Privilege to Print
by
James G. McManaway
Royal patents for printing are not so numerous in the reign of James
I that any which comes to attention should be ignored. While public interest
was aroused by the case of the Post Nati of Scotland, Sir William
Woodhouse secured a patent from King James that gave him sole right to
print reports of the discussions in the Exchequer. Francis Bacon's Docquet
Book (Folger MS. V.b.159, fol. 55v) contains the
following entries:
Sr Wm Woodhouse.
Sr. his Matie is pleased to graunt vnto
Sr William
Woodhouse a Priuiledge for the printinge of the reportes wch
shalbe published of the the [sic] Case argued in the
Excheqr
Chamber touchinge the Post nati of Scotland. It may please
yow to
frame him a bill for the purpose, leavinge a blancke for the yeares of
Contynuance of the priuiledge to be filled at his Maties
pleasure. And
so I leaue further to trouble yow. ffrom my house at
Charinge Crosse
this 15 of Iune 1608.
Yors to Comaund
Thomas Lake
Docquett.
It may please yor ex: Matie
This Bill Conteyneth yor
Mates
graunt, vnto Sr
Willm Woodhouse knight, in Consideracion of service for the sole printinge
of all reportes of the Case of the Post nati of Scotland.
There is a blancke left for the number of yeares, to be supplied at
yor Ma
tes
pleasure.
Signified to be yor highnes pleasure by
Sr Tho: Lake.
ffr. Bacon
The license, for a period of ten years, is mentioned in C.S.P.Dom.,
1603-1610, Vol. XXV, 55, under date 13 August 1608, with reference to
Grant Book, p. 37.[1]
One of the vexatious questions confronting King and Parliament after
the accession of James was that of the civil rights of Scots in England. A
test case was finally arranged, in which the guardians of one Robert Calvin,
born after James became King of England, should sue Richard and Nicholas
Smith for land in Middlesex that they were withholding from him. After
much parliamentary debate in 1606/7, the case was transferred to the
Exchequer, where it was argued at length, so that it might be decided by
law rather than by statute.
[2] Public
interest may be estimated by the numerous manuscripts that have survived
with reports of the speeches of Bacon, Coke, Yelverton, and others.
It may be presumed that Sir William Woodhouse saw an opportunity
to benefit himself by securing the exclusive right to publish the account of
the proceedings, and certainly he succeeded at least to the extent of
obtaining a royal grant. The history of his proposed book appears to end
there. It is not referred to in the Registers of the Stationers' Company or
in their Court Book C; nor has any copy been identified in the Short
Title Catalogue.[3]
The case of the Post Nati is reported at length in La Sept
Part of Coke's Reports (1608; STC
5511) and
in Sir Francis Moore's posthumously published Cases Collect &
Report (1663); the speeches of Bacon in the House of Commons and
his arguments in the Exchequer were ultimately published; and there are
other printed references to the case. Only one contemporary book,
however, is devoted exclusively to the Post Nati.[4] That is The Speech of the
Lord
Chancellor of England, Touching the Post-nati, issued "for the
Societie of Stationers, 1609" (STC 7540). In his preface, the
aged statesman explains how the book happened to be written and
published:
[A 5v] The decree and iudgement being thus passed,
diuerse
vnperfect Reports, and seuerall patches and pieces of my Speech / [A 6]
haue bin put in writing, & dispersed into many hands, and some offred
to the Presse. The Kings Mie. hauing knowledge thereof,
misliked it,
& thereupon cõmanded me to deliuer to him in writing, the whole
discourse of that which I said in that Cause.
Thus I was put to an vnexpected new labour, to reuiew my scribled
& brokẽ papers. Out of which (according to the charge imposed
vpon me) I gathered all which I had before spoken, & so set it downe
faithfully & plainly, and (as neare as I could) in the same words I
vttered
it; it pleased his sacred Mie. to take some view of it,
& taking
occasion thereby, / [A 6v] to remember the diligence of
the L. chiefe
Iustice of the common place, for the summarie report he had published of
the Iudges Arguments,[5] he
gaue mee in charge to cause this to be likewise put in Print, to preuent the
Printing of such mistaken and vnperfect reports of it, as were already
scattered abroad.
Was Woodhouse's book one of those choked off by this action of the
King? In his instructions to Egerton, King James could hardly have been
unmindful of his grant to Woodhouse. Are we to suppose that he instructed
Egerton to hand over his manuscript to Woodhouse, who, lacking
experience as a publisher, sold his rights to the Company of Stationers? As
we have seen, Egerton's Speech bears in its imprint the name
of "the Societie of Stationers" as the publisher, without reference to
Woodhouse or his grant. The Company of Stationers, who, as Professor
Jackson has pointed out, generally resisted the encroachments of private
individuals that had received royal patents and in several
instances—that
of John Speed's Geneologie of the Holye Scriptures
(STC 23039) is a conspicuous example—bought them
out[6], would doubtless have
welcomed the opportunity to acquire title. And having done so, the
Company might be expected to suppress all
references to Woodhouse and his patent. All this may have happened, but
I doubt it. It would, I think, have been incompatible with the dignity of
Lord Chancellor Egerton to have his book published under such
auspices.[7] It seems to me more
probable that Woodhouse's book was found to be inaccurate or
inadequate—possibly at the time it was offered for
licensing—and that
publication was blocked by the issuance of Egerton's Speech
at
royal behest.
Notes