University of Virginia Library

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:

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:

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