basket v the university OF cambridge university of Cambridge be entrust with a  concurrent power of print act of parliament and their abridgement together  with the king punter SC burr ld Kenyon this be a case state by order of the  court of chancery that January and be then several time argue but lie dormant  for many year till the suit be again revive this year and final determine d  April I Edward ad the king by letter patent grant to Richard Grafton the  office of printer of all statute book act and other volume by the king his  heir and successor then publish or to be publish in the English tongue the  Latin grammar except with a fee of Blackstone d and a annuity of l sterling to  hold and receive the same from the death of Thomas Bartlet king Henry the  eight printer for life of say Richard Grafton I and prohibit all his subject  to print any book or work of the king in the English tongue December I mark ad  the queen on surrender of Grafton grant the same ffice to John Cawood for life  with all profit c mark Elizabeth ad the queen grant say office to Richard  Jugge and John Cawood for their life and the life of the survivor if it shall  so long pleasure her with a express mention of service book in this patent  September Elizabeth the queen grant say office include also bible and  testament as well as service book to Christopher Barker for life August  Elizabeth the queen grant say office include also abridgement of statute to  Robert son of Christopher Barker and his executor c immediate after the  decease of Christopher for the life of say Robert Barker or if he die in the  lifetime of Christopher then for four year after the death of Christopher may  I James the king grant say office to Christopher son of Robert Barker his  executor c immediate after the death of say Robert for life of say Christopher  or if be die in the lifetime of Robert then for four year after the death of  say Robert February James the king recite death of say Christopher the father  grant say office to Robert son of say Robert Barker his executor c immediate  after the death of Robert Barker the father and Christopher his sol for thirty  year jul car the king grant to Bonham Norton and v John bill assignee of say  Robert Christopher and Robert Barker Blackstone the say office for the  interest then subsist with more large and ample word of sole print say book in  which be particular include statute and abridgement of statute September car  the king grant the say office in remainder to Charles and Matthew Barker their  executor c for the term of thirty year after the expiration of the several  term then subsist December car the king recite that the estate and interest of  Robert Barker the father and Christopher the son be determine grant say office  in remainder to Thomas Newcombe and Henry hill their executor c for thirty  year after the expiration of the term then subsist October Ann the queen grant  say office in remainder to Benjamin take and John barber c for thirty year  from the expiration of the former patent which new grant take effect that  January and be now by several mesne assignment vest in the plaintiff who have  be swear into the office of king printer the plaintiff and their predecessor  have by virtue Blackstone er p of say letter patent print all act of  parliament and abridgement thereof and bible testament c therein mention and  claim the sole right of print all act and abridgement thereof exclusive of all  other person July Henry the king grant to the chancellor c of Cambridge  licence to assign three printer who migclt lawful there print and put to sale  all manner of book approve by the chancellor or his vice chancellor and three  doctor stat Elizabeth c confirm say letter patent February car the king recite  the charter of the company of stationer and his own printer and a decree in  the starchamber June Elizabeth confirm the exclusive Blackstone privilege  thereby grant which decree be by proclamation September James command to be  strict observe and also that dispute have arise whether the say prohibition  extend to the printer of the university his majesty for the encouragement of  learning and to end all controversy railfied and confirm the privilege of the  charter Henry and declare it shall be lawful for the university printer with  the approbation aforesaid to print all book contain in the charter before  recite or any other grant to any person whatsoever and to sell the same  without incur any penalty or forfeiture a thing to the contrary thereof  notwithstanding the defendant insist that the plaintiff have not the sole  right of print statute abridgement of statute bible and common prayer book  exclusive of the say owner who have a right under the say letter patent to  print the same with bation aforesaid the universit printer have from time to  time print the approriate bible and liturgy and all such other book as have be  allow and approve of in manner aforesaid they have constant print the act of  uniformity and vend they with the book of common prayer but it do not appear  that they have print any statute or abridgement of statute except say act of  uniformity till the print of the book in question in this cause about July the  university under seal appoint Joseph Bentham a person duly qualify to be one  of the say university printer march the chancellor and three doctor in due  form allow and approve a book entitle a exact abridgment of all the act of  parliament relate toExcise on beer ale Brandy vinegar or other liquor with  some few note and reference to be print by say Bentham who print Blackstone  the same accord and the same have be since vend and sell by he and Charles  Bathurst in London the question upon this cause be whether the plaintiff be  entitle to the sole right of print act of parliament and abridgement of act of  parliament exclusive of all other person during the term grant by the letter  patent date that October whether whether the defendant the chancellor master  and scholar of the university of Cambridge by virtue of the grant and Act of  parliament insist on by the say defendant or any of they have the right or  privilege of print act of parliament or abridgement of act of parliament Mr  comens for the plaintiff argue that it will be admit that the crown by  prerogative have the sole right of print act of parliament the question be  whether the plaintiff have a grant of that right in exclusion of all other or  whether the university have a concurrent right with the plaintiff for as to  all other his right be clear exclusive the first consideration be whether the  several letter patent grant to the plaintiff and the university be grant of  the same thing if so then dly whether they can consistent stand together the  office of king printer be very ancient have subsist ever since the  introduction of print into England the patent state deduce it regular down  from I Edward ad and during all that period this officer alone have print all  act of parliament and abridgement thereof till the university print the book  in question which however it may be of advantage to the printer be of none to  the learned body before print be introduce tempt Henry the usage be to  transcribe all the act at the end of every session and Blackstone send they to  the sheriff with a writ command he to proclaim they in his county court where  the transcript be keep for the public to resort to Inst a and this writ  continue till the time of Henry which show that the art make but a slow  progress but from the first print of the act it appear they be print by the  king printer for though we have no patent till grafton I Edward yet that refer  to a appointment of Thomas Bartlett under Henry and though we can find his  patent we have find the grant of the annuity of Blackstone er p per and h  which be five year before the patent to the university the patent from the  time of car have the word sole to print which may be insert to prevent doubt  but be not necessary because the sole right of print statute belong to the  office of king printer a office which the law take notice of and give creditto  and therefore that July between Edward and Vasey it be hold by Lord Hardwicke  CJ at nisi prius that a Act of parliament car not in the statute book may be  give in evidence if print by the king printer the legislature and public be  concern to see the statute accurate print before the time of print the house  of Commons accord to Lord coke use to depute some of the member to examine the  transcript afterward the king printer be substitute in their room who be a  person know and answerable to the public but if it be leave to the care of  many person there be dagger of incorrectness and no one answerable there be a  differene between act of parliament which be the king property and to which he  be a party and the work of individual if therefore the king have a right to  appoint a person to print they which he undoubted have and have create such a  officer the right of such officer must be exclusive be have the king first  grant for the king can it grant the same office at the same time to different  person nor the office to one and the profit to another Blackstone Henry can  not intend to give the university a power of print act of parliament because  act of parliament be of a nature universal bind and can be the object of  approbation or disapprobation by the vicechancellor and three doctor and  though the patent say all manner of book yet act of parliament do not fall  under that description a book be a write compose on some point of knowledge by  a person intelligent therein or by some man of wit and learning for the  instruction or amusement of the reader chamber dictionary voc book b act of  parliament be more proper consider as record prohibition injunction c thus by  statute car c no person shall print book or pamphlet without enter they at  stationershall but this extend not to act of parliament but book of science  for they be not to meddle with act of parliament or book of state which be  express except nor to any book to which the king patentee have the sole right  hill and university of oxon vern the preamble also of the statute Elizabeth  show what book be allow to the university for the advancement of good and  godly literature the patent of car give no new privilege but only confirm the  old it give not such a power as be now contend for of print act of parliament  because it have not specify they which all the cotemporary patent of the  printer have and this power can arise by implication this consideration join  to that of require the academical approbation clear prove the king intention  where the crown have power to grant many thing and grant some by express word  the court will not extend the grant to other which be not mention Davis by a  grant of the river Thames to the city of London the soil under it do not pass  and therefore a new grant of the soil be obtain by which the city enjoy the  building on London bridge Blackstone but if the patent of car have grant this  privilege to the university in express term it will have be void the king have  but the July before grant the same power sole to another he be therefore  deceive in his second grant in which case the first patentee may bring a to  know facias to reverse it dyer pl bro title Sci fa pl cro car Mod Skinn there  be nam difference between act at large and abridgement both be grant to the  king printer but neither to the university the last argument arise from usage  which be the best interpreter of such grant the king printer have sole  exercise this right for two hundred year without interruption from the  university or claim of a concurrent right if such a power be give they by  patent car they never have exert it for one hundred and twenty year in seymour  case I Mod the court say great regard be to be pay to usage we have be in  uninterrupted enjoyment of this privilege for two century under the letter  patent of Henry Edward mark Elizabeth James car car and anti therefore we hope  it shall not now be take from we York solicitorgeneral for the defendant  argued That though there be two question state for the opinion of the court  occasion by the different pretention of the party this will not restrain the  court or counsel from consider they as a single question whether the plaintiff  have a exclusive right of print act and Blackstone er p abridgement of act of  parliament this be a question of great moment to the university and to the  public to the former as it affect a right grant to they by the bounty of  former prince to the latter as the public be interest in prevent of such  monopoly Blackstone both party admit the prerogative of the crown to grant  such patent they both find their claim on it d and it will be necessary to  open the ground of this prerogative in the present case to make the subsequent  argument the more Intelligible we will therefore consider the prerogative at  commonlaw before and at the time of grant these patent and how assume the  construction of the patent of the university and the king printer distinguish  between that of Henry and car I because if any doubt arise on the former the  latter may be consider as a original grant the usage in consequence of those  grant which be certain a very material ground of argument the Kinghas no power  at commonlaw over the art of print the art be mechanical and admit that the  first printer in England be bring to Oxford by archbishop Bourchier at the  expense of Henry that will not make it a royal art but in fact the king have  no pretence to such a right by purchase for the story itself be false as be  prove by dr Middleton in his dissertation on print it the stationer company  and partridge m two anti e it be say that by the same rule you may make a  monopoly of the art of a apothecary and more be cite to show that the first  apothecary be bring into England at the king expense from Flanders No previous  licence for mere print be necessary at commonlaw the crown never pretend to  such a prerogative this will have be treat thing as mala in see before their  existence which be only so by accident if a man publish any thing of a immoral  tendency the court will punish it after publication but can animadvert on it  before or restrain the liberty of print this doctrine have always prevail more  or less but more especial since the revolution in a dispute happen between the  stationer company and col atkins who be a vain man the law patentee he invent  this fiction that print be a flower of the crown acquire by Henry by purchase  as above mention Blackstone carter f hale CJ give judgement for his patent but  may that judgement be reverse by the house of lord Lord Anglesey who with many  other speak long and learned in the debate propose to refer the question to  all the judge but be outvoted and enter his protest though without any reason  accord to the practice of those time the king indeed by prerogative have  several copyrights of all act of state to promulge they to the people since  the supremacy have be establish of all book of the rite and service of the  church g the translation of the great English bible under Grafton be perform  at the king expense which give he anotherkind of right so the yearbooks take  at the expense of the crown give the king a property by purchase thus be  seymour case I Mod h argue by sergeant Pemberton and it be the only rational  way of treat the subject the crown never exercise the art of print sole by its  own servant or patentee neither in the time of Henry nor at any time since not  even in the memorable fishsauce of Elizabeth when such a catalogue of monopoly  be lie before the house of Commons that one of the member say they shall soon  hear of a patent for the sole make of bread the first printer in England  exercise the art without any licence for that purpose Caxton who merit be so  conspicuous and who print here so early as though in great favour with Edward  the duke of Clarence and Henry and therefore may certain have obtain such a  privilege if it have be think necessary yet in all his book modest speak thus  of himself do by I simple man William Caxton and have no imprimatur or cum  privilegi as may be see in amess typographical antiquity which contain the  titlepages of all book print in England from Even Henry however arbitrary  Dever claim a prerogative over the press imprimaturs be first introduce by the  act of uniformity and borrow from the inquisition there be but one instance of  a prohibition of print any book previous to Henry this grant to the university  in videlicet in Blackstone mention by fox martyr and plain find on stat Henry  c against heresy and tiot on any royal prerogative about seven year after the  grant to the university be make and in about five year after a injunction  issue prohibit the importation of book from abroad I but this do not relate to  book print here and be only in consequence of stat h c from this time there be  no Blackstone er p Act of the crown relative to this matter for twenty year  when by stat Edward c the parliament interpose with respect to superstitious  book in p m there be a proclamation against import heretical book as they  style all the write of the reformer and this likewise be find on stat h  against heresy in p m come the stationer spend require all printer to be of  that company in Elizabeth their charter be ratify and a right give they to  seize book print without their licence and in a proclamation be issue against  heretical book contain also injunction with respect to the morality of  pamphlet c and other provision which require all printer or author to be  licence per the king archbishop or chancellor of the university as soon as the  company of stationer become a corporation the starchamber interpose to support  what neither the law nor the subject will ever endure hence several ordinance  in sign per Lord Burleigh and the commissioner for religious matter these be  enforce in and afterward in James the famous decree of the starchamber be make  which be recite in the letter patent in several ordinance of parliament be  make or transcribe from these decree and all be unite together in the bold Act  car this statute subsist in full force till four year after the revolution  when the liberty of the press be restore thus we have trace the history of  bold to its source and show its commencement to have be twentyfive year after  the grant to the university of Cambridge there be some instance of particular  patent by way of protection to author in the nature of new invention to be  find in Rym Fced but those be only temporary Blackstone the king claim  copyrights of act of parliament before this grant of Henry be proclaim by his  servant the sheriff and print by his printer for Bartlet style himself printer  to Henry and Henry from to and be recognize by the latter as impressor our but  these grant of the office of printer be not of a exclusive nature as may be  gather from civil and literary history but the copyright of the king be still  assert as well to book of religion as act of parliament for diverse learned  man of both university obtain a grant of these about the year and  notwithstanding which r Grafton who be a zealous friend to the reformation and  have begin a translation of the bible into English under Francis of France be  in entrust to print the great English bible and enjoy his patent some year  though queen mary afterward oblige he to resign it for print lady jane grey  proclamation Rym XIV a like copyright be claim to lily grammar recommend to be  use in all school they be then subject to the ordinarys visitation see wood  preface to lily grammar ad the crown therefore have no prerogative at  commonlaw over the art of print but be mere entitle to some special copyrights  with respect to the construction of the patent we will consider first the  patent Henry to the university and the several patent of the king printer down  to car second the patent car and other subsequent grant first the patent Henry  as well as car be general all men et of every sort scales those to the king  printer comprehend all statute act c except grammar and in queen Elizabeth  there be additional word bible new testament c the right of the university be  local of the printer be unconfined we admit that the king can derogate from  his own grant and there before all clause of non to stand before be useless it  will Blackstone also be admit that where there be any particular thing within  the description of the grant on which it may operate it shall not be extend  far by any implication to what then do the word of the patent Henry extend not  to exempt the university printer from the review of a royal licenser for no  such power then exist it must operate therefore on the copyrights it bath no  other subject matter to operate upon the king have no other right to grant as  to the exclusive right to print these copy say to be incident to and inherent  in the office of king S printer the law know no such officer by prescription  nor by Act of parliament it will not therefore protect he and say that the  king who make he shall not grant the same concurrent privilege to another in  the case of judicial office the king upon general ground of policy can sever  the power of the office e g if the king shall grant to the chief justice of  the king bench the sole power to issue writ of mandamus it will be void but  the power will remain Blackstone er p incident to the general jurisdiction of  the court but in ministerial office like this it be otherwise e g the clerk of  the crown in chancery be a ancient office by prescription but king James grant  away many power which be before incident to that office as that of grant  licence of alienation which continue from that time a distinct office till the  abolition of the court of ware the clerk of the patent be also sever from that  office by James and so remain to this day upon these principle therefore  suppose rintership to be a office the king may name as many printer as be  please but in fact the king printer be not as say a officer introduce in the  room of the ancient transcriber c the record of parliament be now make up  exact as they former be beside of a mere private Act a print copy be no  evidence king it must still be examine by the roll and the case of public act  as that before Lord Hardwicke be this that the law suppose they in breast  judge already and only allow the statute book to be read to assist the judge  memory Lord Mansfield CJ here observe that such assistance be now indeed quite  necessary for the act of Geo be as numerous as the whole reign of Elizabeth  Blackstone as to the definition of a book from Mr chamber Pliny be at least as  good a authority who in his natural history say that libre be the inner bark  of a tree and be use for write on and when roll up together be call volumen  volumen then and libre be synonymous and as the statute be certain book the  right of print they may well pass under the name of scales m the objection  that statute be not the object of academical approbation or disapprobation  extend equal to bible and common prayer which they have always print and yet  the former can be review but by the authority of a general synod nor the  latter but by the authority of parliament and therefore the approbation extend  only to the propriety of print in such time place and manner as be desire it  be well argue in carter that it be one thing to say a book deserve to be print  and another thing to give it the imprimatur of the university the last  objection be to the generality of the word in this grant I agree that the king  can convey special prerogative right by general word where there be general  prerogative right that may pass to satisfy the grant in this the king grant  differ from that of a private person but to illustrate this rule if under a  general dame a grant comprehend thing of a royal and of a base nature the base  only shall pass if the thing express grant can pass without imply something  not grant it shall be void rather than operate to two intent e g a grant of  land to a alien bear shall not make he a denizen by implication or if to a  felon shall not amount to a imply pardon bro patent pl Rep if two thing be  mention in the king grant equal in his power to grant and it be dubious which  be intend it be void for uncertainty Rep and therefore also by a grant for no  certain estate nothing not even a estaterat will shall pass day but this case  stand on different ground for if the general word comprehend two thing not  equal in the king power to grant that which be in his power shall pass so  Blackstone here it be not in the king power to to plough a right of print in  general that be of common right before but it be two his power to grant the  privilege of print copyrights and therefore as the general word will  comprehend both the latter must necessary pass that the grant may take effect  and not be a void grant Rep Inst upon the statute of quo warranto this reason  be strengthen by the statute Elizabeth which confirm the grant of Henry in its  general description accord to its true meaning and intent d let we now  consider the patent of jul car to the assignee of the barker and the patent  Feb follow to the university the former in which the word sole to print be  first find give a alarm to the university whereupon the king recite the doubt  that have arise give they a power to print all book mention in the patent of  his printer c this charter contain word both of confirmation and original  grant if therefore the patent of the king printer be a exclusive one it be  only for the term then subsist which expire in and from that moment the  charter of car to the university mi bt have be plead either as a original  grant or as a confirmation of the charter of Henry but I will argue it now as  a original grant and in that light it be good by way of reversionary grant as  much as if it have be in possession notwithstanding it be grant by general  description Rep ld chandos case the king will suffer no Blackstone er p  detriment by such a construction he be not deceive in his grant n he intend to  pass the whole interest then subsist in himself have recite the whole in the  patent so that from the university become as full entitle to the king  copyrights oh by way of reversion expectant on the determination of a  particular estate as if they have be in immediate possession from the year the  king be not restrain to any particular mode of grant as bishop c be show  parliament c the case of m Masand r of the king Benchoffice Blackstone upon  the head of usage which be to be regard as the exposition of time and have so  much weight that the king himself be bind by it roll Abr prerog e in common  construction by a grant of good and chattel choose in action shall not pass  but in a grant of good et catalla felon as a liberty debt due to the felon  shall pass because by such grant of liberty choose in action have use to pass  how then have the usage stand in this case have the king printer exclude all  other history will inform we to the contrary nay statute print by other be now  to be purchase in h berthelet be the king printer but there be statute of that  date print by Wynkyn de werde and other in the statute be print by Grafton  though berthelet be then alive and grafton patent do not take effect till  Berthelets death so in latter time the law patenteesbave exercise a concurrent  right with the king printer in the statute be print by the assignee of more in  and by the assignee of Atkins without name the king printer Kebles edition  have the assign of sayer the law patentee join with the king printer and so  have the late edition as to law book in John legate print for the university  dr cowel institute and the right be not dispute and have the university print  roll abridgment p as the company of stationer do they will have show a very  different title for so do but it be state that the university have all along  print the act of uniformity and though with the prayerbook yet the Act be the  principal and the prayerbook only a accessary and print one Act be the same to  maintain a right as print the whole body of statute beside the argument be  much strong in favour of abridgement which be work of a different species  require labour judgement and learning in the author and therefore Mr Comynss  reason be not applicable to they as to the inconvenience the public may  sustain by give this power to the university none such can arise by allow two  or three concurrent right a emulation will be excite which will probable  produce correct as well as cheap edition for several edition print by the king  printer be Blackstone so incorrect that the record have be frequent resort to  to guard against the infidelity of the copy the public then will be advantage  by it and a dangerous monopoly overthrow which construction be the most  consistent with law and reason Mr comens in reply observe inter alian that the  king printer may be restrain from set exorbitant prince on his book by stat  Henry c and another of queen whether but that the university be therein except  and therefore under no restraint that November on the argument Lord Mansfield  CJ observe that whether the crown in fact mean to assume a power over the art  of print in general when these patent be grant or whether only over copyrights  it be clear they can only operate in point of law as to the copyrights of the  crown for the construction of law be that the crown intend only to do that  which by law it be entitle to do it be admit that by the word all men et of  every sort scales the university may print bible c the whole distinction then  be between those and act of parliament or in other word whether act of  parliament be book Q great pain have be take and the subject exhaust the court  be well satisfy in opinion and will certify into chancery this term Copy of  the certificate have hear counsel on both side and consider of this case we be  of opinion that during the term grant by the letter patent date the that  October in the that year of the reign of queen whether the plaintiff be  entitle to the right of print act of parliament and abridgement of act of  parliament exclusive of all other person not authorize to print the same by  prior grant from the crown Blackstone er p but we think that by virtue of the  letter patent hear date the that day of July in the that year of the reign of  king Henry the that and the letter patent hear date Blackstone the that of  February in the d ear of the reign of king Charles the saint the chancellor  master and scholar of the university of Cambridge be entrust with a concurrent  authority to print act of parliament and abridgement of act of parliament  within the say university upon the term in the say letter patent r that  November Mansfield m foster t DENSN e WILMOT N B in a letter from Mr justice  foster to W b at Oxford date December and enCIOSing the forgo certificate he  express himself in these term I think it will be agreeable to you to know the  issue of the cause between the king printer and the university of Cambridge as  far as concern the proceed in our court and have therefore enclose our opinion  what bath be do in the court of chancery upon our certificate I have not hear  the word underline be throw in by way of a intimation to the university that  we consider the power give by the letter patent as a trust repose in that  learned body for public benefit for the advancement of literature and not to  be transfer upon lucrative view to other hand I hope both the university will  always consider the royal grant in that light the plaintiff bill be I  apprehend dismiss in chancery and the injunction restrain the sale of the book  in question be dissolve a see preface to Ruffbeads statute twelve xvii hale  hist Com law Runningtons ed Inst ld raym b post n Q c c S Ruffheads t vol  ringtail append p d see post Tonson v Collins e Mod f post g the exclusive  right of the crown to print act of parliament and book of divine service be  establish in Eyre v carnan Bac Abr prerogative f pa see also Com dig Trade b d  h SC keb in that case it be hold that the company of stationer have a  exclusive right to print almanac but the contrary be afterward decide in  stationer comp v carnan which see and the case there cite post mention also in  Ves Jun I stationer Com p v lee show S p king a special clause be now usual  insert in private act provide that the Act shall be deem public in which case  the copy print by the king printer will be sufficient evidence of the content  see bull n p Samuel v Evans TR r v shaw east see also r v Sutton m S and g c S  stark Ev p two l and the print statute subsequent to g extend to twentyone  volume each volume contain on a average close print quarto page make a total  of upward of page m post n n see Com dig grant g Bac Abr Proarog f to know  facias c oh Lord Eldon O speak of the authority of the university to print say  this be say to be a mere licence there be considerable doubt whether it be not  in its nature very like that to the king printer though he have it under the  denomination of a grant of the office which however as to the execution of the  duty be nothing but a execution of authority give to it I doubt whether Mr  York be correct in consider these patent as vest the king copyrights it may  very well be argue that they remain still vest I the king and the grant be  nothing more than authority to exercise the right of multiply those copy which  if not grant remain vest in the king exercise they accord to the public  necessity charge reasonable Ves junr p carter Q the etymology and meaning of  the word book and what may be consider a book within the meaning of the  copyright Act Ann c S be ingenious Blackstone er p discuss in Hime v dale camp  n b east n a a musical composition on a single sheet be privilege as a book  Clementi v Golding camp east r the right of print in the university and by the  king printer undergo considerable discussion in a case where the two  university have obtain a injunction against certain bookseller to restrain  they from import and publish in England bible c print in Scotland by the king  printer there the king printer in England have refuse to join in the bill be  make a defendant upon a motion make to dissole the injunction upon the answer  put in the Lord chancellor consider the plaintiff entitle to have it continue  till the hear and there say there be also ground in the certificate in basket  v the university of Cambridge for consider the grant of the office as real  nothing more than a grant of authority the expression be that the university  be entrust with a concurrent authority whether other have more authority must  depend upon the effect of the instrument but if the grant be nothing more than  of the king authority there be a case of exclusion the officer must of  necessity have the duty as well as the right of exclusion from the duty of the  crown on behalf of the subject to exclude other the effect of that certificate  be that with respect to prior patent to the king patentee they have the effect  of prevent the king from grant concurrent to the university which can have no  operation till the prior patent cease if the grant to the university have be  as universal in point of extent instead of be limit upon the same principle it  must have be hold that the grant to the king printer subsequent to that to the  university can have have no effect but it be hold a grant of part of that  interest which have be grant by the prior grant and which will take effect  when the prior grant cease to have effect that it have become split this grant  be only to print in the university and sell everywhere in England the other to  print everywhere they be consistent in this sense the two patent amount to a  apportionment into different proportion of the authority carry along with it  the duty and therefore in some degree the right to exclude mr Torhe so  consider it and put it strong as a concurrent right to print and then it must  be to exclude university v Richardson Ves junr see also Grierson v Eyre Ves  junr post n and anon I vern it have be determine that a copy of every book  compose since Ann and publish for the first time shall be deliver to the  stationer company for the use of the Cambridge university library though such  book have not be register with the stationer company under the provision of  that Act Cambridge university v briar east see g c S Blackstone hilary TERTM