University of Virginia Library

Search this document 


  

expand section 
expand section 
expand section 
expand section 
expand section 
collapse section 
 1. 
 notes. 
expand section 
expand section 
expand section 
expand section 
expand section 
expand section 
expand section 
  
expand section 
expand section 
expand section 
The Printing of Sir George Croke's Reports by Lois Spencer
expand section 
expand section 
expand section 
expand section 
expand section 
expand section 
expand section 

expand section 

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

About the 7th of March 1655, Master Whiting and Master Spelman came to Richard Hodgkinsonne to treat about the printing of Judge Crookes[1] (or Sir George Crookes) Reports; desiring the said Hodg. to tell him truly and conscientiously, what he would print it for by the sheete and finde Paper? The sum the said Hodgkinsonne then pitcht unto them was a farthing a sheete, the number printed being two thousand upon each sheete, and the Paper to be worth five shillings a Reame (viz. five shillings and six pence perfect) so for that time they parted: But shortly after Master Whiting came to the said Hodg. with one Master Bacon, and desired the said Hod. to make some Proves, which he accordingly did.
About the 12 of September 1656 Mr. Jo. Whiting, and M. Clem. Spelman went to the Warden of the Stationers; where M. Whiting desired to have Sir G. Crookes Reports entred to the said Hodgkinsonne,

232

Page 232
declaring unto the said Warden that he had agreed with the said Hodg. for printing them and therefore willed him to take a care that none else should meddle with the printing of them.
The 15 day M. Whiting, M. Spelman and Hodg. went to the Clerk, where M. Whiting declared the same words he had done before to the Warden, but the Clerke refused Entrance to the said Hodg. upon pretence of a former entry to one Warren.
The 16 day M. Whiting and M. Spelman went to Stationers-Hall, and there at a publique Court M. Whiting disclaimed the Entrance of Warren, as surreptitious, and declared his agreement with Hodg. . . . but no Entry was made as he desired.
After two more unsuccessful attempts in October and January, Whiting complained
to the Lord Chiefe-Justice of the Upper-Bench, who (accompanied with 3 or 4 other of the Judges) after hearing all that could be said by the Company for neglecting to enter to Hodg. as also what Warren could say for his pretended claim; una voce Ordered, that the former pretended Entry to Warren, so surreptitiously obtein'd, should be obliterate, and the said Copy be Entred de novo to the said Hodgkinson.

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.


233

Page 233

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

King James his time were ready or not; if it were not, and that the presse, for want thereof, should stand still, it would be very chargeable: Whereupon within a day or two after M. Whiting brought the said Copy into the said Work-house, where Hodg. cast it off, and concluded that the last 11 yeers of King James should make a second Volume. About the 30 of May King Charles was finished, and Hod. asking M. Whiting for the copy of King James . . . M. Whiting told him it was in Just. Hales hand for perusall, but promised faithfully to bring it to him in a fortnight: The said . . . Whiting came again within 2 or 3 dayes and desired Hodg. to provide work for a moneth, if he could; for (being tyred) he had a mind to goe into the Country; and then promised without faile to bring the said Copy to him, within a moneth; but failed then as before.

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:—

Entred under the hand of Master Norton Warden a booke entituled The reports of Judge Crooke from the first yeare of the late K. Charles to the seaventeenth, being collected by his owne hand.
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:—

THE / REPORTS / OF / Sr George Croke Knight; / Late, one of the Justices of the Court / OF / KINGS-BENCH; / And formerly, one of the Justices of the Court / OF / COMMON-BENCH, / OF SUCH / Select Cases / as were adjudged in the said Courts, the time that he was / Judge in either of them: / Collected and written in French by Himself; Revised / and published in English / By Sir HAREBOTLE GRIMSTON Baronet, / One of the Benchers of the Honourable Society of Lincolns-Inn. / LONDON, / Printed by R. Hodgkinsonne, and are to be sold by William Leak at the Crown in Fleetstreet, / betwixt the two Temple Gates, by Thomas Firby neer Grays-Inne Gate in / Holborn, and at Lincolns-Inne Gate, 1657.

234

Page 234
A Parliamentary Order prefaced to the book and dated "Tuesday 9 June 1657", states that:—
Whereas Sir Harebotle Grimston, Baronet, hath of late revised and published in English a Book, entituled, The Reports of Sir George Croke Knight . . . which book is lately allowed and approved by all the Judges of England. It is therefore Ordered by this present Parliament, that no person, other than the said Sir Harebotle Grimston, and his Assignes, or such as shall be authorised by him or them, presume to publish in print any of the said Books or any Copy thereof, either in French or English.

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 —

THE / REPORTS / OF / Sir George Croke Knight; / Late, One of the Justices of the Court / OF / KINGS-BENCH; / AND / Formerly, One of the Justices of the Court / OF / COMMON-BENCH, / OF SUCH / Select Cases / As were adjudged in the said Courts, the time that / he was Judge in either of them. / Collected and written in French by Himself; / Revised, and published in English / By Sir Harebotle Grimston, Baronet, / One of the Benchers of the Honourable Society of Lincolns-Inn. / LONDON, / Printed by J. S. and are to be sold by the Stationers of London, / MDCLVII.
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.
Thou art desired to take notice, That in the Second Edition of this Book, many grosse Errors of the former are exactly corrected; and the Errors of this Edition are carefully taken notice of in an Errata: So

235

Page 235
that this Book is not onely more perfect then the former Impression, But also (for the good of the People of these Nations), it will be sold for half the Price.
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]


236

Page 236
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.


237

Page 237

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.

A multitude of flying Reports (whose Authors are as uncertain as the times when taken, and the causes and reasons of the Judgements as obscure as by whom judged) have of late surreptitiously crept forth; whereby, instead of that plentifull and profitable increase which those fields (thus by a vigilant husbandman tilled) would have yeelded to our Students, we have been entertained with barren and unwarranted Products . . . . which not only tends to the depraving the first grounds and reason of our Students at the Common Law, and the young Practitioners thereof, who by such false Lights are misled, and multiplicity of Law Suits rather cherished than suppressed: But also to the con tempt . . . . of divers our former grave and learned Justcies (sic) and Professors . . . . whose honoured and revered names have . . . . been abused and invocated to patronise the indigested crudities of those plagiaries.
(Reports of Sir George Croke (1657), sig. a2)
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,


238

Page 238
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

This day came to the Court Mr. Richard Hodgkinson Printer & with him one Mr. Spilman and demanded Entrance of a Booke called Judge Crookes Reports which they produced but the same booke being already (in July last) entred to Thomas Warren by authority & direction (as he asserts) of one Mr. Whiting ye Proprietor — & that in presence of one Mr. Bacon and Mr. Dugdale not now present — And Mr. Warren affirming also that he was bargain'd withall by the said Mr. Whiting for printing One Impression of the said Copies according

239

Page 239
to certain Articles agreed on & drawn up (but not sealed) between them That he hath (in pursuance of the said agreement) caused to be cast a ffount of new Letter for ye doing thereof whereby he shall loose at least 20l. — if he be prevented from Printing thereof. To wch it was replied that Mr. Warren had not the booke it selfe in his custody but had procured an Entrance by a Title only to wch Mr. Warden Norton had set his hand. The Table debate the business and resolve that they cannot give their judgment in the premises untill they heare the said Mr. Whiting Mr. Bacon and Mr. Dugdale, and withall desired both parties to referre themselves to such persons as themselves shall thinke fitt to nominate; but that way not done.
A further entry on 9 February 1656/7 runs:—
Memorand that since the last Court the Master & Wardens & Mr. Norton were summoned before the Lord Ch. Justice Glyn & Justice Atkins at Serjeants Inne where it was ordered by their Lordships that the Entrance of the booke called Crookes Reports made to Mr. Warren (his right therein being overruled) should be oblitterated. And this day came again Mr. Spilman Mr. Whiting & Mr. Hodgkinson to demand the same & Entrance of the said Copie to Mr. Hodgkinson. But forasmuch as the matter of right[14] in the Copie begot all the Controversie & it not appearing that the present Claimers have any right derived from Sir Harb. Grimstone Esqre to the Author it was proposed & accordingly promised by Mr. Spilman to obtaine from the said Sr Harbottle a Signification of his consent to the purpose aforesd. Wch the Table enclined to do to prevent a new mischiefe.
On 2 March 1656/7,
came againe to the Court Mr. Spilman and Mr. Whiting with a writing under ye hand of Sr Harbottle Grimston (as was averred) according to ye motion of the last Cort but our Master who is imediately concerned (in ye Ld Cheife Justices Order) being absent by reason of sickness Mr. Spilman was prayed to forbeare pressing the business . . . . untill the Mr. could personally come to the Court.

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


240

Page 240
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:—
Say they, from the Year 1641 or 1642 until the . . . . Restauration, . . . . any Booksellers that listed, did print, or cause to be printed, such Law-Books as seemed good to them, without Restraint or Prohibition, occasioned by the Licence of the late Times. And that such as had Licence under the King's Grant to print Law-Books, were hindered to make the benefit of the same Grant; And that it was usual for such persons as printed Law-Books to enter the same in Stationers-Hall, and that it was conceived and taken, that such person and persons as Entred a Copy in the said Hall-Book to be Printed had the sole Right to print the same; and those that claim'd the Right of printing Law-Books under the King's Licence were thereby taken to be Excluded, and debarred to any Benefit therein. (op. cit. pp. 15-16)

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


241

Page 241
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:
Col. Cox.
Your order concerning Sir Harbotle Grimston's Reports was broken; it was a violation of your privilege. I desire the petition may be read.
The title was 'To the Right Honourable the High Court of Parliament' and it was read without further debate. The substance of it was, that against the orders of the House, the book was reprinted, in bad paper, with many faults, &c and that they called it a monopoly, and the Parliaments were so consequently. (sic)
Mr. Speaker.
Upon complaint in this case, and to assert your privilege, I sent for three or four of the offenders, and bound them over to appear here the first day. There were some of them at the door even now.
Major Beake.
This is no breach of privilege, but rather a breach of the law. I would not have you to stay at the threshold, to take no order in this Case. Public business must take place, and if politicians meet with such an order upon your books, it will not look well to be the Antisignanus of this house.
Mr. Speaker moved that a Bill be read; but it was called on to adjourn.

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,

I have been more than ordinarily careful in the Edition, that the Reverend Reporter may not be blemished with those many Errata's in this, which have somewhat obscured the former:[18] Especially in that latter Edition of it, by some ignorant and mercenary persons, who care not how they blot mens Credits, and therein wrong the Reader, as well as the Learned and Judicious Reporter, so they may have a vendible impression.

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


242

Page 242
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

William Godbie Printer this day brought a letter directed to the Table from Sr Harbottle Grimstone dat. 16 ffeb. 57 purporting the said Sr Harbottle's desire yt Judge Crooks Reports in the tyme of King James might be Entred as ye copie of William Godbie but Mr. Hodgkinson having formerly left a Caveat against the same and being now present desired forbearance of the Entrance of ye same & sth that Mr. Whiting (Assignee to Sr Harbottle as he will prove) agreed with him for printing the same with many other Reports of . . . . Judge Crooke & that fraudently the said Whiting got the said Copie (being left with Mr Hodgkinson) from him under pretence of Judge Hales perusing of it & never brought the same back.

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.


243

Page 243

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


244

Page 244
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


245

Page 245
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:—

I have a cause Depending in Chancery which has already beene branded with your notorious partiality, and by consequence I expect that at the hearing . . . . it will receive as palpable tokens of your injustice . . . . I have sent this as a monitor to forewarne you that you do mee justice at your peril, or expect Buckingham's fate, although I were never soe certaine of Felton's end, for I shall thinke myselfe happy enough that I liv'd to punish audacious injustice, especially when it shrouds itselfe under robes of justice and power . . . . Sir, believe mee neither foole, mad man nor huff, for if the case would beare it, that I could tell you my name, you would know that I both dare and will doe as I say.
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

246

Page 246
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

 
[1]

Sir George Croke was a Judge under Elizabeth, James I, and Charles I.

[2]

Clearly an error for 1656.

[3]

Possibly a mistake for Edward Bulstrode, uncle of Bulstrode Whitlock, who is stated in Fuller's Worthies, 1662, (Bucks. p.133) to have been "his Highness Justice in North Wales" and to have "written a book of divers Resolutions and Judgements, with the reasons and causes thereof, given in the Court of Kings-Bench in the reigns of King James and King Charles, and is lately deceased." Bulstrode Whitlock was Sir George Crook's nephew and executor and was born in his house. In his Memorials (25 June 1657) is the single entry "Sir Harbottle Grimston published the Reports of Judge Crook".

[4]

It is reprinted, but without illuminating comment, as Appendix XXIX to Sir A. Croke's Genealogical History of the Croke Family . . . . Oxford, 1823.

[5]

Rigg could scarcely have meant the equally clearly dated Abridgement (BM E. 1730) printed for Warren and Streeter in 1658. This little volume, rightly described by the printers as "Multum in Parvo", contains, apart from the abridged Reports themselves and the indexes, nothing except a foreword which, after telling the reader "I here present you with a Scheme of a large volume, a Map of a World of Law" goes on to eulogise Crook, concluding, enigmatically, "For his book, besides the testimony [not reprinted] of all our Judges, the authority of its matter, and his name, which Providence hath so protected, as on which none of these abortive works were ever patronised, may highly induce you to the reading, which much imports the improvements of your knowledge in the Laws. For my little Breviary, your opinion of my reverence to the whole, and its bulk, it may assure you, I have not added and I protest, to my best knowledge and understanding, not materially diminished. Farewel." It is unsigned.

[6]

Patent Rolls, 12 January 1559.

[7]

R. Atkyns (?Streator, J.) The Originall and Growth of Printing (London 1664), sig. D1.

[8]

Plomer, Dictionary of Printers & Booksellers, 1641-1667 (1907).

[9]

Aubrey's description of Gorhambury in his Life of Bacon is vivid and detailed. It was, he says, "the most ingeniously contrived little pile" he had seen; he adds that Grimston sold it for a ridiculous figure to two carpenters "of which they made eight hundred poundes", and provides also the information that "This October, 1681, it rang all over St. Albans that Sir Harebotle Grimston, Master of the Rolles, had removed the coffin of this most renowned Lord Chancellor (Francis Bacon) to make roome for his owne to lye-in in the vault there at St. Michael's Church".

[10]

Dugdale was left with the credit (which he assumed only reluctantly) of the immense production, but also with the total cost of its printing, which was a harassing burden. It may be significant that, on 3 September, 1655, Hodgkinson was granted by the Stationers a loan of £100 for three years.

[11]

It is stated by Plomer (Dictionary of Booksellers and Printers, 1641-1660) that T. Warren "was succeeded by his widow Alice in 1661". There is an entry to her in the Stationers' Register under 21 May 1661. But he is almost certainly the "Mr. Warren" whom Smyth (Obituaries) mentions as having died on 14 April 1659, for Wing's first entry to Alice Warren is dated 1660 (Index to Wing, 1956). She was the widow of John Norton, whose yeomanry part Warren was elected to receive soon after marrying her (24 August 1642).

[12]

It will be remembered that Grimston was a Commissioner in 1648.

[13]

He was presumably a connection by second marriage of Grimston.

[14]

It is difficult to see how the Judges can have failed to consider this point before giving their decision.

[15]

Such Orders (usually following from a petition) were, however, recognized procedure; and the Commons in this instance were endorsing the Judges' previous ruling.

[16]

The Parliamentary records of petitions for this year have been destroyed.

[17]

The Second Part of the Reports of Sir George Croke . . . . London, 1669.

[18]

It may have been this sentence which prompted Rigg's reference to an "inaccurate edition of early but uncertain date".

[19]

J. S.'s errors, it will be remembered, were listed between the Tables.

[20]

Cf. Stat. Reg. 5 April 1658 where it is entered to Godby "by vertue of a writing under the hand and seale of Sr HARBOTTLE GRIMSTON . . . and by order of a full Court of Assistants holden this present 5th day of April": and 24 April, 1658, where it is entered under Thomason's hand to Newcomb and Godby: and 20 September, 1658, where it is assigned by Godby to Newcomb and Field.

[21]

My attention has also been kindly drawn by Mr. E. A. P. Hart, Librarian, Inner Temple, to H. M. C. 11th Report, Appendix Pt. VI, p. 103, Le Strange Papers, which enters under 1 February c. 1650 a letter from J. Whiting to James Calthorpe about the Pepper Rent for the Manor of Northwold in Sculthorpe (hundred of Grymston).

[22]

Sir C. Levinz, Reports; containing Cases heard and determined in the Court of King's Bench (1660-97)

[23]

Joseph Keble, Reports in the Court of King's Bench (1685).

[24]

Thos. Siderfin, Les Reports des divers Special Cases . . . en le Court del Bank le Roy (1682).

[25]

Entry under Grimston, Sir Harbottle.