stationers and to be preferred for secret printing because they had sworn no oath to obey the rules of the Company. The purpose of the document is obscure; it is headed "The Grievances of The Workemen Printers . . . by Way of affermation of their Pettition" and begins with the statement that the manual work in all regular printing houses is done by compositors and pressmen, while the master's job is to provide and oversee the work. But it concludes with the more interesting statement that "There be 35 Printing Houses above the Number alowed of By the Decree of Starre Chamber . . ." and it lists both these thirty-five (with comments on some of them)
In the accompanying Table I have arranged these fifty-two masterprinters in alphabetical order and, in an attempt to discover who were the fifty-nine acknowledged to be active in 1663, I have added those whose names occur in L'Estrange's four search warrants of 1667[23] and in his survey of 1668.[24] To make the picture a little fuller, I have given the dates of freedom (with a note if this was achieved other than by service) and indicated those whose businesses were officially approved in 1637 and gave recognizances in 1649, those who were summoned on 30 November 1664 to give the Assistants their opinion about the control of printing, and those who did work for and had shares in the English Stock between 1660 and 1668. My tally of the fifty-nine masterprinters in 1663 consists of those whose names appear in the 1660 list (fifty without Hunt, who died in 1660, and the Greek House) and Henry Bridges, Andrew Coe, Edward Crouch, John Darby, John Owsley, George Purslowe, John Rawlins, Roger Vaughan and the other Wood.[25]
I had hoped that the Table would separate the printers into groups with recognizable patterns of behaviour; but I can see no correlation between any two—or more—of the classes into which they can be divided: those whose presses were licensed, those who held shares in the English Stock, those who printed Stock books, those who put their names to the petition for incorporation, those who were summoned to give advice to the governing body of their Company. Official recognition, investment opportunity, economic necessity and gild ambition were so inextricably confused in a printer's life that it was impossible for a sufficient number of masters and journeymen to agree for long enough to win independence. The Plague and the Fire put the possibility still further into the background, and in 1667 Charles II granted
But L'Estrange kept alive the idea of a Printers' Company. On Tuesday 10 June 1679, the very day on which the Printing Act (in spite of the efforts of the Stationers) was allowed to lapse, he wrote to Henry Coventry, Principal Secretary of State, and enclosed "The Printers Reasons" for separate incorporation.[26] The previous Friday, according to L'Estrange, over a score of printers had voluntarily offered to serve the King on condition that they be incorporated and be given the normal powers of a company, and that they have their share of the English Stock according to their numbers. The business cannot be finished till after the King's return, but L'Estrange urges Coventry to encourage the printers to think more about it (revealing thereby that L'Estrange was keener than the printers) and to continue the observance of the licensing rules laid down in the Act. If this opportunity be lost it may never occur again, "ffor ye Booksellers (especially ye ffactious Part) fall foul upon ye Printrs allready, and upon my self too; and ye Printers are utterly ruin'd for their Loyalty, if they be not protected in it." This time the precedent quoted is that of the Tinmen who, because of oppression and ill-usage at the hands of the Ironmongers, achieved separate incorporation "as to the working part of their Trade" and continued to enjoy the privileges of the Ironmongers.
The printers' "Reasons" contain the usual arguments that, by their experience, they are better searchers of printing-houses than booksellers and less tempted by profit (the ratio of temptation being b5 to b50) not to suppress libels. It is now suggested that the number of printing-houses be thirty, which can be more easily searched and kept in order than 800 Stationers, "especially when every one is a spy upon his ffellow". The conclusion is an assurance to justify, on oath, that the booksellers give private warning of impending searches, refuse licensed work to those printers who will not print unlicensed, and deny informers their promised rewards for discoveries.
Two days later L'Estrange again wrote to Coventry. Both parties had been ordered to prepare their proposals for press control and to attend the Attorney General on Thursday, the day on which L'Estrange was writing; but, though the printers turned up, the booksellers waited till Tuesday—perhaps because they thought they would do better if the King had left town. Poor L'Estrange could sense the
And there the story of the printers' bids for independence comes to a whimpering end or disappears for want of evidence. When the City Companies were compelled in 1684 to surrender their charters to the King, the printers and booksellers stood together and the Stationers' Company was the first to receive a new grant from Charles II.[27] The divisions were then along political and religious lines rather than along those of trade rivalry, and they continued so until the accession of William III. The Printing Act, revived by James II, lapsed finally in 1695 and made possible the nation-wide expansion of printing which had been bottled up in London. The next hundred years brought an interesting reversal of attitude; while the printers grew reasonably contented within the Stationers' Company, the booksellers resorted to combinations outside the antiquated gild framework.
1660-1668 Eng. Stock | ||||||||||
1637 Decree | 1649 recogs | name | free | 1660 list[1] | 1663 petn | 1664 meeting | share | work | 1667 search lists | 1668 list[2] |
x | x | Mrs. [Elizabeth] Alsop | widow of Bernard | 1 | x | [d.?1663] | ||||
x | [Henry] Bell | 28 June 1950, pat. | 1 | x | ||||||
[William] Bowtell[3] | -- | c | x | |||||||
[Henry] Bridges | 4 June 1660 | x | c | x | ||||||
x | [John] Brudenell | 7 Feb. 1659, pat. | not | x | x | ruined | ||||
[John] Cadwell | 4 July 1653 | not | x | |||||||
[Thomas] Childe | 5 May 1656 | not | ruined | |||||||
x | Mrs. [Jane] Clowes | widow of John | not | |||||||
[Andrew] Coe[4] | 2 Feb. 1662, pat. | c | x | |||||||
[Peter] Cole[5] | 11 Jan. 1638 | not | [d. 1665] | |||||||
x | x | Mrs. [Ellen] Cotes | widow of Richard | 1 | x | x | c | x | ||
[James] Cottrell | 3 Aug. 1646 | not | x | x | x | x | a | x | ||
[Thomas] Creake | 3 Sept. 1638 | not | x | |||||||
[Edward] Crouch | 21 Oct. 1646 | a | x | |||||||
[Roger] Daniel[6] | -- | not | x | [d. 1667] | ||||||
[John] Darby | 6 Nov. 1660 | c | since Act | |||||||
[Ralph] Davenport | 10 Jan. 1655 | not | [d. 1665] | |||||||
x | x | Mrs. [Gartrude] Dawson | widow of John | 1 | x | [d. ?1666] | ||||
[John] Dever[5a] | 4 Sept. 1626 | not | x | [d. 1665] | ||||||
[Thomas] Fawcett | 7 May 1621 | not | x | |||||||
x | [John] Field | 4 Feb. 1635 | not | x | x | d | x | |||
x | x | [James] Flesher | 5 Oct. 1646, pat. | 1 | x | x | d | x | ||
[William] Godbid | 4 May 1653 | 1 | x | x | b | x | ||||
The Greek House [Roger Norton] | not | |||||||||
x | x | Mrs. [Sarah] Griffin | widow of Edward (II) | 1 | x | x | c | x | ||
x | [John] Grismond | 1 Feb. 1641 | not | x | x | x | x | [d. ?1666] | ||
[John] Hayes | 3 Oct. 1653 | 1 | x | x | x | ruined | ||||
x | [Henry] Hills[7] | 7 Oct. 1651, red. | [not] | x | x | |||||
x | [Richard] Hodgkinson | 3 June 1616 | 1 | x | x | x | d | x | ||
[Nathaniel] Howell[5b] | 7 June 1658 | not | ||||||||
x | x | [William] Hunt[8] | 1 Feb. 1641 | 1 | x | [d. 1660] | ||||
x | [Robert] Ibbitson | 21 Oct. 1644 | not | x | x | x | a | [d. 1667] | ||
[Matthew] Inman | 6 Feb. 1654 | not |
1660-1668 Eng. Stock | ||||||||||
1637 Decree | 1649 recogs | name | free | 1660 list[1a] | 1663 petn | 1664 meeting | share | work | 1667 search lists | 1668 list[2a] |
[Thomas] Johnson | 22 Oct. 1656 | not | x | a | x | |||||
[Thomas] Leach | 21 June 1658, pat. | not | x | a | x | |||||
x | [William] Leybourne[9] | 1 July 1647, pat. | not | x | x | ruined | ||||
[Peter] Lilliecrap | 1 May 1654 | not | x | a | x | |||||
[Henry] Lloyd | 3 April 1654 | 1 | x | |||||||
x | [Thomas] Mabb | 1 April 1647 | not | x | x | x | x | [d. ?1665] | ||
x | [John] Macock | 10 Jan. 1939 | not | x | x | x | d | x | ||
[David] Maxwell | 23 Dec. 1657 | not | x | x | a | x | ||||
[Thomas] Milbourne | 7 July 1634 | not | x | a | x | |||||
x | x | [Abraham] Miller | 21 Jan. 1644, pat. | 1 | x | x | x | [d. 1665] | ||
x | [Edward] Mottershead | 20 Jan. 1640 | not | x | x | [d. ?1665] | ||||
x | x | [Thomas] Newcomb[10] | 6 Nov. 1648 | 1 | x | x | x | d | x | |
x | [Roger] Norton, Asst. | 30 June 1651 | not | x | x | d | x | |||
]Edward] Oakes | 27 June 1664, pat. | b | since Act | |||||||
[John] Owsley | 30 Dec. 1649 | ruined | ||||||||
[Leonard] Parry | 9 Feb. 1657 | not | ||||||||
x | x | [George] Purslow | 6 Dec. 1647, pat. | x | c | x | ||||
x | [Thomas] Ratcliffe | 14 Jan. 1628 | not | x | x | b | x | |||
[John] Rawlins | 4 April 1653 | since Act | ||||||||
[John] Redmayne[6a] | 21 March 1649 | not | x | c | x | |||||
[Thomas] Roycroft | 23 June 1647 | 1 | x | x | x | x | b | x | ||
[John] Streater[11] | 6 June 1644 | not | x | x | x | c | x | |||
Mrs. [Mary] Symons | widow of Matthew | 1 | x | x | c | x | ||||
[John] Twyn | 7 Sept. 1640 | not | x | [d. 1664[12]] | ||||||
[Evan] Tyler, Asst. | 1 July 1639 | not | x | x | d | x | ||||
[Roger] Vaughan[13] | -- | ruined | ||||||||
x | Mrs. [Alice] Warren | widow of Thomas | 1 | x | x | ruined | ||||
[Robert] White | 7 Dec. 1639 | not | x | x | x | b | x | |||
x | [William] Wilson, Asst. | 4 Sept. 1626 | 1 | x | x | [d. 1665] | ||||
[John] Winter | 26 March 1666 | b | since Act | |||||||
[Ralph] Wood | 1 Aug. 1648} | { | not | [d. 1665] | ||||||
[Robert] Wood | 4 Sept. 1637} | { | ruined |
Notes
See, for instance, the entries for 22 September 1584 and 6 September & 20 October 1596; see also the Court order of 1 March 1596 in favour of Valentine Simmes.
Industrial Organization in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries, 1904 (reprinted, 1957), pp. 79, 13off.
The dating is difficult. Of the two copies known to me, one is in the Bagford and the other in the Thomason collection (B.M. Harl.5910, i, ff. 142-3 and 669.f.4 no.79); the latter is undated in manuscript but catalogued among the broadsides received in March 1642. Four patents are referred to in it: (1) that of Christopher and Robert Barker, the reversion of which was granted, on 16 September 1635, to Robert's sons, Charles and Matthew; (2) the Law Patent "lately confirmed to Iohn More", the date of this confirmation being 19 January 1618; (3) the privilege for books in Latin, Greek and Hebrew, the property of Roger Norton who, according to the Court Book, was active at least as early as 1633; and (4) the patent "lately granted to one Thomas Symcocke", for briefs etc. printed on one side of a sheet, which was dated 30 October 1619 and terminated by agreement in October 1631 (see pp. xvi ff. of Wm. A. Jackson's Introduction to the Records of the Court of the Stationers' Company, 1602 to 1640, 1957). I cannot believe that the petitioners could have been ignorant of the Symcock settlement and I find it difficult to believe that, as late as 1642, they would have referred to the others in the terms quoted. Antedating the petition to April 1640, when the Short Parliament met, will not help; the last Parliament before this was dissolved in March 1629. It is possible that Thomason received a copy only in March 1642 and that he did not date it because he was not sure when it was printed. I favour 1627/8 for the printing, the first gild year in which neither the Master nor the Wardens were printers; the Master, George Cole, was a Proctor in the Court of Arches (see the reference to outsiders, p. 9 below). It was during this gild year (3 March 1628) that the printers engaged on English Stock work were censured by the Court.
Reprinted in The Struggle for the Freedom of the Press, 1934, by William M. Clyde. It is possible that Henry Hills, who had the ear of the Army leaders, was involved in the failure of this attempt to form a Company of Printers. On 22 August Fleetwood's third letter (in three weeks) to the Stationers about Hills's admission to their Company was read to "divers Printers" who resolved to appeal to the Lord Mayor; there is no sign that they did.
A compromise was reached on this clause the following year. Among the House of Lords Papers, under the date 27 July 1661, are two petitions relating to copyrights. The first is from Thomas Clarke and his wife Jane, the late wife and executrix of Nicholas Bourne, and prays that the right to print bills of lading and Virginia indentures be specifically covered in the Act; this was successful, for an interlinear amendment to the draft (filed under 16 January 1662) reads "or formes of blanke bills or Indentures for any his Majesty's Islands". The other is from Peter Cole (see the comments on him in f.n.5 to the Table). He has invested £5000, partly his own money and partly from the estates of thirteen orphans, in printing books of Anatomy, Surgery and Medicine and fears that the expense of licensing will ruin him. He appends firstly, lists of the books already printed and of those in the press with their retail prices, and secondly, a draft clause to excuse him the formality of getting licenses provided the work is done by a licensed printer (which Cole was not) and provided Cole's name and address are given on all books. No notice was taken of this. These petitions, and those mentioned in the following footnote, illustrate the fears which the prospect of the Act aroused, the pressures brought to bear on the legislators, and the dependence of the Stationers' copyright control machinery on government support.
House of Lords Papers, 16 January 1662. The Company refers to "some addresses . . . lately made . . . by certaine printers" and prays to give reasons, by counsel or otherwise, against these and against Chetwind's suggestions. The printers may have put forward a plea for separate incorporation along the lines of the "Expedients" of 1663 (see p. 8 below), but all the Stationers told the Lords in 1662 was that the printers aimed to obstruct the passing of the Bill and to gain the estates of the petitioners. Philip Chetwind, a Clothworker who had married Mary, the widow of Robert Allot, claims in his petition to have been swindled out of Allot's copies (he does not mention Shakespeare) by John Legate and Andrew Crooke, who acted as trustees because Chetwind was not a Stationer; and he submits a draft clause to allow him and his wife to enter in the register and to enjoy copies like other booksellers. A draft clause extending the principle to all widows and orphans is also attached; but, in spite of the Bishop of Durham's support, the amendment was not adopted. See the printers' comments on the owning of copies, p. 9 below.
To come into operation on 10 June. See A. W. Pollard's article in Trans. Bib. Soc. n.s. iii, 1922, pp. 100-2.
The 1661 draft is filed under the date 16 January 1662 and amendments to it under 19 May, when the Bill received the royal assent. In the draft the printers at the Universities were to be allowed as many apprentices as they thought fit but to find work for their own journeymen and not allow them to clutter the London labour market. In spite of an instruction to the Attorney General to compare this with the corresponding clause (no.XXII) in the 1637 Decree, it was deleted. Only by amendment was Cambridge to be treated like Oxford and receive a free copy of every book published. By amendment too, the filling of vacant places among masterprinters and letter-founders was altered from the presenting of candidates by the Company and the printers for approval by the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of London, to straight nomination by the latter, who probably insisted, also, on the limitation in the number of masterprinters; the booksellers would have liked to control the appointment of new masterprinters and would have benefited from the competition which a large number of presses would ensure.
This revealing phrase occurs only in the 'Waste' Court Book and was not transcribed in the fair copy.
S. P. Dom. Car. II, vol. 22, nos 8 and 8 I-III. The titles of the enclosures to the petition are: I. "In Order to the better Regulating of the Press, for the Prevention of Treasonable, . . . . . Books . . . . . , It is humbly offered." II. "Expedients for the Prevention of Printing Treasonable . . . . Books, . . . . &c." III. "Reasons humbly offered to his Most Sacred Majesty . . . . . Why the Printers (Masters and Workmen) should be Incorporated . . . ." H. R. Plomer, in his Short History of English Printing, 2nd ed. 1915, pp. 167-9, gives a brief summary of these documents.
Another small pointer is a reference in clause 1 of enclosure III to the incorporation of the Distillers as a separate entity "since yr Maties happy Restauration". Mr Kellaway, of the Guildhall Library, has kindly verified for me that the Distillers received their charter in 1638 but obtained approval of their ordinances only on 20 June 1663; the confusion between charter and ordinances is understandable.
Only two printers were Master of the Company between 1635 and 1668: Felix Kingston in 1635/6 and 1636/7, and Miles Flesher (whose press was managed by his son James from about 1650) in 1652/3, 1653/4, 1662/3 and 1663/4. Only four others served as Warden in the same period. George Miller, John Legate, Roger Norton and Evan Tyler.
I do not know what this means. It cannot be an allusion to the warehouse of the English Stock (which was at the Hall), but it may refer to the printing-house at Leith, which had been bought in 1647 as part of the Scotch Patent and was run, on the Company's behalf, by Christopher Higgins until he died in 1668. In the Court minutes for 3 June 1647 there is reference to "the new printing house" in London, where Bibles were being printed; this must, I think, have been the King's Printing House, of which the Company had bought Bill's share and were renting the Barker share.
It reads almost as if, after their long exclusion from the Court of the Stationers' Company, the printers were determined that all should be Assistants! In the petition the number of Wardens is given as two and a space is left for the number of Assistants.
"Printed by A[ndrew] C[oe] June 3d M.DC. LXIII." but not entered, according to clause 3 of the Act, in the Stationers' register!
S.P.Dom. Car.II, vol. 99, nos 162-5. These are tentatively dated June 1664, but the absence of those who were ruined by the Fire puts the date after September 1666 and the presence of Ibbitson, who died in 1667, puts it before 1668. The four lists are differentiated as a, b, c and d.
S.P.Dom. Car.II, vol. 243, no.126, 24 July. Plomer, op.cit., pp. 185-6, prints the list as it appears in the original.
The list is based first on the individuals, men or women, whose surnames (but not, alas, Christian names) occur in the Lambeth list of 1660; the freedoms are those of the men in this list and of the men listed by L'Estrange in 1667 and 1668. Only an old printer like Richard Hodgkinson and Thomas Ratcliffe runs right through the thirty-one years covered by the Table; in many cases there is a concealed succession from master to widow, from father to son, or from brother to brother. There is a tear in the Lambeth manuscript which has removed the name of an unlicensed printer; it is probably that of Henry Hills who is mentioned in the body of the document.
Coventry Papers, vol. VI, ff.64-7. I am grateful to the Marquess of Bath for allowing me to examine these and other documents, and to quote from them; and I am grateful also to Miss Coates for her kindness and help during my visit to Longleat.
Those with 'not' in this column "are such houses as are not Licensed, but are crep up by reason of the late troubles".
Those with 'not' in this column "are such houses as are not Licensed, but are crep up by reason of the late troubles".
L'Estrange added notes against those printers who had been ruined by the Fire and those who had set up since the Act of 1662.
L'Estrange added notes against those printers who had been ruined by the Fire and those who had set up since the Act of 1662.
The Custom House printer, mentioned in the grant (9 July 1660) to Sir Andrew King of the office of Clerk of the Bills in the Custom House.
Cole and two servants of his, Dever and Howell, were really booksellers who doubled their advantage by keeping printing houses "& putting their Sickles unconstionably into the Printers harvest".
Cole and two servants of his, Dever and Howell, were really booksellers who doubled their advantage by keeping printing houses "& putting their Sickles unconstionably into the Printers harvest".
Cole and two servants of his, Dever and Howell, were really booksellers who doubled their advantage by keeping printing houses "& putting their Sickles unconstionably into the Printers harvest".
A paper or picture seller, who kept, with his son-in-law Redmayne (a haberdasher of hats), a printing house "where no lawful freeman or apprentice is employed"; a Popish printer.
A paper or picture seller, who kept, with his son-in-law Redmayne (a haberdasher of hats), a printing house "where no lawful freeman or apprentice is employed"; a Popish printer.
"For 4 or 5 years together, was very disgracefull, both to the Kings Most Excellent Majesty and the Rest of the Royale party."
"A Notorious Intruder to Mischievious Printing" (but powerful enough to be excluded from the provisions of the 1662 Act).
Executed at Tyburn in February 1664 for his part in distributing A Treatise of the Execution of Justice.
One of the signatories of the petition [B.M. 669.f.21 (99)] of "14 April 1659" against the printing of the Bible by Hills and Field; Dever and Thomas Milbourne, sen., also signed it.
| ||