University of Virginia Library

Search this document 


  

collapse section 
  
 1. 
 2. 
 3. 
 4. 
 5. 
  
  
collapse section 
  
 1. 
 2. 
 3. 
 4. 
  
  
collapse section 
  
collapse section 
  
  
  
collapse section 
  
 1. 
 2. 
 3. 
 4. 
  
collapse section 
  
  
  
  
collapse section 
  
 1. 
 2. 
 3. 
 4. 
  
  
  
collapse section 
  
collapse section 
Bible Publishers in Britain 1790-1820
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

  
collapse section 
  
  
  
  
collapse section 
  
  
  
  

Bible Publishers in Britain 1790-1820

Who were the players in the big leagues of Bible publishing 1790-1820? From the record of published Bibles in Darlow & Moule,[7] it is plain that the


375

Page 375
most prolific player was the Clarendon Press in Oxford, with 54 Bibles published 1790-1820, in duodecimo (14), octavo (23), quarto (12), and folio (5).[8] Note that it was chiefly the patent-holders who published Bibles in formats of octavo and smaller and that in Oxford only one Bible published during this period was produced for a publisher other than the Clarendon Press. From 1808, at least 12 of the Clarendon Press Bibles are in stereotype, which means that only the titlepages were reset for "editions" with a new date. Note also that some of these Oxford Bibles were printed by Bensley and others in London and that some were printed for Dawson and for the Bible Societies in London. The "Oxford" connexion of some of these Bibles is pretty tenuous.

All the Oxford editions of the scriptures are called The Holy Bible, and indeed this title is uniformly used by the Bible patent-holders. It is a kind


376

Page 376
of claim to authenticity, particularly with the sub-titles "The Old and New Testament" in Oxford Bibles and "The Old Testament and the New" in London and Cambridge ones. Even when Bibles not published by the patent-holders are called The Holy Bible, they often have sub-titles indicating their irregular status, such as "or Divinity Treasury" (1804).

BRITISH BIBLES 1790-1820: OXFORD The Holy Bible (Clarendon Press[9])

                                                           
Date   Format   D&M   Date   Format   D&M  
1790  8°  1344  1808  8°  1512 
1791  12  13558  1808  12°  1513 
1792  12  1367  1810  8°  1529 
1793  8°  1380  1810  4°  1533 
1794  2°  1384  1810  8°  1534 
1794  4°  1386  1811  4°  1542 
1794  8°  1387  1811  8°  1550 
1794  8°  1388  1812  8° for BFBS  1556 
1795  2 °  1389  1812  12° for BFBS  1558 
1795  4°  1391  1812  8°  1565 
1796  8°  1404  1813  12°   1575 
1798  8°  1427  1815  8°  I609 
1799  12°  1438  1815  8°   1610 
1799  12°  1439  1815  8°   1611 
1800  4°  1444  1815  12° for BFBS  1616 
1800  8°  1446  1816  4° for BFBS  1638 
1801  8°  1451  1816  4°  1639 
1801  8°  1452  1816  8°  1640 
1801  12°  1454  1816  12°   1641 
1803  12°  1466  1817  4° for SPCK  1648 
1804   8° for SPCK  1474  1817  2 ° by Bartlett & Co.  1654 
1804  4°  1476  1817  8° for BFBS  1664 
1805  8°  1482  1817  12 ° for BFBS  1665 
1806  2°  1497  1818  12°   1670 
1807  2°  1498  1819  4°  1680 
1807  8°  1503  1819  4°  1681 
1808  4°  1511  1819  12°   1682 
TOTAL Oxford Bibles: 54 
TOTAL Oxford Bibles (by the Clarendon Press): 53 

The second largest printer of Bibles in England 1790-1820 is Cambridge University Press through the printers to the University J. Archdeacon & J. Bruges (1790-1802), R. Watts (1804-6), and J. Smith (1810-18), who produced among them 27 Bibles in sextodecimo (1), duodecimo (7), octavo (14), and quarto (5). Note the absence of any folio as well as the small number of quartos. Further, all the Bibles of 1812-18 in sextodecimo, octavo, and quarto, were in stereotype, and some were for the Bible Society.


377

Page 377

BRITISH BIBLES 1790-1820: CAMBRIDGE
The Holy Bible

                                                         
Date   Publisher   Format   D&M  
1790  J. Archdeacon  8°  1345 
1790  J. Archdeacon  12°  1347 
1791  J. Archdeacon  12°  1357 
1792  J. Archdeacon  12°  1368 
1795  J. Archdeacon & John Burges[10]   12°  1393 
1795  J. Archdeacon & J. Burges  8°  1396 
1795  J. Archdeacon & J. Burges  12 °  1397 
1796  J. Archdeacon & J. Burges  8°  1410 
1797  J.Burges  12°  1417 
1798  J. Archdeacon & J. Burges  8°  1424 
1798  J.Burges  4°  1426 
1798  University Press  8°  1428 
1798  J.Burges  12°  1429 
1802  J.Burges  4°  1456 
1804  R. Watts  8°  1473 
I 8o6  R. Watts for BFBS  8°  1488 
1810  J. Smith for BFBS  4°  1528 
1812  J. Smith  16°  1557 
1812?  J. Smith for BFBS  8°  1561 
1815  J. Smith for BFBS  4°  1604 
1815  J. Smith for BFBS  4°  1605 
1815?  J. Smith for SPCK  8°  1606 
1816  J. Smith  8°  1631 
1816  J. Smith for BFBS  8°  1636 
1817  J. Smith  8°  1663 
1817  J. Smith for BFBS  8°  1666 
1818  J. Smith  8°  1673 
TOTAL Cambridge Bibles (by the University Press): 27 

In London, Bibles were produced by the King's Printers J. Reeves (5) and Eyre & Strahan (20), in a full range of sizes, in 64mo (1), 32mo (3), duodecimo (2), octavo (8), quarto (10), and folio (1), including a number from stereotype plates.[11]

At the same time, a very large number of London interlopers were publishing Bibles, sometimes with variant titles such as The Family Bible (1810?) or Evangelical Family Bible (1814) or The New and Grand Imperial Family Bible (1813) but mostly called simply The Holy Bible. The Bibles produced by at least thirty publishers[12] who did not hold the Bible patent were heavily


378

Page 378
concentrated upon the larger formats, often illustrated, probably often published by subscription. There were comparatively few in the smaller formats, in sextodecimo (1), duodecimo (7), and octavo (4); most were in quarto (19) and folio (8), and the folios and quartos alone outnumbered all the Bibles published in London by the patent holders. Apparently the speculative Bible-publishers believed that profits were to be found most reliably in the larger formats. It might seem that London was where the most extensive infringements were taking place upon the Bible patent-holders:

BRITISH BIBLES 1790-1820: LONDON
The Holy Bible unless otherwise identified

                                                         
Date   Publisher   Format   D&M  
1790  C. Cooke,
Christian's New and
Complete Family Bible
 
2 °  1341 
1790  T. Rickaby  12°  1346 
1792  Bellamy & Roberts  4°  1366 
1795  Literary Association  4°  1392 
1795  T. Bensley for
Bowyer & Fittler 
4°  1394 
1795  T. Heptinstall  4°  1399 
1796  R. Bowyer  8°  1403 
1796  R. Bowyer  12°  1405 
1796  R. Bowyer & J. Fittler  12 °  1409 
1796  M. Ritchie for J. Wright  4°  1411 
1797  J. Davis  4°  1416 
1799  SPCK  8°  1437 
1800  Thomas Bensley for
Thomas Macklin 
2 °  1442 
1800  C. Corrall  12 °  1447 
1802  J. Crowder & T. Bensley
et al for J. Reeves 
8°  1457 
1802  J. Reeves  8°  1458 
1802  J. Reeves  4°  1459 
1805  Lackington, Allen & Co.  4°  1480 
1806  W. Flint,
Self-Interpreting Bible  
4°  1486 
1806  G. Woodfall for George
Eyre & Andrew Strahan 
4°  1487 
1809  R.Scholey  8°  1521 
1809  J. Seeley  4°  1523 
1810  C. Baldwin for
L. B. Seeley 
4°  1532 
1810?  Longman & Co, Family Bible   4°  1535 
1811  C. Whittingham for
J. Reeves  
12 °  1543 
1811  C. Whittingham for
J. Reeves 
12°  1544 
1811  Suttaby, Evance & Co &c,
Devotional Family Bible  
4°  1547 
1812  T. Rutt for Bible Society
of Philadelphia 
12 °  1560 

379

Page 379
                                                                             
Date   Publisher   Format   D&M  
1812  Longman, Hurst &c  4"  1564 
1813  S. A. Oddy  2 °  1574 
1813  A. Whellier, New and
Grand Imperial Family
Bible
 
2 °  1576 
1813  G. Woodfall for
Eyre & Strahan 
4°  1580 
1813  Eyre & Strahan for BFBS  8°  1582 
1813?  Eyre & Strahan for BFBS  4°  1583 
1814  Eyre & Strahan for BFBS  4°  1589 
1814  R. Edwards  4°  1592 
1814  T. Kelly,
Evangelical
Family Bible
 
2 °  1594 
1814  Seeley, Hatchard, Baldwin  4°  1595 
1814  Eyre & Strahan  64°  1596 
1815  Richard Evans,
Self-Interpreting Bible  
2°  1602 
1815  Eyre & Strahan for BFBS  4°  1603 
1815  White, Cochrane & Co  8°  1615 
1816  J. Jones, Devotional
Diamond Pocket Bible
 
12°  1621 
1816  Samuel Bagster, English
Version of the Polyglott
Bible
 
12 °  1628 
1816  W. Lewis & Co  2 °  1629 
1816  W. Lewis & Co,
Family Bible 
4°  1630 
1816  Corrall Eyre & Strahan  32 °  1632 
1816  Eyre & Strahan for BFBS  2 °  1635 
1816  Eyre & Strahan  32 °  1637 
1816?  Eyre & Strahan for BFBS  4°  1642 
1816?  Eyre & Strahan for BFBS  8 °  1643 
1817  Barnard & Farley for
Walker & Edwards,
Self-Interpreting Bible  
4°  1653 
1817  T. Kelly  2 °  1656 
1817  Eyre & Strahan  32 °  1657 
1817  Eyre & Strahan for BFBS  4°  1660 
1817  Eyre & Strahan for BFBS  4°  1661 
1817  Eyre & Strahan for BFBS  4°  1662 
1818  T.Cordeux  4°  1671 
1818  Eyre & Strahan for BFBS  8°  1672 
1818  Eyre & Strahan for BFBS  8°  1674 
1818  Longman et al  4°  1675 
1819  Eyre & Strahan for
Longman &c 
8°  1683 
1819  Eyre & Strahan for
Longman &c 
8°  1684 
1819  S. Bagster, Old and
New Testament
 
16°  1685 
TOTAL London Bibles: 64 
TOTAL London Bibles (by the King's Printers): 24  


380

Page 380

However, the greatest threat to the Bible patent-holders in England was probably from the King's printers in Edinburgh.[13] There 32 Bibles were published by Mark & Charles Kerr in 1790-1798 (13), J. H. Blair & J. Bruce in 1799 (1), and Sir D. Hunter Blair & J. Bruce in 1802-17 (18), in all the formats: 32° (3), 24° (1), sextodecimo (2), duodecimo (14), octavo (5), quarto (8), and folio (1). Notice that in just one year, 1793, J. & C. Kerr produced Bibles in folio, quarto, duodecimo, and 24°, and printed new editions in duodecimo in 1795, 1796 (2), and 1797. Plainly they were preparing to keep a stock of all sizes of Bibles in print. And as the Oxford Bible Minutes reveal, they were equally clearly selling in England these Bibles printed with the King's privilege in Scotland.

There is very little information about the size of the editions of the Bibles recorded by Darlow & Moule, but they do note that the Douay Bibles printed by John Moir in Edinburgh for sale "chiefly in England and Ireland" in 1796 in duodecimo and in 1805 in quarto consisted of three thousand copies and two thousand copies respectively, and these may have been something like the norms at least for Bibles in similar formats.

BRITISH BIBLES 1790-1820: EDINBURGH
The Holy Bible

                                           
Date   Publisher   Format   D&M   Date   Publisher   Format   D&M  
1790  Mark & Charles Kerr  12 °  1349  1805   John Moir[14]   4°  1483 
1791  M. & C. Kerr  4°  1355  1806  Sir D. Hunter Blair
& J. Bruce 
4°   1491 
1791  M. & C. Kerr  32 °  1360 
1793  M. & C. Kerr  2°  1376  1806  ibid  16°  1492 
1793  M. & C. Kerr  4°  1378  1806  ibid  12°  1493 
1793  M. & C. Kerr  12°  1382  1807  ibid  32°  1504 
1793  M.& C. Kerr  24°  1383  1808  ibid  8°  1515 
1795  M. & C. Kerr  12°  1398  1809  ibid  8°  1524 
1796  M. & C. Kerr  12°  1406  1809  ibid  12°  1525 
1796  M. & C. Kerr  12°  1407  1811  ibid  8°  1545 
1796  John Moir  12°  1408  1811  ibid  12°  1546 
1797  M.& C. Kerr  12°  1418  1811  ibid  4°  1548 
1797  M.& C. Kerr  4°  1419  1813  ibid  4°  1581 
1798  M. & C. Kerr  16°  1434  1814  ibid  4°  1593 
1799  Sir J [ames] H [unter]
Blair & J. Bruce 
12°  1440  1815  ibid  8°  1608 
1816  ibid  12°  1623 
1802  Sir D. Hunter Blair &
J. Bruce 
32 °  1461  1816  ibid  12 °  1633 
1817  ibid  12°  1655 
1803  ibid  8°  1465 
TOTAL Edinburgh Bibles: 34 
TOTAL Edinburgh Bibles (by the King's Printers): 32 

Outside Oxford, Cambridge, London, and Edinburgh (the cities of the patent-holders), thirty-four Bibles were produced in fifteen different provincial


381

Page 381
cities, some of them very provincial indeed: in Berwick (2), Birmingham, Bristol (2), Bungay (4), Dublin (9), Halifax, Helston, Kidderminster, Lewes, Liverpool (2), Manchester (4), Newcastle (2), Stokeley, Stourbridge (2), and Yarmouth. Considering Dublin's notoriety as a centre for printing English works beyond the reach of English copyright law, it is as surprising that only nine Bibles were printed in Dublin as that one was printed in Helston (Cornwall) and four in Bungay. Only a few of the Dublin Bibles were the Catholic Douay version (1791, 1794, 1811, 1814), all called The Holy Bible. Almost half the King James versions were called The Family Bible (1793, 1803, 1804, 1805, 1807, 1812, 1813, 1814, 1815, 1816), usually with additional adjectives such as The Royal Standard Devotional Family Bible.

But the most striking feature of these provincial interlopers is their format: 88% are in folio (14) and quarto (16). Many, probably most, of these massive works were issued by subscription, and most were illustrated and heavily annotated. Clearly it was felt that the large format Bibles were the ones most likely to prove profitable.

BRITISH BIBLES 1790-1820: OUTSIDE LONDON, OXFORD,
CAMBRIDGE, EDINBURGH
The Holy Bible unless otherwise identified

                                           
Date   Place & Publisher   Format   D&M  
1790  Dublin: G. Grierson  4°  1342 
1791  Dublin: G. Grierson  18°  1359 
1793  Newcastle: M. Brown  2°  1365 
1793  Manchester: J. Radford  2°  1375 
1793  Dublin: Zachariah Jackson,
Universal Family Bible  
2°  1377 
1793  Berwick: John Taylor
for SPCK 
4°  1379 
1794  Dublin: J. Reilly  2°  1385 
1800  Helston:[15] Thomas Flinde  4°  1445 
1801  Dublin: G. Grierson  2°  1453 
1802  Bristol: Richard Edwards  12°  1460 
1803  Halifax: Nicholson& Walker,
Christian's New and
Complete Family Bible
 
4°  1464 
1803  Bristol: John Fenley, Jr
for John Parsons 
12°  1467 
1804  Bungay: C. Brightly,
New Family Bible  
4°  1471 
1804  Kidderminster: G. Gower  4°  1472 
1804  Newcastle: M. Angus & Son  4°  1475 
1805  Liverpool: J. Nuttall,
Christian's Complete Family
Bible  
2°  1478 
1805  Birmingham: Knott& Lloyd  4°  1479 
1807  Stourbridge: J. Herring,
Complete Family Bible  
2°  1499 
1807  Manchester: J. Russell  2°  1500 
1809  Dublin: G. Grierson  4°  1522 
1811  Lewes: J. Baxter  4°  1549 

382

Page 382
                           
Date   Place & Publisher   Format   D&M  
1811  Dublin: R. Coyne  12 °  1551 
1812  Stokeley: W. Pratt & Co,
Christian's Family Bible  
4°  1565 
1815  Liverpool: Nuttall, Fisher &
Dixon 
2°  1577 
1815  Berwick: William Lochhead,
Christian's Complete Family
Bible
 
4°  1578 
1815  Manchester: Oswald Syers  2°  1579 
1814  Bungay: Brightly & Childs,
Self-Interpreting Bible  
2°  1588 
1814  Manchester: T. Haydock  2°  1590 
1814  Stourbridge: J. Heming,
Imperial Family Bible  
4°  1591 
1815?  Yarmouth: Keymer & Co,
Royal Standard Devotional
Family Bible 
4°  1620 
1816  Bungay: Brightly & Childs
for T. Kinnersley,
Self-Interpreting Bible  
2°  1622 
1816  Dublin: J. Charles, Christian's
Complete Family Bible
 
4°  1624 
1816  Bungay: Brightly & Childs,
Imperial Expositor and
Family Bible 
4°  1625 
1816  Dublin: Richard Coyne  2 °  1634 

A similar pattern is visible in the thirty-nine London Bibles produced by publishers other than the King's Printers. Twelve of them have titles other than simply The Holy Bible, half of these are a version of The Family Bible, and 69% are in quarto (18) or folio (9).

For all the complete Bibles published in Britain in 1790-1820, according to Darlow & Moule, 136 were produced by the patent-holders (53 in Oxford, 32 in Edinburgh, 27 in Cambridge, and 24 in London), while 78 were published by others, almost all of them in London (40) or in provincial cities other than Oxford, Cambridge, and Edinburgh (35). In terms of the Bible sales of the English patent-holders, the greatest threat to the luxury trade in expensive quartos and folios came from a large number (56) of mostly small-scale publishers scattered from London to Helston and Halifax.

However, the threat to their bread-and-butter trade in the smaller formats, in octavos and duodecimos, came from just one source: The King's Printers in Edinburgh, who produced 32 Bibles during this period, the vast majority of them (72%) in these smaller formats. From the point of view of the English patent-holders, and particularly of Oxford, the most vigorous of the English patent-holders, the greatest threat to the monopoly they claimed on publication of the King James translation, or rather on its sale in England, came from the King's Printers in Edinburgh.


383

Page 383

In the latter part of the eighteenth century the Edinburgh printers were becoming more and more aggressive. When what the London printers had understood to be perpetual copyright in all literary works was limited by the judgement in the case of Donaldson vs Beckett in 1774 to fourteen years (renewable for another fourteen years in most circumstances and extended in later copyright acts), the Scottish printers gleefully began printing all manner of English books and selling them in England. And not only did they use English booksellers as their agents, but they printed the Authorized Version of the Bible, the Book of Common Prayer, and other works in perpetual Crown copyright in England--and sold them too in England. Their right to print such works was clear, since an English copyright of 1611 did not extend to Scotland, but their right to sell such works in England was not so clear--or at least it was not so clear to the English patent-holders.

Though the patent for the Authorized Version belonged to the Crown and was delegated primarily to the King's Printer, Oxford University Press was apparently most active in defending the privilege against English pirates and Scots cruising under alleged letters of marque. The Clarendon Press, after all, printed more editions of the Bible than the Cambridge University Press and the King's Printers in London combined. The infringements against which Oxford campaigned to defend the Bible patent most vigorously were Bibles published with additions, so that they did not count simply as Bibles, and Bibles printed (legally) outside England but imported into England for sale and therefore overlapping with the royal privilege for England. The two campaigns were carried on simultaneously, against both domestic enemies printing padded Bibles and foreign enemies printing mere Bibles. (Notice that no padded edition of the Authorized Version was printed in Scotland during these years.)

The first campaign was against domestic enemies. According to the "Minutes of the Committee appointed by the Delegates of the Press for conferring with the Partners in the Bible trade"[16] for 26 October 1796, the London partners (i.e., Thomas Bensley[17]and James Cooke) "represent that several Pirated Editions [of the Bible] have been printed of late & that the number of them is increasing, two of which were this day exhibited." Perhaps the Bibles exhibited were those of 1796 printed for R. Bowyer (duodecimo and quarto), R. Bowyer & J. Fittler (duodecimo), or J. Wright (quarto).

A manuscript summary headed "Case of the University of Oxford upon their Right of printing Bibles and common prayer &c" (1797) asserts:

The Editors of the Bible and common prayer, in London, and elsewhere, seem to know that the privilege is exclusively vested in the University [i.e., the two universities], and the King's printer, by printing always some Notes with their Editions, such in most cases as are thrown to the very bottom of the page, to be cut off when

384

Page 384
the Book is bound; by this Evasion--holding that they publish [i.e., print] the Scriptures or common prayer with Annotations and so avoid infringing upon that which is protected by privilege; the University not contending for the sole Right of printing Bibles &c with commentaries & Expositions where such additional materials are bonâ fide a substantive work, and w[h]ere the text of the Bible &c is merely a necessary adjunct to render the principal Exposition more intelligible[.]
The University asked its solicitors
Whether such a[n exclusive] privilege [of printing Bibles and common prayers] (if existing [)] is a Bar to others printing Bibles and common prayers, with plates or annotations; and if not, whether such Notes or Plates as are added with intent to be afterwards cut off or separated from the page or are capable of being cut off or separated without Injury to the Book or such even as are inserted in the Back of the Work for the manifest purpose of giving it the Name of a different thing from the Bible or common prayer Book being only apparently or superficially but not substantially different, would be sufficient to protect other Editors against the University Privilege, or would be deemed in a Court of Justice to be mere Evasions.

To these questions, William Scott, John Scott, and John Mitford, of Lincoln's Inn, responded on 13 April 1797 that

the University of Oxford has merely a right to print bibles & common prayers . . . and has . . . no right to restrain others from printing the same books. The university of Cambridge seems to be in the same position .... We apprehend the King's printers have a grant containing a clause excluding others from printing those books, except the Universities or persons claiming a right to print under prior grants of the Crown; & under the terms of their exclusive privilege, may apply to a court of equity to restrain persons, who claim under a prior grant of the Crown, from printing the books to which their exclusive privilege extends . . . . it seems to us that plates & annotations, printed with the view suggested, & not forming of themselves the work printed, to which the translation of the bible or the forms of common prayer shall be merely accessaries, will not protect the printer from the consequences of infringing the exclusive rights of the Crown, & the kings' printers as patentees of the Crown ....

Oxford and Cambridge therefore joined with the King's Printers to issue warnings to those encroaching upon their privileges, but with less than the desired effect. According to the Oxford Bible Press Committee minutes for 21 October 1800,

Mr Bensley & Mr Cooke reported by advice of Mr Dawson that notwithstanding the late advertisement in the name of the Kings Printer & the two universities it would be expedient to proceed farther & file an injunction against each of the principal vendors of the pirated Editions, a list of whom was brought prepared by Mr Dawson--[18] The Kings Printer in the conference they had with him seemed to be of the same opinion--
The King's Printers may have agreed with Oxford and Cambridge, but they apparently left the learned presses to undertake the trouble and expense of such a defence of their common interests.

Just a year later, on 21 October 1801,


385

Page 385

Messrs Bensley & Cooke report that the [Oxford Bible] trade is at present considerably on the decline,[19] principally on account of the great influx of Scotch books, & the pains taken to disperse them throughout the country, & that it is likely to be entirely ruined except measures are speedily taken to put an end to this encroachment--Three presses are already stopp'd, & a considerable debt has been incurred--The Scotch Printers are said to have 20 presses to work--

Ordered by the delegates that a bill in Chancery be filed against the Vendor of the Scotch Bible in London [.]


And three months later, on 26 January 1802,


An injunction having been obtained against Richardson, Vendor of the Scotch Books in London, Messrs Dawson, Bensley & Cooke advise that proceedings be also instituted against some of the Vendors of Books printed without Authority in England, & they fix upon Corrall[20]. . . & his agent Hurst, Paternoster Row ....

They recommend also that Letters be then sent to all other dealers in Town & Country, & that they be also prosecuted unless they entirely give up the sale of such books [An insertion notes that it was so Order'd Jan. 29] . . .

On 29 January 1802 the Court of Chancery issued an injunction against Messrs Richardson[21]"for selling or exposing to sale, any copies or impressions of the Bible, Testament, Book of Common Prayer, &c. printed by his Majesty's Printer in Scotland",[22] but the same day "Messrs Bensley & Cooke reported, that the trade still suffers from the encroachments of others against whom Injunctions have not been granted, who continue to vend Scotch books".[23] However, on 11 May 1802, "Messrs Bensley & Cooke reported . . . that the general State of the Trade appears to have been improving, since the injunctions have been granted by the Court of Chancery against Richardson & Corral".

The case of the universities was promptly sustained by the Lord High Chancellor, and on 1 March 1802 William Richardson, John Richardson, and James Richardson appealed to the House of Lords against the order preventing them


from selling, or exposing to sale, certain books therein mentioned, which they had been in the practice of selling for above forty years, prior to the instituting that suit, without any disturbance or interruption. . . . for several years last past, his Majesty's Printer had not found it necessary to put forth any new edition or copies of the said books [the Holy Bible, the New Testament, the Book of Common Prayer, Administration of the Sacrament, and other Rites and Ceremonies of the Church of

386

Page 386
England], but had left the due supply thereof, wholly to the respondents, who had, respectively, employed a very large capital in such printing and publishing ....[24]
The House of Lords confirmed the Lord High Chancellor's decision on 4 May 1804, and Oxford, Cambridge, and the King's Printer gave notice on 23 July 1805 "that legal means will be taken" against those who sell such works without privilege.[25]

However, the universities could not be confident that the King's Printers were their allies. On 23 January 1804, "Messrs Dawson, Bensley & Cooke report that the trend[?] of the encroachment in the [Bible] Privilege encreases, & has even taken a new shape--That not only Mr Reeves but Mr Strachan [i.e., Andrew Strahan] also have taken the measure of communicating their privilege to others"--that is, they have sold to others the right to print the Bible.

The problem of Bible pirates and of what constitutes a Bible pirate persisted. For instance, could a Bible patent-holder be at the same time a Bible pirate? Was it legal for a Bible patent-holder to license others to print Bibles? A clipping from an unidentified periodical in the Oxford University Press archives dated "1818" in MS summarizes a

LAW REPORT.
VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, Dec. 14.
THE UNIVERSITIES OF OXFORD AND CAMBRIDGE v
BLAKE[26] AND OTHERS.

The Solicitor General moved, on the part of the Chancellor, Masters, and Fellows of the two Universities, for an injunction to restrain the defendants from continuing the sale of certain works, the exclusive copyright of which is vested in those public bodies by letters-patent. The Books in question were the Holy Scriptures, and the Book of Common Prayer. An edition of the former had recently been published under the title of Gurney's Bible, with a Commentary and Annotations. These were, however, nothing more than a pretext, and were used only to colour an invasion of literary property. A separate edition, of quarto size,[27] accompanied by reflexions, had also been offered to the world by the same booksellers, together with two copies [i.e., editions] of the Prayer Book. One of these professed to be an abridgement, but in point of fact contained the whole of that portion of the service which is usually read. The other, gave the whole text, subjoining a variety of annotations. As the originals could not legally be published, without a license from one of the Universities, he apprehended that the addition of notes, or omission of particular parts, must be considered as a mere attempt at disguise, and would not be allowed by a court of equity to defeat a valuable privilege.

The Vice-Chancellor granted the injunction ....

Notice that the injunction appears to be concerned only with Bibles and Prayer Books which have appended "Commentary and Annotations . . . only


387

Page 387
to colour an invasion of literary property" or which "professed to be an abridgement". Since annotated and abridged Bibles and Prayer Books had for almost a century been published with impunity by booksellers who had no share in the patent, this implies a radical reinterpretation of the implications of the patent.

Of course, this injunction spread alarm, "terror and dismay" among the booksellers who had for years been selling annotated and illustrated Bibles printed without license from the patent-holders, and another clipping in the Oxford University Press archives from an unidentified periodical dated in MS Saturday "Jany 23 1819" reports a

MEETING OF BOOKSELLERS.

A numerous Meeting of the Publishers, Booksellers, Stationers, and all others interested in the sale of the Holy Scriptures, was held yesterday evening at the Globe Tavern, Fleet-street, to take into consideration the recent attack made on the trade, as relates to the sale of Bibles and Prayer-books. As the nature of this attack may not be known to the generality of our readers, we shall endeavour to explain it by giving, in a few words, a short abstract of a Report made by a Committee, appointed on Thursday evening to investigate into its extent. It appeared from that report, that for two or three years past bills in Chauncery have been filed, and silently operating under the instruction of a patentee, against persons selling Edinburgh Bibles or Common Prayers. During the last term a hundred injunctions were obtained against different booksellers in London and the suburbs, and 90 are entered for the present term. At first the injunctions were only levelled against Bibles printed at Edinburgh, but lately they have been extended against Bibles, Testaments and Common Prayers, printed in England, with commentaries and notes. This proceeding has spread terror and dismay through the various booksellers both in town and country: especially as they have been likewise informed, that they cannot, under the existing law, sell any Bible in the English tongue, or in any other tongue whatsoever, of any translation, with note or without note, which is not printed at the press of the King's printer, or at the press[es] of the two Universities. As this system was rapidly spreading in every direction, the trade took it up, and assembled yesterday evening to discuss the propriety of resisting with all the energy which such an invasion of what they deemed their long established rights demanded. After some discussion, they entered into a resolution of appointing a Committee of 12 London booksellers, with full powers to adapt all such measures as should be requisite to terminate the depending prosecutions, and to prevent any future occurrence. This was followed by another resolution, empowering them to receive subscriptions to enable them to proceed in the cause. We understand that large sums were immediately deposited in the hands of the Commiittee, several persons advancing from twenty to thirty pounds each, and one gentleman in particular the large sum of 150 guineas.

From hints that were dropped in the course of the discussion, we are led to conjecture, that the great body of booksellers will immediately combine, and present a petition to the two Houses of Parliament, to obtain some modification of the present patent.

There can scarcely have been any ground for claiming that the King's printer and the two university presses had exclusive rights under "the present patent" to print the Bible in any language "with note or without note" . The allegation must have been made ad terrorem either by the patent-holders as an expendable bargaining position or, far more probably, by the booksellers in order to persuade the dismayed and terrified booksellers to contribute generously to the cause. Certainly nothing in the 1818 Law Report makes such


388

Page 388
sweeping claims. But whatever the implausibility of the allegation, it was sufficiently convincing to persuade the booksellers to contribute "large sums" to the defence fund.

To the booksellers it must have seemed that all the struggles of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries to secure access to the Authorized Version of the Bible must be repeated--with the additional threat that they might not be allowed to print even other versions of the Bible. To the patent-holders, it must have seemed that as long as they were resisting the invasions of the Scottish buccanneers, they might as well at the same time attempt to recover the exclusive right to print annotated and illustrated Bibles which they (or at least the King's Printer) had tamely conceded to the booksellers at large at the end of the eighteenth century. Plainly both sides were marshalling their troops along the legal border, enriching their war-chests, spreading propaganda, and preparing for the onset of hostilities for a war that threatened to spread commercial carnage on an international scale.

Alas! the documents I have seen do not enable me to present further battle-bulletins. Injunctions don't get recorded very extensively, even a barrage of them like this. And even if one could get evidence as to whom the injunctions were directed against, one still couldn't draw very useful conclusions unless one could ascertain that the injunctions were breached or that they changed the actions of the injunctee. The documents have, however, made plain some of the principles of literary property at issue in the war, and they have identified the combatants on the two sides fairly plainly. Whatever they said, both sides were fighting under the banner of Mammon, though the patent-holders doubtless preferred to be known as the party of Church and King. The cause of Church and King was vigourously led by Oxford University Press, seconded, at least financially, by Cambridge University Press. The King's Printer in London seems to have permitted the campaign rather than fostered it, and indeed at least in Oxford there seems to have been some suspicion that he had a foot in the enemy camp. Opposed to the Church and King party were most conspicuously the King's Printers in Scotland (Sir D. Hunter Blair & J. Bruce in Edinburgh), but Oxford had initiated hostilities in such a way that most of the substantial book-sellers in Britain were probably ranged against them.

Further, if report of the 1819 Meeting of Booksellers is to be believed, the Church and King party led by Oxford and Cambridge University Presses was not merely defending their ancient privileges of printing and selling unillustrated and unannotated editions of the Authorized Version of the Bible; it was attempting to extend these privileges very substantially, so as to prevent the sale of "any Bible in the English tongue, or in any other tongue whatsoever, of any translation, with note or without note, which is not printed at the press of the King's printer, or at the press[es] of the two Universities". The legal conquest of such a terrain would, of course, have been immensely valuable. And while it is clear that the Church and King party did not conquer this new terrain, it is equally clear that they did maintain their privilege of printing and selling the Authorized Version of the Bible in England.


389

Page 389

In some ways, access to the word of God was as hotly contested by booksellers at the beginning of the nineteenth century as it had been among logocentric Protestants in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Should the King's Printers and the university presses have an exclusive right to God's Word as priests had had in former ages? There was money in God's Word, and in the nineteenth century the debate swirled about the issue not of who should read God's Word but of who should make a profit from it. The fortunes of the war are fascinating, but in religious terms there may be some doubt as to whether they are edifying.