University of Virginia Library

I

In January, 1680, the printing patent originally granted by James I to Robert Barker and then held by John Bill II and the assigns of Christopher Barker III expired.[3] At the same time, the thirty-year reversion which had

been granted by Charles I in September, 1635, to Charles and Matthew Barker, the younger sons of Robert Barker, became effective.[4] The earliest imprints under the new patent contained, as had those immediately preceding, the names of John Bill, Thomas Newcombe, and Henry Hills; only the omission of Christopher Barker's name indicated that the earlier patent had expired. Thomas Newcombe, manager of the King's Printing Office since the Restoration and, with Henry Hills, titular King's Printer since 1677, is known to have acquired "a right in certain letters patent granted . . . to Charles and Matthew Barker for 30 years. . . ."[5] The continuation of the names of Henry Hills and John Bill in the imprints has not been explained, although, as A. F. Johnson observed, Bill and his heirs evidently had some share in the patent for the next thirty years.[6]

Complete explanation of the 1680 imprint and the changes which occurred later requires an account of the vicissitudes through which Charles and Matthew Barker's reversion passed from the time it was granted in 1635 until 1710, the date at which it expired. Such an account has hitherto been lacking. The divisions and subdivisions of the patent reversion which took place during the forty-five year interval before it became effective were not, obviously, reflected in the imprints of the incumbent patentees; neither were they recorded in the official patent rolls. Information concerning the transfer of ownership in the reversion has existed, presumably, only in fragmentary references scattered through unsearched wills and among unrecorded indentures, many of the latter no longer extant. There is, however, a secondary source for such information which has apparently been neglected.

During the final decades of the seventeenth century, and until at least the middle of the eighteenth, shareholders in the King's Printing Office found it necessary to defend their monopoly on frequent occasions by instituting proceedings in Chancery against printers, publishers, and booksellers who allegedly infringed upon the royal patent. The Bills of Complaint filed by the King's Printers in these cases are closely-written parchments, some of them exceeding five feet in length, each of which sets forth the patentees' grievance against a particular defendant. But the actual complaint, in nearly every instance, occupies a relatively small part of the unwieldy document. Almost invariably, the greater portion of each Bill of Complaint is devoted to a demonstration of the plaintiff's right to bring suit for patent infringement; and the demonstration, in every case, takes the form of a recitation of the history of each share in the patent from the time of the original grant to the date at which the suit was filed. These

redactions purport to be based upon primary sources; some of them make reference to particular wills, indentures, and other relevant documents. The following account has been compiled chiefly from a group of sixteeen Bills of Complaint exhibited in Chancery by the King's Printers between 1680 and 1750.[7] Details omitted in some of the bills have been supplied, whenever possible, from others, and disagreements between bills on proper names and dates have been indicated.

Little more than two years after they had been granted their thirty-year reversion in the King's Printing Office, Charles and Matthew Barker sold, for an unspecified sum, half of their interest in the reversion. The purchaser, by an agreement made early in November, 1637, was one Jane Lucas, a widow, of London.[8] This interest was later sold by Mrs. Lucas to John Bill II, King's Printer under an earlier patent. The date of the sale is not recorded in the Chancery Proceedings. In 1682, two years after the reversion had become effective, Bill's share passed to his son, Charles, whose name first appeared in the official imprints of 1686.[9] Since this moiety remained intact from 1637 until the expiration of the patent in 1710, its history is a simple one; that of the other moiety is more complex.

The second division in the Barker reversion occurred on December 3, 1667, when Matthew Barker, who had survived his brother Charles, sold one-third of his remaining share (i. e., one-sixth interest in the reversion) to a Richard Brailesford of Askham, Nottinghamshire. Brailesford died sometime during the ensuing seven years, leaving his interest to his widow, Rachel, who subsequently married one William Scroop of East Retford. The Scroops' share in the reversion was purchased in 1674 by Thomas Newcombe, then manager of the Printing Office. He retained it until his death in 1681. Of Newcombe's share, more must be said later.

In 1672, Matthew Barker sold his remaining two-sixths interest in the reversion to Henry Hills and George Sawbridge, who shared it equally.[10] Sawbridge's interest in the 1680-1710 patent seems never to have been made public. It was inherited in 1681 by his widow, Hannah, and at her death, apparently in 1686,[11] by their son, Thomas. In 1692, Thomas Sawbridge died intestate, and Letters of Administration for his estate were granted to Edward Brewster, a former partner in publishing of the elder Sawbridge.[12] This fact explains the occurrence of Brewster's name in the Treasury Books as a recipient of payment for official printing between 1692 and 1710,[13] but it introduces further complexities. From 1692 until 1700, Brewster held Sawbridge's share of the patent in trust. In June, 1700, this third of a half interest was subdivided into four equal shares, one of which Brewster assigned to each of the following: Sir Thomas Wheate, Baronet, of Glympton, Oxfordshire; John Little (or Littell), Esquire, of London; John Blackall (or Blackhall), Gentleman, of London; and Elizabeth Bent, a widow, of Agmondesham, Buckinghamshire.[14] By 1706, John Blackall's one twenty-fourth share had passed to his son George. The incidence of Brewster's name in the Treasury Books after 1700 presumably indicates that he continued to administer the property in the patent for Sawbridge's assigns.

The one-sixth interest in the reversion purchased by Henry Hills from Matthew Barker in 1672 was retained by Hills until his death in December, 1688, or January, 1689. By his will, dated December 10, 1688, Hills ordered a division of his share into thirds. One-third of his sixth interest (i. e., one-eighteenth of the property in the patent) was to go to his widow, Elizabeth; one-third was to be shared equally by three of his sons, Gilham, James and George; the remaining third apparently went to another son, Henry Hills Jr.[15] Elizabeth Hills, one of the executors of the will, was convicted of recusancy, and Adiell Mill, the other, was declared a bankrupt, whereupon Gilham Hills was granted Letters of Administration, and Elizabeth's share in the patent was vested in him and two of his brothers, James and George.

Gilham Hills now held, for himself and his brothers, two-thirds of his father's one-sixth interest in the patent; however, possibly because Henry Hills Sr. had become a Roman Catholic before his death, the name of Hills vanished from the official imprints after the Glorious Revolution. It returned only after the Barker patent expired in 1710.

By an indenture of March 11, 1699, James Hills borrowed £200 on his one twenty-seventh share in the patent from Edward Darell (or Darrell), a "citizen and stationer."[16] On July 15, 1701, Darell lent James £50 more on his share, and on April 27, 1708, Gilham Hills mortgaged his one twenty-seventh to Darell for £300. In November, 1708, Darell sued in Chancery for repayment of the loans; alternatively, he requested a free title to the shares in the patent so that he might recover his money by disposing of them. In their joint answer to Darell's complaint, the brothers estimated the value of their interest in the Printing Office at "considerably more than double the sumes lent by the complaint upon the same" (£550) and denied that the value had "in any way lessened but dayly increaseth considerably." There were, they stated, "severall very considerable sumes of mony due to them from the government for printing Acts of Parliament and other things in the reign of the late King William the third and her present Majesty . . . the accounts whereof lye now before the Lord High Treasurer. . . ." With this money, they intended to repay Darell's loans. The Treasury Books for the period reveal that a warrant for £3,524 18s.od. was made to the Queen's Printers on July 25, 1709, in payment for printing and stationery wares supplied by them during the year preceding Michaelmas, 1708.[17] Apparently, James and Gilham Hills retained their interest in the office until the expiration of the patent six months later. I have found no record of a judgment in the case.

Thomas Newcombe's acquisition of one-sixth interest in Charles and Matthew Barker's patent has already been explained, and it is known that on Newcombe's death, December 26, 1681, his share passed to his son, Thomas II. The younger Newcombe, who became titular King's Printer in 1682 and succeeded his father as manager of the office, died on March 21, 1691.[18] By his will, proved April 11, his interest went to his widow, Dorothy, with the stipulation (also contained in his father's will) that ten pounds be set aside from the annual profits of the office for the benefit of ten ancient printers or their widows.

From April, 1691, to the expiration of the Barker patent in 1710,

"Charles Bill and the Executrix of Thomas Newcombe" were designated in official imprints; but the imprints reflected nothing of the fortunes which befell the "executrix" and her share in the patent. Three years after the death of her husband, Dorothy Newcombe was declared to be of unsound mind. By Letters Patent under the Great Seal of Chancery dated February 19, 1694, custody of her person and property was assigned to John Williams, who had succeeded Thomas Newcombe II as manager of the King's Printing Office.[19] According to the terms of the commission, all of Dorothy's lands, tenements, goods, chattels, and money were turned over to Williams to be used for her maintenance, and Williams was to render an account of these to the Lord Chancellor. The responsibility was no small one, for Thomas Newcombe's estate was extensive, but Williams was soon relieved of it. Less than six months after the commission had been issued, Dorothy was officially declared to have recovered, being once more of sound mind and sane memory. On June 8, 1694, Williams' custodianship was revoked, and control of Dorothy Newcombe's property was restored to her.[20]

Shortly after her recovery, the widow of Thomas Newcombe II was married to Richard Hutchinson, of the parish of St. Margaret, New Fish Street. Articles for the marriage were executed on May 29, 1694, more than a week before John Williams' guardianship of Dorothy Newcombe terminated. From references to the articles we learn that Dorothy's property included (besides an estate at Wandsworth, Surrey, where she resided) an interest in some houses and land near Puddle Dock, London, leased by Thomas Newcombe I from King's College, Cambridge; ownership "in fee simple" of several houses in Clinkard's Court, Westminster; and a share in other houses at "Wandsworth Hill."[21] At the date of the marriage articles, her one-sixth interest in the King's Printing Office "and stock thereof" was reported to yield an income of £200 annually, with an additional fifteen pounds being received from a share in certain houses "in the printing office yard." Her total income was estimated at £439 a year.

Richard Hutchinson, who must have assumed control of Dorothy's interest in the Printing Office,[22] died intestate on August 1, 1695, the year

following the marriage, leaving two sons by a former wife, Richard Jr. and George, who reached majority in the early years of the eighteenth century. The circumstances of Dorothy Hutchinson's life in the twelve years following are not recorded, but by July, 1708, she had been again declared a "lunatique," and John Williams, with one Thomas Welham of London, had as before received a royal commission for custody of her person and estate. On July 30, 1708, Williams and Welham assigned custody of the widow's person to her younger stepson, George Hutchinson, who pledged himself by a bond of £1,000 to care for her at her home in Surrey, the costs to be borne by Williams and Welham out of income from her property.[23]