The use of royal licences for printing in England, 1695-1760: A bibliography

Library

Volumn 1, Issue 2, 2000, Pages 133-146

  Rogers, Shef ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0039001871     PISSN: 00242160     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/library/1.2.133     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Figures for the number of entries per year are based on a count of the 6d. notations in the right margin of the Registers, not on the number of volumes or items under each entry, and so are only approximate, but the trend is obvious even allowing for a wide margin of error. Dates are based on the modern calendar year. Considering that entries in the years 1557-71 averaged 114 per year and rose to 147 per year between 1576 and 1640, the eighteenth-century rate is strikingly low (W. W. Greg, 'Entrance, Licence, and Publication', The Library, IV, 25 (1944), 1-22). For a much broader discussion of the unsettled state of publishing as it affected the status and control of literary property, see Adrian Johns, The Nature of the Book: Print and Knowledge in the Making (Chicago, 1998), esp. ch. 3.
2. Figures for the number of entries per year are based on a count of the 6d. notations in the right margin of the Registers, not on the number of volumes or items under each entry, and so are only approximate, but the trend is obvious even allowing for a wide margin of error. Dates are based on the modern calendar year. Considering that entries in the years 1557-71 averaged 114 per year and rose to 147 per year between 1576 and 1640, the eighteenth-century rate is strikingly low (W. W. Greg, 'Entrance, Licence, and Publication', The Library, IV, 25 (1944), 1-22). For a much broader discussion of the unsettled state of publishing as it affected the status and control of literary property, see Adrian Johns, The Nature of the Book: Print and Knowledge in the Making (Chicago, 1998), esp. ch. 3.
3. For an interesting (and unsuccessful) instance of two booksellers seeking arbitration from senior members of the trade, see Richard Francklin, An Act Before the First Act of the Tragedy of Elvira, by David Mallet (London, [1763?]). More successful was John Knapton's mediation between James Watson and Alexander Pope over Watson's unauthorized printing of Pope's letters; see Pope's Literary Legacy: The Book-Trade Correspondence of William Warburton and John Knapton, ed. by Donald W. Nichol, Oxford Bibliographical Society, n.s. 23 (Oxford, 1992), pp. lv-lvi.
4. For an interesting (and unsuccessful) instance of two booksellers seeking arbitration from senior members of the trade, see Richard Francklin, An Act Before the First Act of the Tragedy of Elvira, by David Mallet (London, [1763?]). More successful was John Knapton's mediation between James Watson and Alexander Pope over Watson's unauthorized printing of Pope's letters; see Pope's Literary Legacy: The Book-Trade Correspondence of William Warburton and John Knapton, ed. by Donald W. Nichol, Oxford Bibliographical Society, n.s. 23 (Oxford, 1992), pp. lv-lvi.
5. All but one of the fourteen magazine licences were issued in 1759 or 1760. I can find no legal incentive that might have suddenly urged editors to seek licences, but Michael Harris has suggested to me that a licence may have represented a means of distinguishing one's offering amid the fierce competition in periodical publishing during these years.
6. This shift may also result from a relative increase in the ease of obtaining a licence, so that an author contemplating subscription publication first sought a licence and then, licence in hand, proceeded to write and solicit subscribers (and publishers), whereas in the past an author may have had to rely on a bookseller to negotiate the licensing process (it is Lintot, not Pope, who obtains the royal licences for the latter's translations of Homer). The advertising value of a royal licence should not be overlooked, particularly in a period of rising literacy and traditional class distinctions. Edward H. Jacobs ('Buying into Classes: The Practice of Book Selection in Eighteenth-Century Britain', Eighteenth-Century Studies, 33 (1999), 43-64) argues that the advertising of publications in London and provincial periodicals made book purchasing an act of identifying with a certain stratum of society. Jacobs does not discuss royal licences, but since licences functioned as important status markers and were accordingly noted in advertisements, their value to booksellers must have been significant. Cf. the comments of William Warburton on this function of licences, quoted below.
7. Arnold Hunt has examined similar grants from the first half of the seventeenth century in his 'Book Trade Patents, 1603-1640', in The Book Trade and its Customers, 1450-1900: Historical Essays for Robin Myers, ed. by Arnold Hunt, Giles Mandelbrote, and Alison Shell (Winchester, 1997), pp. 27-54, and he hopes to extend his work to 1695. The restoration period should prove especially interesting because of the complicated relationships between the content sanctions of the imprimatur and the social and legal sanctions of the royal privilege. Similarly, the period 1761-74 should reveal conflicts between the royal courts and law courts over literary property and propriety, but because PRO records are structured by reigns and George III's is one of the least well catalogued, I have not yet explored these records.
8. Richard Rolt, A New Dictionary of Trade and Commerce, 2nd edn (London, 1761), cited by the lawyer Ilay Campbell in 1771; see Lord Monboddo Reporter: Information for J. Robertson, Printer in Edinburgh . . . Defender; against J. Mackenzie . . . and Others . . . [Edinburgh, 1771], reprinted in The Literary Property Debate: Seven Tracts, 1747-1773, ed. by Stephen Parks, The English Book Trade, 1660-1853 (New York, 1974), item D, pp. 50-51.
9. Richard Rolt, A New Dictionary of Trade and Commerce, 2nd edn (London, 1761), cited by the lawyer Ilay Campbell in 1771; see Lord Monboddo Reporter: Information for J. Robertson, Printer in Edinburgh . . . Defender; against J. Mackenzie . . . and Others . . . [Edinburgh, 1771], reprinted in The Literary Property Debate: Seven Tracts, 1747-1773, ed. by Stephen Parks, The English Book Trade, 1660-1853 (New York, 1974), item D, pp. 50-51.
10. Richard Rolt, A New Dictionary of Trade and Commerce, 2nd edn (London, 1761), cited by the lawyer Ilay Campbell in 1771; see Lord Monboddo Reporter: Information for J. Robertson, Printer in Edinburgh . . . Defender; against J. Mackenzie . . . and Others . . . [Edinburgh, 1771], reprinted in The Literary Property Debate: Seven Tracts, 1747-1773, ed. by Stephen Parks, The English Book Trade, 1660-1853 (New York, 1974), item D, pp. 50-51.
11. I have recorded such warrants when I encountered them in the SP/44 volumes, and would be glad to make the notes available to anyone interested in sorting out this tangled web. For a discussion of the disputes over the patent for King's Printer, see A. F. Johnson, 'The King's Printers, 1660-1742', The Library, V, 3 (1949), 33-38.
12. Hunt, 'Book Trade Patents', p. 31.
13. Just as the licence itself was technically unnecessary after 1710, so its clauses relating to imported editions were technically redundant after 1739, but they are almost always retained in licences granted up to 1760, perhaps in the belief that a legal document can never be too thorough, or through mere bureaucratic custom.
14. See Journals of the House of Commons, XXII, p. 412 (March 1734).
15. See below, items 169 (Isaac Watts, 21 March 1758) and 173-74 (James Thomson and Alexander Pope, both 24 July 1759).
16. In contrast to the clause prohibiting importation, the clause forbidding counterfeiting dropped out of use almost entirely after 1735, with the exception of one licence dated 18 October 1743 (item 98 below). Because the 1735 clause gave protection only to artists who engraved their own designs, the clause against counterfeiting should have continued to provide valuable protection to engravings made of others' work, yet it disappears.
17. Peggy Ellen Daub, 'Music at the Court of George II' (unpublished doctoral thesis, Cornell University, 1985), provides a good overview of this subject, including details regarding most of the musicians listed in the Bibliography below. The sudden increase in music licences under George II may also indicate that the royal taste mattered more in determining a work's eligibility for a licence than Warburton's letter (quoted below) implies. Only the licence of 29 January 1733 granted to Jethro Tull (item 75 below) indicates the definite involvement of the sovereign in issuing a licence, though further research may yield clearer insights into this aspect of the licensing process.
18. SP/44/240 P. 92. If Bennett's claim to have spent £3,000 is anywhere close to the truth, he must have been sorely disappointed by this outcome.
19. Warrant Book entries for printing warrants of all sorts are usually endorsed in the margin with a request that the Attorney General review the petitioner's legal rights.
20. Letter of 8 March 1759 (Pope's Literary Legacy, ed. Nichol, p. 129). Cf. the licence of 19 December 1724 to Mary Smalridge for sixty of her husband's sermons, published by subscription (item 58 below).
21. See, for example, Lord Monboddo Reporter: Information for J. Robertson, pp. 50-51.
22. Hunt, 'Book Trade Patents', reports that a 'patent usually contained provisions for its own enforcement, including the right to search the premises of anyone suspected of infringing the patent, to seize the offending books and to destroy the offender's presses and type' (p. 29). A licence never specifies penalties.
23. This lawsuit concerned Thomas Ruddiman's Rudiments of the Latin Tongue, the rights to which were then owned by Ruddiman's widow. The case is discussed in a later lawsuit appeal: 'In the year 1758, one Rivington, a London bookseller, made an invasion of her property, being the first attempt of that kind, by publishing an edition of the Rudiments, consisting of about 3000 copies. But Mrs Ruddiman having immediately commenced a suit against him in the Court of Chancery, he was advised not to stand suit, but to submit to her own terms; and he accordingly delivered up to her his whole impression on hand, accounted for those he had sold, and paid her full costs of suit'. See Lord Monboddo Reporter: Information for John Mackenzie . . .; against John Robertson, Printer in Edinburgh, Defender [Edinburgh, 1771], reprinted in The Literary Property Debate, item E, p. 3.
24. The proceedings of Millar v. Kincaid are conveniently summarized in Andrew Millar, Daniel Midwinter [and others] . . . Appellants. Alexander Kincaid, Gavin Hamilton [and others] . . . Respondents. The Case of the Respondents [London, 1751], reprinted in English Publishing, the Struggle for Copyright, and the Freedom of the Press: Thirteen Tracts, 1666-1774, ed. by Stephen Parks, The English Book Trade, 1660-1853 (New York, 1975), item J. For a discussion of Millar v. Taylor and its precedent, Millar v. Donaldson, see (among others) Speeches or Arguments of the Judges of the Court of King's Bench . . . In the Cause Millar against Taylor (Leith, 1771), reprinted in The Literary Property Debate, item F. Interestingly, Justice Yates (pp. 77-78) offers a discussion of the basis of royal prerogative copyrights that would appear to undermine the legitimacy of most royal licences, but the point is not developed . See also Harry Carter, A History of the Oxford University Press (Oxford, 1975), I: To the Year 1780, pp. 347-50. It is also possible that Millar's licence was taken to apply only to the complete Works and not to The Seasons as an independent publication, though Donaldson and Kincaid had both printed the complete Works in 1768, apparently without facing lawsuits for licence infringement.
25. The proceedings of Millar v. Kincaid are conveniently summarized in Andrew Millar, Daniel Midwinter [and others] . . . Appellants. Alexander Kincaid, Gavin Hamilton [and others] . . . Respondents. The Case of the Respondents [London, 1751], reprinted in English Publishing, the Struggle for Copyright, and the Freedom of the Press: Thirteen Tracts, 1666-1774, ed. by Stephen Parks, The English Book Trade, 1660-1853 (New York, 1975), item J. For a discussion of Millar v. Taylor and its precedent, Millar v. Donaldson, see (among others) Speeches or Arguments of the Judges of the Court of King's Bench . . . In the Cause Millar against Taylor (Leith, 1771), reprinted in The Literary Property Debate, item F. Interestingly, Justice Yates (pp. 77-78) offers a discussion of the basis of royal prerogative copyrights that would appear to undermine the legitimacy of most royal licences, but the point is not developed . See also Harry Carter, A History of the Oxford University Press (Oxford, 1975), I: To the Year 1780, pp. 347-50. It is also possible that Millar's licence was taken to apply only to the complete Works and not to The Seasons as an independent publication, though Donaldson and Kincaid had both printed the complete Works in 1768, apparently without facing lawsuits for licence infringement.
26. Although a vast number of lawsuits remain to be examined in the PRO, a good starting place for this period is R. J. Goulden's 1983 analytical list of 'Some Chancery Lawsuits, 1714-1758', available from the author, Early Printed Collections, The British Library, 96 Euston Road, London NW1 2DB. One would expect violations of royal prerogative to be heard in the Court of King's Bench, but I have not located any copyright lawsuits in a brief foray into these records.
27. i.e. the Act of 1735, forbidding the copying of engravings for a term of fourteen years and imposing a penalty of five shillings per page on those who infringe.
28. William Tans'ur, The Royal Psalmodist Compleat (London, 1748).
29. In the interests of space I have not indicated in the Bibliography below when a work is mentioned in the account books, but I would be happy to supply those details to anyone interested in looking at these records more closely.
30. SP/44/326, p. 3; SP/44/326, P. 4.
31. Obviously Hill and others may have felt it was simpler not to argue about the 6d., but the issue mattered enough to John How that he stipulated in his 1709 proposals to improve the book trade that 'No Book or Copy that is printed by Patent, to pay any thing for Entery'. See his Some Thoughts on the Present State of Printing and Bookselling (London, 1709), reprinted in Freedom of the Press: Six Tracts, 1698-1709, ed. by Stephen Parks, The English Book Trade, 1660-1853 (New York, 1974), item F, p. 16. Booksellers also clearly preferred to avoid depositing their nine copies. According to Edmund Law, author of Observations Occasioned by the Contest about Literary Property (Cambridge, 1770), under the requirements of the 1709 Act, 'very few books of value have been obtained [by the deposit libraries], the Booksellers being determined not to lose so many Copies of the largest Paper, as this Act requires to be delivered, and chusing rather to forfeit all the benefit of it, and trust one another, by never entering their Books in the Registers of the Stationers-Hall; or when this method is not safe enough, entering only one Volume of each sett; that being deemed effectual to prevent any others of the trade from printing such sett upon them. And thus, when complete setts of works have been claimed for any of the aforesaid Libraries, or even offers made to purchase the remaining Volumes not entered as the Acts direct, the Bookseller has not only refused to part with them gratis, but even to sell the remaining Volumes to such claimants, unless those other Volumes, that had been delivered, were likewise paid for at the same time' (reprinted in Freedom of the Press and the Literary Property Debate: Six Tracts, 1755-1770, ed. by Stephen Parks, The English Book Trade, 1660-1853 (New York, 1974), item F, PP. 3-4).
32. Obviously Hill and others may have felt it was simpler not to argue about the 6d., but the issue mattered enough to John How that he stipulated in his 1709 proposals to improve the book trade that 'No Book or Copy that is printed by Patent, to pay any thing for Entery'. See his Some Thoughts on the Present State of Printing and Bookselling (London, 1709), reprinted in Freedom of the Press: Six Tracts, 1698-1709, ed. by Stephen Parks, The English Book Trade, 1660-1853 (New York, 1974), item F, p. 16. Booksellers also clearly preferred to avoid depositing their nine copies. According to Edmund Law, author of Observations Occasioned by the Contest about Literary Property (Cambridge, 1770), under the requirements of the 1709 Act, 'very few books of value have been obtained [by the deposit libraries], the Booksellers being determined not to lose so many Copies of the largest Paper, as this Act requires to be delivered, and chusing rather to forfeit all the benefit of it, and trust one another, by never entering their Books in the Registers of the Stationers-Hall; or when this method is not safe enough, entering only one Volume of each sett; that being deemed effectual to prevent any others of the trade from printing such sett upon them. And thus, when complete setts of works have been claimed for any of the aforesaid Libraries, or even offers made to purchase the remaining Volumes not entered as the Acts direct, the Bookseller has not only refused to part with them gratis, but even to sell the remaining Volumes to such claimants, unless those other Volumes, that had been delivered, were likewise paid for at the same time' (reprinted in Freedom of the Press and the Literary Property Debate: Six Tracts, 1755-1770, ed. by Stephen Parks, The English Book Trade, 1660-1853 (New York, 1974), item F, PP. 3-4).
33. Obviously Hill and others may have felt it was simpler not to argue about the 6d., but the issue mattered enough to John How that he stipulated in his 1709 proposals to improve the book trade that 'No Book or Copy that is printed by Patent, to pay any thing for Entery'. See his Some Thoughts on the Present State of Printing and Bookselling (London, 1709), reprinted in Freedom of the Press: Six Tracts, 1698-1709, ed. by Stephen Parks, The English Book Trade, 1660-1853 (New York, 1974), item F, p. 16. Booksellers also clearly preferred to avoid depositing their nine copies. According to Edmund Law, author of Observations Occasioned by the Contest about Literary Property (Cambridge, 1770), under the requirements of the 1709 Act, 'very few books of value have been obtained [by the deposit libraries], the Booksellers being determined not to lose so many Copies of the largest Paper, as this Act requires to be delivered, and chusing rather to forfeit all the benefit of it, and trust one another, by never entering their Books in the Registers of the Stationers-Hall; or when this method is not safe enough, entering only one Volume of each sett; that being deemed effectual to prevent any others of the trade from printing such sett upon them. And thus, when complete setts of works have been claimed for any of the aforesaid Libraries, or even offers made to purchase the remaining Volumes not entered as the Acts direct, the Bookseller has not only refused to part with them gratis, but even to sell the remaining Volumes to such claimants, unless those other Volumes, that had been delivered, were likewise paid for at the same time' (reprinted in Freedom of the Press and the Literary Property Debate: Six Tracts, 1755-1770, ed. by Stephen Parks, The English Book Trade, 1660-1853 (New York, 1974), item F, PP. 3-4).
34. Obviously Hill and others may have felt it was simpler not to argue about the 6d., but the issue mattered enough to John How that he stipulated in his 1709 proposals to improve the book trade that 'No Book or Copy that is printed by Patent, to pay any thing for Entery'. See his Some Thoughts on the Present State of Printing and Bookselling (London, 1709), reprinted in Freedom of the Press: Six Tracts, 1698-1709, ed. by Stephen Parks, The English Book Trade, 1660-1853 (New York, 1974), item F, p. 16. Booksellers also clearly preferred to avoid depositing their nine copies. According to Edmund Law, author of Observations Occasioned by the Contest about Literary Property (Cambridge, 1770), under the requirements of the 1709 Act, 'very few books of value have been obtained [by the deposit libraries], the Booksellers being determined not to lose so many Copies of the largest Paper, as this Act requires to be delivered, and chusing rather to forfeit all the benefit of it, and trust one another, by never entering their Books in the Registers of the Stationers-Hall; or when this method is not safe enough, entering only one Volume of each sett; that being deemed effectual to prevent any others of the trade from printing such sett upon them. And thus, when complete setts of works have been claimed for any of the aforesaid Libraries, or even offers made to purchase the remaining Volumes not entered as the Acts direct, the Bookseller has not only refused to part with them gratis, but even to sell the remaining Volumes to such claimants, unless those other Volumes, that had been delivered, were likewise paid for at the same time' (reprinted in Freedom of the Press and the Literary Property Debate: Six Tracts, 1755-1770, ed. by Stephen Parks, The English Book Trade, 1660-1853 (New York, 1974), item F, PP. 3-4).
35. See R. M. Wiles, Serial Publication in England before 1750 (Cambridge, 1957).
36. Included in this group of seven licences (items 29, 38, 40, 62, 94, 95 and 130) are the two rather different grants for diplomatic documents (John Baskett's licence of 20 June 1713, item 29, and Samuel Buckley's licence of 19 February 1717, item 40), which may have been considered a different dispensation and thus should not have been entered in the Warrant Books. It may therefore be more accurate to speak of five unrecorded licences.
37. See items 51 and 55 below (3 March 1721 and 4 April 1723). Since I have not seen a printed licence for every item in the Bibliography, it is likely that there are others so worded. In addition, all licences issued by the Lord Justices during a ruler's absence intentionally omit the formal title and are headed instead by the names of the Lord Justices.