Regulating the Printing Press - Part 6

The Star Chamber Decree 1637 and Conclusion

Introduction

The Star Chamber Decree of 11 July 1637 was the most comprehensive attempt to regulate the printing trade since its reception into England. Although its provisions addressed content regulation they also dealt with aspects of the printing trade in a much wider way than had been the case in the 1586 Decree and was the first regulatory effort that involved itself with aspects of the new technology. Although it was plain that the full impact of printing  as an information communication technology was not fully understood, the 1637 Decrees not only addressed the message but the medium as well.

Background

Earlier Decrees and Proclamations

The 1637 Decree was not the first from the Star Chamber during the early Stuart period. In 1615 a Decree limited to twenty the number of Master printers who were allowed to have the use of one or more presses. This was repeated in Items 15 and 17 of the 1637 Decree.

The 1615 Decree was not a form of State regulation of the printing trade. As was the case with the 1586 Decree, it was a decision in a case. The issue was brought before the Court of Star Chamber by the Master printers who were concerned at the proliferation of presses and wanted to protect the capital investment that they had made. The decision of the Court is "UPON Complaint made to this Court (by the Master printers) of the Multitude of presses that are erected among them"^[1]. Thus, to suggest that Star Chamber of its own motion was involved in what may be interpreted as a limitation upon printing presses to stifle the publication of unacceptable material is clearly incorrect. The decision was in effect a protectionist one. However, the 1615 Decree was unsuccessful in maintaining stability of numbers. By 1634 the number of master printers had grown to twenty-three and in 1636 there were nineteen establishments operated by twenty-one master printers^[2]

It must be remembered that although it occupied a privileged position, the Stationers’ Company was a small organization. It was not difficult for members to keep an eye on one another. During the period of the 1630’s the Company was faced with foreign competition, with incidents of piracy and secret or unauthorized printing. However, the risk for being brought to book for disorderly or unlicensed printing was not great. Few offenders were reported and when they were the punishments and fines were hardly a deterrent. Even the orders of the Company received scant compliance. In 1622 the Court of Assistants stated that “noe printer shall print anie booke except that tis entered in the Hall Booke, according to the order”^[3] Yet approximately one third of the books printed were unregistered.^[4] In January 1632 it was again ordered “that noe bookes (licensed by my Lord Bishop of London) should be printed by any printer whatsoever without the license printed with the booke”^[5] The fact of the matter was that between 1630 – 1640 the imprimatur affected only a third of the books printed^[6]

In addition the shortcomings of the content control system were becoming apparent.  Alexander Leighton was pilloried, whipped, lost both his ears and nose, was branded and sentenced to life imprisonment for publishing an attack on the episcopacy^[7]. His book was published in the Netherlands and smuggled into England as were those of Prynne, Bastwick and Burton. Prynne was pilloried and lost both his ears, but the work, Historio-mastix was in fact approved and licensed by Thomas Buckner, one of the Archbishop’s chaplains but it turned out that the licensor was less than diligent in his job, having perused only sixty pages of the whole work^[8]. The charges that were brought were not for breaches of the licensing rules. Instead they were charged with the most serious offences possible. In Leighton’s case the charge was one of seditious libel or Scandalum Magnatum. It is suggested that Prynne and his co-defendants faced a similar charge.^[9]

Lambert^[10] suggests that the cases of Prynne and Leighton were not indicative of press repression but are special cases of their sort. On the other hand they are illustrative of incidents of “secret" printing, unlicensed printing, and the secretive and unauthorized importation and sale of  books. Unauthorised importation was seen as a significant problem. Books printed overseas, of course, could not be monitored under the content control regimes present in England, flawed as they were. The flow of books containing doctrine contrary to that of the established church was considerable. In 1627 Customs officers were directed to be especially careful “to prevent the secret & private wayes of bringing anye such bookes into your ports…..and to seize all such bookes as you shall soe finde.”^[11] Only nine entries in the Stationers Register between 1602 and 1640 record action being taken against the importation of books, even although some six hundred books were printed abroad and intended for the English market. This is not say that there were not seizures, but more books were getting into the country than were being stopped^[12]

The early Stuarts also resorted to proclamations, although these were not used for the regulation of printing as vigorously as by the Tudors. One problem that beset the Stuarts was the rise of publications known as “corontos” which were newssheets or newsbooks printed overseas, particularly in Amsterdam,  and brought into England. It was not long before English printers imitated the Dutch and the first English “corontos” appeared in the summer of 1621. In December 1620, James had issued a proclamation directed against the “great liberty of discourse concerning matters of State", and on 21 July 1621 revived the proclamation to suppress the corontos. The proclamation was unsuccessful “for they continue to take no notice of it, but print every week, at least, corrantos, with all manner of news, and as strange stuff as any we have from Amsterdam”^[13]

The importance of the 1586 Decree was underscored by the issue of a proclamation on 25 September 1623 for the better enforcement of the Decree. The 1586 Decree was confirmed, including the powers of search and seizure given to the Stationers Company. The basis for the proclamation is that the true intent and meaning of the;