Introduction
The Star Chamber Decrees of 1586 illustrate a number of features about Elizabethan regulation of the printing technology and its output. They have been viewed in a number of different ways. One view is that they represent the most comprehensive regulation of the press of the entire Tudor period.[1] Another is that the Decree was a conservative document that reaffirmed old practices[2], upheld and strengthened the rights and preogatives of the Stationers' Company and underpinned the fact that content licensing was continued by Elizabeth as a part and parcel of her religious settlement. It also recognises that content licensing was separate and distinct from the exclusive licence to print a work that was granted and enforced by the Stationer's Company.
What the Decrees did was to fulfil a two-fold purpose. One was to settle certain long-standing disputes about infringement of printing privileges by those involved in the printing trade. The other was to confirm and refine existing content licensing procedures which had been in place since 1559 but which were a continuing reflection of a system that had been in place since 1407. Although the challenges posed by the new technology were apparent, and it was recognised that they had to be met, there was a lack of understanding that it was the technology rather than the content that should be regulated which resulted in the use of a model that was bound to fail. Although the opportunity was presented to apply more stringent controls and sanctions to the Stationers, what was done merely enhanced their position and increased their market dominance.
What the Decrees were
The Star Chamber (which was effectively the Privy Council
sitting as a Court) was one of the Courts of the Realm, dealing with cases between parties. It was highly regarded and popular with litigants because it was speedy, flexible and complete in its work. Its procedure was similar to that of Chancery, commencing with a plaintiff’s bill, a defendant’s answer and a succession of written pleadings and witness examinations. Star Chamber normally imposed fines, or ordered the unsuccessful party to comply with an earlier decision, which was frequently an earlier decree.
Some orders, like the 1586 Decrees for order in printing, appear to be Orders in Council or proclamations because they were issued by Star Chamber but they were always the outcome of a law suit involving larger principles, and were embodied in a formal and public pronouncement, because they may affect both policy and other suits[3]. Many of the cases that came before a Star Chamber between 1596 and 1617 (as revealed from the papers of Sir Thomas Egerton) involved disorders in printing and uttering of books.
Since the Court was a regular venue for printing disputes, it was not unusual that it should have heard a number printing cases between 1577 and 1586, that arose from a challenge posed not only to the Stationer’s Company powers, but also to the printing privileges extended by the Crown. Clegg is of the view therefore that the 1586 decrees responded to these matters. Essentially the Decrees, according to Elton, arose out of a judgement in a case based on a breach of the Order of 1566. The breach is unrecorded, but the decrees appear to have resolved most of the cases presently before Star Chamber, by upholding royal privileges, Company authority and the 1566 Order. They were framed in response to all the disruptions in the printing trade and not just matters before the Court.
The problems that affected the printing trade were considerable and were entangled with disputes and challenges to the privileges that had been made available by the patent system, by those who flouted those privileges and by calls for reform. Among the proceedings brought before Star Chamber were those of John Day v Roger Ward and William Holmes in 1582 claiming breach of the 1566 Ordinances by breach of patent[4] and Day v Dunn, Robinson and others in 1585 making a similar claim. In November 1585 proceedings were brought in Star Chamber in Flower v Dunn and Robinson claiming a patent infringement. Flower was involved in further proceedings against one Robert Bourne in 1586.
Against this backdrop of litigation before Star Chamber were attempts to resolve disputes by negotiation with John Wolfe who was a member of the Fishmonger's Company and who was an active participant in printing that was unlicensed by the Stationers and an outspoken critic of the Company monopolies. A petition against Wolfe and his associates, addressed to the Privy Council by the Stationers’ company in 1583, relates that, on being remonstrated with, Wolfe declared that he would print all their books if he lacked work[5].
That there were complaints about abuses, and that these were recognised by the Stationers appears from an appeal that was made to Lord Burghley in October of 1582, and in December of that year Christopher Barker, the Queen's Printer since 1577 reported to Burghley on the advantages and disadvantages of the patent system. Among the issues that he raised were the often unprofitable nature of some of the patents, the surplus of printers in the trade meaning that there were a number of poor printers who were barely making a living in their trade.
Steps were taken to alleviate the problems posed by the patents and on 8 January 1584 a number of books were presented to the Company by their patentees for the use of the poor of the Company. Those who surrendered some of their patents were Christopher Barker, Master Totell, Master Watkins, Master John Daye, Master Newberye and Henrie Denham's assignees. This was an informal arrangement based upon goodwill and embarked upon in an endeavour to alleviate many of the complaints that were being made. It was at this time that Barker and Wolfe were able to resolve their differences and Wolfe became an active and committed member of the Stationer's Company.
As has been observed, it is not possible to attribute to which case the Decrees apply, but they recognise many of the complaints that surfaced in litigation and also in the matters that passed in the petitions to Lord Burghley and the enquiry that he instituted and upon which Christopher Barker reported.
The Content of the Decrees
The problems that the Decrees were designed to solve
The preamble to the Decree sets out the nature of the problem. It referred to abuses in the printing trade and the problems posed by contentious and disorderly persons professing the"arte or mysterye of Pryntinge or selling of books. The preamble observed that the disturbances had resulted in the fields of political and religious printing, and that the problems increased because the penalties earlier provided were not severe enough to deter offences.
The preamble then states that for the resolution of the disputes and abuses, there should be known rules and ordinances which should be "invyolabie kepte and observed, and the breakers and offenders of the same to be severelye and sharpelye punished and corrected"
The Provisions of the Decrees
The 1586 Decree contains nine sections. Each section dealt with a different aspect of the printing trade.
Section 1 provided that those who possessed printing presses "or other printing instruments" were to provide a certificate (true note) of those presses to the Master and Wardens of the Stationers Company. For existing presses, such notification had to be made within 10 days of the publication of the Decree. For those who obtained a new press, notification had to be made within 10 days "nexte after the erectynge or setting up thereof"
The penalty for non-compliance was the destruction of the printing equipment together with 12 months imprisonment "without Bayle or maynepryse"
Section 2 limited the area within which the printing trade could be carried out. All printing presses were to be located in the City of London or its suburbs. The only exceptions were for one press each at the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge. The section went on to address clandestine presses. Presses had to be accessible[6] to the Wardens of the Stationer's Company so that they might "searche for and view the same" and resistance to such searches was prohibited. Those who concealed presses or printing instruments from search or resisted the Warden or his appointees could have their printing press destroyed, be imprisnoned for "one wholle year" without bail or mainprise In addition such offender was prohibited from owning a press in the future, from being "the master of any pryntynge house or to have any benefytt therebye" but could only work as a journeyman for wages.
Section 3 is lengthy and addresses a number of matters. The principal issue was to limit the number of printers carrying on their trade. Those who had set up presses in the six months prior to June 1586 could carry on their trade. Those who wished to set up a press were prohibited from doing so. This position was to remain until the number of those who were already in the trade had reduced or "otherwyse brought to so small a number of maisters or owners of pryntynge houses. It was left to the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of London to determine that more presses were needed as "requisyte and convenyent for the good service of the Realme".
Once the prelates had decided to allow new presses, notification was to be given the Master and Wardens of the Stationers Company. The Assistants of the Company would be convened and they would choose those whom in their opinion should "have the charge and governement of a Press or prynting howse" The qualifications required were "skyll, abylity, and good behauiour". Within 14 days of making such choice, the Master, Warden and four members of the Assistants were to present to the High Commission the names of the nominees. Once that had been done the Commissioners could "allowe and admytt euery such person soe chosen" to be the "master and governour of a presse and pryntynge howse".
The section specifically states that the power of the High Commission to approve new printers was "lawful". This word appears in other sections of the Decree and it is clear that it was intended that there should be no doubt that various powers that were vested in various authorities were to be within the law, and thereby could not be challenged for illegality.
The Queen's Printer was exempt from compliance, but it was made clear that the office was at the pleasure and disposition of the Queen.
Penalties provided for noncompliance once again were the destruction of printing equipment and imprisonment for a year.
Section 4 addressed printing unauthorised books. It commenced with a prohibition against printing books unless those books had been authorised in accordance with "the Queenes maiesties Iniunctyons"[7] and had been perused by the Archbishop of Canterbury and\or the Bishop of London.
In parentheses an exception was provided for the Royal Printer. Those who were "pryviledged to prynte the bookes of the Common Lawe" were to have their books approved by two of the Chief Justices and\or the Chief Baron rather than by the ecclesiatics.
The section then prohibited the printing of books
a) "against the fourme or meaninge" of any restraint or ordinance contained in any statute, law or injunction; or
b) "against the true intent and meaning" of any letters patent, Commissions or prohibitions under the Great Seal; or
c) contrary to any "allowed ordynaunce sett Downe for the good governanuce" of the Stationers' Company
Keep reading with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to A Halfling's View to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.