(Vol. ii., p.359.)
On the 12th November, 5 & 6 Philip and Mary, 1558, a bill "That no man
shall print any book or ballad, &c., unless he be authorized thereunto by
the king and queen's majesties licence, under the Great Seal of Englande,"
was read for the first time in the House of Lords, where it was read again
a second time on the 14th. On the 16th it was read for the third time, but
it did not pass, and probably never reached the Commons; for Queen Mary
died on the following day, and thereby the Parliament was dissolved.
(_Lords' Journal_, i. 539, 540.) Queen Elizabeth, however did by her high
prerogative what her sister had sought to effect by legislative sanction.
In the first year of her reign, 1559, she issued injunctions concerning
both the clergy and the laity: the 51st Injunction was in the following
terms:--
"Item, because there is great abuse in the printers of books, which for
covetousness chiefly regard not what they print, so they may have gain,
whereby ariseth the great disorder by publication of unfruitful, vain,
and infamous books and papers; the queen's majesty straitly chargeth
and commandeth, that no manner of person shall print any manner of book
or paper, of what sort, nature, or in what language soever it be,
except the same be first licensed by Her Majesty by express words in
writing, or by six of her privy council; or be perused and licensed by
the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, the Bishop of London, the
chancellors of both universities, the bishop being ordinary, and the
archdeacon also of the place, where any such shall be printed, or by
two of them, whereof the ordinary of the place to be always one. And
that the names of such, as shall allow the same, to be added in the end
of every such work, for a testimony of the allowance thereof. And
because many pamphlets, plays, and ballads be oftentimes printed,
wherein regard would be had that nothing therein should be either
heretical, seditious, or unseemly for Christian ears; Her Majesty
likewise commandeth that no manner of person shall enterprise to print
any such, except the same be to him licensed by such Her Majesty's
commissioners, or three of them, as be appointed in the city of London
to hear and determine divers clauses ecclesiastical, tending to the
execution of certain statutes made the last parliament for uniformity
of order in religion. And if any shall sell or utter any manner of
books or papers, being not licensed as is abovesaid, that the same
party shall be punished by order of the said commissioners, as to the
quality of the fault shall be thought meet. And touching all other
books of matters of religion, or policy, or governance, that have been
printed, either on this side the seas, or on the other side, because
the diversity of them is great, and that there needeth good
consideration to be had of the particularities thereof, Her Majesty
referreth the prohibition or permission thereof to the order, which her
said commissioners within the city of London shall take and notify.
According to the which, Her Majesty straitly chargeth and commandeth
all manner her subjects, and especially the wardens and company of
stationers, to be obedient.
"Provided that these orders do not extend to any profane authors and
works in any language, that have been heretofore commonly received or
allowed in any of the universities or schools, but the same may be
printed, and used as by good order they were accustomed."--Cardswell's
_Documentary Annals_, i. 229.
This injunction was, I take it, the origin of the licensing of the press of
this country. On the 23d June, 28 Eliz. 1586 (not 1585, as in Strype),
{426} Archbishop Whitgift and the Lords of the Privy Council in the Star
Chamber made rules and ordinances for redressing abuses in printing. No
printing-press was to be allowed elsewhere than in London (except one in
each University); and no book was to be printed until first seen and
perused by the Archbishop of Canterbury or Bishop of London; with an
exception in favour of the queen's printer, and books of the common law,
which were to be allowed by the Chief Justices and Chief Baron, or one of
them. Extensive and arbitrary powers of search for unlicensed books and
presses were also given to the wardens of the Stationers' Company.
(Strype's _Life of Archbishop Whitgift_, 222.; Records, No.XXIV.) On the
1st July, 1637, another decree of a similar character was made by the Court
of Star Chamber. (Rushworth's _Historical Collections_, Part ii. p.450.)
The Long Parliament, although it dissolved the Star Chamber, seems to have
had no more enlightened views as respects the freedom of the press than
Queen Elizabeth or the Archbishops Whitgift and Laud; for on the 14th June,
1643, the two Houses made an ordinance prohibiting the printing of any
order or declaration of either House, without order of one or both Houses;
or the printing or sale of any book, pamphlet, or paper, unless the same
were approved and licensed under the hands of such persons as both or
either House should appoint for licensing the same. (_Parliamentary
History_, xii. 298.) The names of the licensers appointed are given in
Neal's _History of the Puritans_ (ed. 1837, ii. 205.). It was this
ordinance which occasioned the publication, in or about 1644, of Milton's
most noble defence of the liberty of the press, entitled _Areopagitica; a
Speech for the Liberty of unlicensed Printing, To the Parliament of
England_. After setting out certain Italian imprimaturs, he remarks:
"These are the pretty responsories, these are the dear antiphonies that
so bewitched of late our prelates and their chaplains with the godly
echo they made and besotted, as to the gay imitation of a lordly
imprimatur, one from Lambeth House, another from the west end of
Paul's; so apishly romanising, that the word of command still was set
down in Latin, as if the learned grammatical pen that wrote it would
cast no ink without Latin; or, perhaps, as they thought, because no
vulgar tongue was worthy to express the pure conceit of an imprimatur;
but rather, as I hope, for that our English, the language of men ever
famous and foremost in the achievements of liberty, will not easily
find servile letters enow to spell such a dictatory presumption
englished."
On the 28th September, 1647, the Lords and Commons passed a still more
severe ordinance, which imposed pains and penalties on all persons
printing, publishing, selling, or uttering any book, pamphlet, treatise,
ballad, libel, or sheet of news, without the licence of both, or either
House of Parliament, or such persons as should be thereunto authorised by
one or both Houses. Offending hawkers, pedlars, and ballad-chappers were to
be whipped as common rogues. (_Parliamentary History_, xvi. 309.) We get
some insight into the probable cause of this ordinance from a letter of Sir
Thomas Fairfax to the Earl of Manchester, dated "Putney, 20th Sept., 1647."
He complains of some printed pamphlets, very scandalous and abusive, to the
army in particular, and the whole kingdom in general; and expresses his
desire that these, and all of the like nature, might be suppressed for the
future. In order, however, to satisfy the kingdom's expectation for
intelligence, he advises that, till a firm peace be settled, two or three
sheets might be permitted to come out weekly, which might be licensed; and
as Mr. Mabbott had approved himself faithful in that service of licensing,
and likewise in the service of the House and the army, he requested that he
might be continued in the said place of licenser. (_Lords' Journals_, ix.
457.) Gilbert Mabbott was accordingly appointed licenser of such weekly
papers as should be printed, but resigned the situation 22nd May, 1649.
(_Commons' Journals_, vi. 214.) It seems he had conscientious objections to
the service, for elsewhere it is recorded, under the same date, "Upon Mr.
Mabbott's desire and reasons against licensing of books to be printed, he
was discharged of that imployment." (Whitelock's _Memorials_, 389.) On the
20th September, 1649, was passed a parliamentary ordinance prohibiting
printing elsewhere than in London, the two Universities, York, and
Finsbury, without the licence of the Council of State (Scobell's
_Ordinances_, Part ii. 90.); and on the 7th January, 1652-3, the Parliament
passed another ordinance for the suppression of unlicensed and scandalous
books. (Scobell's _Ordinances_, Part ii. 231.) In 1661 a bill for the
regulation of printing passed the Lords, but was rejected by the Commons on
account of the peers having inserted a clause exempting their own houses
from search; but in 1662 was passed the statute 13 & 14 Car. II. c. 33.,
which required all books to be licensed as follows:--Law books by the Lord
Chancellor, or one of the Chief Justices, or Chief Baron; books of history
and state, by one of the Secretaries of State; of heraldry, by the Earl
Marshal, or the King-at-Arms; of divinity, physic, philosophy, or
whatsoever other science or art, by the Archbishop of Canterbury or the
Bishop of London: or if printed at either University, by the chancellor
thereof. The number of master printers (exclusive of the king's printers
and the printers of the Universities) was to be reduced to twenty, and then
vacancies were to be filled up by the Archbishop of Canterbury and Bishop
of London, and printing was not to be allowed elsewhere than in London,
York (where the Archbishop of York was to license all books), {427} and the
two Universities. This Act was to continue for two years, from 10th June,
1662. It was renewed by the 16 Car. II. c. 8.; 16 & 17 Car. II. c. 7.; and
17 Car. II. c. 4., and expired on the 26th May, 1679,--a day rendered ever
memorable by the passing of the Habeas Corpus Act: but in less than a year
afterwards the judges unanimously advised the king that he might by law
prohibit the printing and publishing of all news-books and pamphlets of
news not licensed by His Majesty's authority; and accordingly on the 17th
May, 1680, appeared in the _Gazette_ a proclamation restraining the
printing of such books and pamphlets without license. The Act of 1662 was
revived for seven years, from 24th June, 1685, by 1 Jac. II. c. 17. s. 15.,
and, even after the Revolution, was continued for a year longer by 4 & 5
Wm. and Mary, c. 24. s. 14. When that year expired, the press of England
became free; but on the 1st of April, 1697, the House of Commons, after
passing a vote against John Salusbury, printer of the _Flying Post_, for a
paragraph inserted in that journal tending to destroy the credit and
currency of Exchequer Bills, ordered that leave should be given to bring in
a bill to prevent the writing, printing, and publishing any news without
licence. Mr. Poultney accordingly presented such a bill on the 3rd of
April. It was read a first time; but a motion to read it a second time was
negatived. (_Commons' Journals_, xi. 765. 767.) This attempt again to
shackle the press seems to have occasioned
"A Letter to a Member of Parliament showing that a restraint on the
Press is inconsistent with the Protestant Religion and dangerous to the
Liberties of the Nation." Printed 1697, and reprinted in Cobbett's
_Parliamentary History_, v. App. p. cxxx.