"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),
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.
C.H. COOPER.
Cambridge, October 29. 1850.
REMAINS OF JAMES II.
(Vol. ii., pp. 243. 281.)
To the information which has recently been furnished in your pages respecting the remains of James II., it may be not uninteresting to add the inscription which is on his monument in the church of St. Germain-en-Laye, and which I copied, on occasion of my last visit to France.