basket holy university OF cambridge KB the king printer alone have express  authority to print the statute but the university of Cambridge be also so  entitle under word sufficient to convey the copyright of act of parliament Bl  r SC and see burr this be a case send by the late Lord chancellor Hardwicke by  order date the that of January for the opinion of this court upon two question  arise see Middl Wor Kenyon er p upon several act of parliament letter patent  and grant of the crown disclose by the several party by bill and answer those  rely on by the plaintiff be as follow that of April I Edward that king by  letter patent grant to Richard Grafton the office to be his printer of all and  singular act book pamphlet statute c to hold from the death of Berkley for the  term of his life with a salary of d sterling per annum with a prohibition to  all other not to imprint that of December I mary the queen by her letter  patent recite the surrender of Richard Grafton Kenyon grant the office to John  Caywood for life in the same manner that of march I Elizabeth the queen grant  the office to Richard Jell and John Caywood in the same word only use the word  act of parliament instead of act to hold for their life and the life of the  survivor if her majesty shall so think fit that of September that Elizabeth  the like grant to Christopl er Barker for life that of August Elizabeth the  like grant to Robert son of Christopher Barker to hold from the death of  Christopher with power of print abridgement of act that of may I James the  like grant to Christopher the son of Robert Barker that of February James  grant to Robert son of Robert Barker for the term of year that of July car  recite the last patent and a assignment thereof to Norton and bill confirm the  grant c that of September Cr grant to Charles and Matthew Barker to hold from  the death of Robert their father for the life of the survivor that of December  car grant of this office to Thomas Newcomb and Henry hill for the life of the  survivor that of October Ann grant to Benjamin take and Kenyon John Barker to  bold for thirty year from the determination of the patent to Newcomb and hill  which determine that of June that this last patent be duly assign to the  plaintiff and he in consequence thereof duly swear into the office of king  printer and from that time bath print and of riabt ouabt to print all act of  parliament and abridgement thereof in exclusion f all ohers the defendant case  the act of parliament and letter patent rely on by the defendant be as follow  Henry that king by letter patent grant unto the chancellor master and scholar  of the university of Cambridge the power to choose and appoint three person  within the precinct thereof from time to time to be stationer bookseller and  printer who may print all and all manner of book be first approve by the  chancellor and three doctor of divinity and those and all oand r book to vend  sell c Elizabeth c concern the incorporation of the two university of Oxford  and Cambridge and the confirmation of the charter liberty and privilege grant  to either of they enact that the letter patent that of April Elizabeth and all  other letter patent by any of her progenitor to either of the university shall  be good effectuzl and available in law that of February car I recite the  letter patent Henry and the statute of el and that since that time diverse  letter patent have be grant by Elizabeth James Kenyon and the then king unto  the barker c empower they to print certain book and that by a order of  starchamber the d of Jne Elizabeth it have be decree that no other person  shall presume to pride those book contrary foe the true meaning of such letter  patent under the great seal upon pain of imprisonment and other penalty and  that by proclamation the that of December James the say decree be command to  be observe c that diverse controversy have since arise whether the stationer  and printer appoint by the university of Cambridge may print any of the book  contain in such patent the king gracious intend that the franchise of the  university shall in no wise be abridge but to amplify the same from his great  zeal for the advancement of learning and in order to quiet such controversy  and that all ambiguity and doubt may be take away do ratify and confirm unto  the say university all their privilege and further these and the subsequent  patent have the word sole right c Kenyon er p do give and grant unto they full  power to imprint with the approbation of the chancellor and three doctor in  divinity all or any of the book mention in any of the letter patent of  Elizabeth James or the then king notwithstanding such letter patent to other  person c under these several letterspatent and statute the defendant the  university insist that the plaintiff have not the sole right to print act of  parliament under the letter patent of Ann but that they have a right and have  use to appoint three printer within the university who of right ought and have  use to print book and also the Act of parliament for the uniformity of the  common prayer but that they have not use to print any other act of parliament  till they print the book after mention that Jan the university under their  common seal appoint Joseph Bentham be a inhabitant c to be one of Kenyon their  printer that march the chancellor and three doctor in divinity approve of the  say Bentham print a book entitle a exact abridgment of all the act of  parliament relate to the excise c that Bentham accord print and sell it at  Cambridge and Charles Bathurst his agent in London S ld there there Bentham  and Bathurst together with the university be make defendant and the bill pray  a injunction and a account of the profit of the sale of the book c and obtain  a injunction till hear and the cause come on the that of June the late Lord  chancellor order this case to be send to b r with the two follow question  whether the plaintiff have or have not the sole right of print all act of  parliament and abridgement of act of parliament exclusive of all other whether  the university of Cambridge have the privilege of print act and abridgement of  act of parliament Mr COMYD for the plaintiff the question be whether the  plaintiff upon the true construction of these act of parliament and letter  patent have the sole right of print act of parliament and abridgement or  whether the university of Cambridge have a CODcurrent power with he for as to  all other he have a clear exclusive right be the power contain in these patent  grant of one and the same thing Kenyon if so can they stand together the  office of king printer be a ancient office that have exist ever since print be  introduce into England the patent here state derive it down for upward of year  by regular grant from the time of Edward and this officer alone have during  all that time print all act and abridgement of act till the university go out  of their way by print the book which give rise to the present question which  though it may turn to the advantage of the printer can be none to the member  of that learned body before print be introduce act of parliament be proclaim  by sheriff in their county court where transcript be keep for the people to  resort to Inst print be introduce here in the time of h from the time of h to  h be but forty year and it appear that these proclamation be continue for some  time during the reign of h print be but awkward do at first from the first  print of the act upon which the custom of proclaim they cease we may conclude  they be print by the king printer for though we can produce no patent for that  prpose till Edward appoint Richard GraftOD yet it be certain h have appoint  Berkley to that office because Edward grant it upon his death and there be a  grant h of pound per annum to Berkley who S style impressor our and this be  five year before his patent to the university the patent of Edward have the  word statute which be the same as act of parliament but to put it out of doubt  Kenyon it have also the word act which be further explain by the patent  Elizabeth and the subsequent patent all which have the word act of parliament  the patent from the time of car I have the word sole right which word may be  insert to prevent doubt but be unnecessary because the right of print act and  abridgement of act do ex duty appertain sole to the king printer which office  when the king have grant to one for a certain term be can grant to another for  the same term it be a ancient office in which the public be concern and be  take notice of by the judge and therefore it be determine by Lord Kenyon er p  Hardwicke CJ at nisi prius the 16th of July Edward v Vasey that the Act car  relate to the lieutenancy which be not in the statute book may be give in  evidence by a copy print by the king printer the legislature and the public be  concern to see the statute accurate print before print come in use the house  of Commons use to depute some of their member to examine the transcript of the  act as be mention by my Lord coke and afterward the king printer be substitute  in their room who be a person know and answerable to the public but if this  liberty be extend to other it may be of the worst consequence the statute be  the king act he be a party to they and therefore it peculiar belong to the  office of the king printer to print they and they differ from other book which  be the property of the author the king who have a undoubted right to appoint  who shall print the act of parliament have in express word Kenyon by letter  patent appoint his printer to print all act of parliament and abridgement c  exclusive of all other but the king can grant the same office to different  person for the same time or grant the office to one and the profit to another  h by his patent to the university never intend to give they this power but  only to print such book as the chancellor and doctor of that university shall  approve because before that grant no book can be print without a licence but  act of parliament bind every subject and therefore can not be the object of  the approbation or disapprobation of the chancellor and doctor chamber in his  dictionary define a book to be a composition by some person intelligent  therein contain some matter of wit or learning c but act of parliament consist  of ordinance command prohibition c and do not fall within this description by  and car none be to print book or pamphlet without enter they with the  stationer company but this extend not to act of parliament but be understand  of book of science c and therefore they be not to meddle with act of  parliament or book relate to government which be except c neither be they to  meddle with the print of any book wherein the king patentee have the sole  right I vern hill el all v university of Oxford which be in the preamble to  the statute of Elizabeth show what book be intend videlicet for maintain good  and godly literature the Act give the university no now power of print Kenyon  the patent of car I give they no such new power only confirm the old with a  intimation of the king gracious intention to amplify and enlarge rather than  restrain their privilege when occasion shall require now as this patent be  mere for prevent dispute and remove doubt call it be imagine that the word ait  of parliament will have be omit have they real be intend to be include this  consideration join to that of require the approbation of the chancellor c  clear prove it be not the king intention but where the king have power to  grant different thing if he grant some by express word the court will never  extend it further to comprehend other thing by implication Davis so in the  case of the grant of the river Thames to the city of London it be hold that  the soil under the river do not pass and therefore a new grant of the soil be  obtain by which they enjoy the building upon London bridge but have the patent  of car I grant this privilege to the university in express word yet it have be  void because the king have but the July before grant the same power sole to  another must be deceive in this second grant which will derogate from his  honour and in such case the first patentee may bring a cognizant fa to reverse  the second die pl bro Sci fa pl cro c Mod skin I apprehend no distinction will  be endeavour to be make between print act and abridgement of act they stand on  the same foot videlicet be both express grant to the king printer but not to  the university Kenyon the last argument arise from usage which be always allow  to be the best interpreter of such grant the king printer have sole exercise  this right for year the university never pretend to it till their print the  book which bring this case before the court and be year after their last  patent by car in seymour case I Mod the court say great regard be to he have  to the usage Kenyon er p under the letter patent ofEliz Jae and car in the  present case we have a uninterrupted usage under the letter patent of h Edward  mary Elizabeth James car car and lGn for all or some of these reason I hope  the court will be of opinion with the plaintiff Mr solicitorgeneral York for  the defendant there be two question state for the opinion of the court which  be occasion by the different pretention of right insist on by the bill and  answer but this do not restrain the court or counsel from consider they in  their mariner of argue as one single question videlicet whether the defendant  have a concurrent right with the plaintiff to print act of parliament and  abridgement of act of parliament or whether the plaintiff have the sole right  this be a case of great consequence to the university and the public to the  former as it affect a right grant to they by the grace and bounty of former  prince in opposition to the monopoly set up by the plaintiff to the public as  they be interest in prevent such monopoly Kenyon the power I the crown be  admit by both party they both find their claim upon it it may be proper to  open the law a little as to the prerogative of the crown in this matter I  shall therefore consider the prerogative as it stand at commonlaw and here  more particular how the crown liad two fact assume it at the time of the grant  by h to the university the grant themselves distinguish between that of and  that of car I because if doubtful on the former the latter may be consider as  a original grant the usage in consequence of those grant which I admit be a  very material ground of argument in such case the king have no prerogative  over the art of print at commonlaw distinct from parliament have the crown  claim the sole right of grant power to exercise that art it will fall within  the rule against monopoly it be a mechanic art and as to the crown be pretend  a right by purchase by h and archbishop Bourchiers introduce the first printer  here at the king expense it will have no weight if it be tre but the fact be  certain otherwise as dr Middleton in his dissertation on the origin of print  have plain demonstrate in the case of the stationer company and partridge mic  Ann it be say you may by the same rule Kenyon make a monopoly of the business  of a apothecary and more be cite to show that the first apothecary be bring  into England at the king expense from Flanders the crown never pretend a  prerogative to grant licence antecedent to the mere print this will be treat  thing as mala in see before they have existence the right of the king to  animadvert by his court of justice upon book of a evil tendency commence not  till the publication and this doctrine have always prevail but more particular  since the revolution in during the reign of car and during the dispute between  the stationer company and colonel atkins the lawpatentee this fiction be  invent that print be a flower of the crown acquire by h by purchase by bring  the art into England cart hale CJ give judgement for his patent but on the  that of may that judgement be reverse in the house of lord though the then  Lord anglesea who be a man of great ability and well verse in the law propose  to refer the question to all the judge of England but be outvoted and  thereupon enter his protest without any reason accord to the practice of those  time as appear by the journal of the house of lord which I have have search  the prerogative right of the crown be not in monopolize the art of print but  it claim a copyright of all act of state as act of parliament proclamation  order of Council c as have the executive part of government beside which  general ground the crown have a right to some copy from expense thus grafton  great Kenyon bible be the first that be translate into English and be do at  the king expense so of the yearbooks which be compile at the expense of the  crown as appear by the preface to Plowdens Com in these the crown claim a  copyright the same as author have to their work this be the foundation lie  down by sergeant Pemberton in his argument in seymour case I Mod and be the  only one that can be support by rational argument Kenyon er p I come now to  consider what power the crown have in fact assume at and before the grant to  the university and here Mr common be under a mistake in think that no book can  be print without a previous licence in those time nor have h any officer for  grant such licence nor in the Elizabeth when the table of the house of Commons  be cover with the grant of different monopoly insomuch that one of the member  say if they go much further he expect to see a monopoly for the sole make of  bread do we find any for the sole right of print the first printer in England  exercise their art without any licence or privilege for that p ose and Caxton  who print here so eafly as and be patronize by Edward and the duke of Clarence  and other great person never have such licence though he certain may have have  it for the ask for if it have be think proper but all his book be say to be  print by I simple man William Caxton all this appear from amess book which  contain the titlepages of all book print in England from to that great and  arbitrary prince h never think Kenyon of claim a prerogative over the press  the imprimatur be introduce by the Act for uniformity in religion and be  borrow from the inquisition where the same method be use to check publication  there be but one instance of a prohibition from print any book previous to h S  grant to the university year and that be in and be mention in fox book of  martyr and that be plain find on the statute of h c for suppress heresy and  not upon the king prerogative about seven year after that come the grant to  the university and about five year after that a injunction issue prohibit the  importation of book from abroad without licence but this do not relate to book  print here and be plain make in consequence of the statute h c year by Edward  superstitious book and image be abolish and in which be Ph mary a proclamation  issue against import heretical book as they then term all the write of the  reformer but this be find on h c for suppress heresy and not on the king  prerogative in the next year be the first charter to the stationer company  require all printer to be of that company this be in the last year of p m and  twenty year after the grant to the university in Eliz that charter be ratify  in there be a proclamation against heretical book and in that year be the  first regulation require printer to take a licence with provision and  injunction as to the Kenyon morality of pamphlet play c as soon as the company  be make a corporation and become of weight the starchamber interpose to  support what neither the law nor the subject will ever endure thence flow the  ordinance in and enforce Eliz and afterward in by the famous decree of that  court which prescribe strict rule of bold and from hence during the usurpation  the ordinance of parliament a and after that the bold Act pound car compound  of provision extract from all those where the ordinance of the king and the  usurper be amicable unite this subsist in full force till four year after the  revolution videlicet when the liberty of the press be restore thus I have  trace this power of bold from its source which be twentythree year after the  grant to the university there be some proclamation against seditious book but  they be find on the law and constitution of the government and not the  prerogative some instance there be of patent for print particular book in  nature of new invention and they be mention in rymer Fcedera but they be only  temporary h at the time of his grant to the university claim no other  prerogative than his copyright videlicet the statute yearbooks register of  writ and there be two or three instance to the contrary yet in fact from h we  time Kenyon they be print by the king printer which show that the crown claim  this copyright very early and Berkley who style himself printer to h pound  from to be call impressor our these grant then can not be intend of a  exclusive nature as appear from civil and literary history Rushw coll Ry Fced  Kenyon er p this copyright be assert diverse learned man of both university  about and particular in advice a application to the king for a grant and  Grafton who be a zealous friend to the reformation begin a translation of the  bible into English under the protection of Francis the first the French king  but be restrain by proclamation till a translation be settle and accord in be  be entrust to print the great folio English bible but be deprive bQueen mary  Ry make horrible vol p the like copyright be claim to lily grammar recommend  to be use in all school they be then subject to tb ordinarys visitation with  ware be preface to his late edition of lily grammar print in it be plain then  that the crown have no prerogative but a copyright to lawbook and bible I come  down to the second general question which I shall divide and consider it upon  a construction of the patent h to the university and the several patent to the  king printer down to car saint upon that and the subsequent patent the patent  to the university by h be general all men Kenyon et of every sort scales those  to the law printer have the word act statute c as well as other book and those  of queen Elizabeth some additional word as bible and new testament the power  of the university be local the other unconfined therefore only concurrent pro  tanto I admit the king can derogate from his own grant and therefore all  clause of non to stand before be useless I admit also that where there be a  particular thing within the particular description that may pass by the patent  it shall not extend further by implication but that the general word in this  patent be satisfy by its exempt the university from the king licencer for the  print of book I deny and insist that there never be such a officer before or  at the time they can then only pass the king copyright that be all he have to  grant as to the argument of this exclusive right pass as incident to and  inherent in the office of king printer and that he be the successor to the  deputy former send from the house of Commons to examine the transcript of  statute suppose there be in truth such a office yet be mere ministerial the  king may divide or separate it into part so as to make the right and power  concurrent in several this be no office by prescription for history trace the  beginning of print nor by Act of parliament v blut if it have be a office by  prescription it may be only ministerial have be sever judicial office indeed  can as for instance if the king shall grant t the CJ of this court the power  of grant entrust we sole it will be void and the power remain Kenyon under his  general power as CJ go of a particular patent to the great seal to have  jurisdiction as to redeem mortgage because that be a power annex to the office  but it be contrary of ministerial office ex gr the office of clerk of the  crown in chancery be a ancient office by prescription yet James grant away  from it the province of grant licence of alienation and it continue from that  time a separate office till the abolition of the court of ware the clerk of  the patent be also sever in like manner from that office and so remain to this  day so this be at most a ministerial office the king may name as many printer  as be think fit and to his be a officer in the room of the ancient transcriber  of the statute it be in fact no such thing but the record of parliament be  make up exact as they be before print be introduce and of mere private act the  print copy be no evidence but a examine copy from the roll and the case before  Lord Hardwicke be of a public Act not print in the statutebook and the reason  the print Act be allow be because be a public Act the judge be suppose to be  acquaint with it and know from memory whether it be true or not as to Mr  chamber definition of the word libre to show that act of parliament be not  book it appear by Pliny natural history that libre be the inner bark of a tree  which then answer the end of paper several of they roll up together become a  volume and so libre and volumed be the same and if so the statute may well be  call book and the right of print they pass by the word all men et of every  sort scales Kenyon the next objection be that it be confine to book to be  approve by Kenyon er p the vicechancellor and three doctor in divinity and  therefore can extend no further than book that be the object of academical  approbation answer this go equal to their power of print bible and common  prayerbook which they have always do and yet the former can be review but by  the authority of a general council nor the latter but by authority of  parliament therefore the approbation be mean of the propriety of print such  and such book in that place at such and such particular time and it be well  argue carter that it be one thing to say a book deserve print and another to  say it be worthy of their imprimatur to the university press the next  objection be the generality of the word answer I agree the king can convey  special prerogative right by general word where there be other prerogative  right that may pass and satisfy the grant and in this the king grant be direct  opposite to that of common person this be in Davis Plowden and other book to  illustrate this rule if a grant do under a general name include thing royal  and base the base only shall pass if the thing ex ressly grant can pass  without imply something not grant it shall be void rather than operate to two  intent ex gr grant of land to a alien bear shall not make he a denizen by  implication Kenyon bro patent pi grant to a felon shall not amount to a pardon  by implication Rep a if it be doubtful which be intend to pass it be void Rep  therefore if for do certain estate nothing not even a estate at will shall  pass Davis a but there be a wide difference between these case and where the  general word comprehend two different thing one of which the king may grant  and the other horned owl for then it shall pass what he have the power to  grant it be argue saint that the king have the general power over print dly  that he have a absolute copyright over the statute but I contend he have only  the latter and therefore as the general word will comprehend both the latter  must necessary pass that the grant may take effect for the king shall not be  intend to have design to make a void grant   Inst this reason be strengthen by  the Act Elizabeth c which declare that the patent of h shall stand and be in  force accord to the true meaning c as to the question upon the patent of car  in July to the barker and the patent in the Feb follow to the university the  patent to the barker alarm the university who apply to the crown whereupon the  king not only confirm their privilege but further grant and there be word both  of confirmation and original grant that they may print all or any of the book  mention in the patent h Elizabeth or James to the king printer and this Kenyon  be the sense of the crown be bind to the crown and therefore if there be a  exclusive grant to the barker it be only for their life and by consequence  determine Jan and then the grant to the university will take effect as a  reversionary grant come into possession and may be plead as well as a original  rant as a confirmation the grantee have accept it as such and therefore it may  enure as a original grant though the barker can not be prejudice by it yet  when their interest determine it take full effect that it be good to pass such  reversionary interest I rely on Lord chandos case   here the king be not  deceive be be full apprise of the matter and think he have a power to grant a  concurrent right to different person in possession but if it prove that he  have not then be that have the absolute grant shall take it as a reversion  expectant on the determination of the particular interest and the king be not  deceive because be intend to pass the whole interest No doubt the king be not  restrain to any particular mode or manner of grant as bishop c be show PC the  case of the Hasler of the king bench office as to the bead of usage argument  draw from hence have the great weight in construction of charter insomuch that  the king himself be bind by it Ro Abr prerog e the case of the bishop of  Winchester the king almoner and walker lessee of the city of London Kenyon er  p Kenyon how have the usage stand in this case have the king printer exclude  all other from print statute history inform we of the contrary nay the statute  themselves be now to be purchase particular h print by Berkley the king  printer wynken de word and two or three other so in they be print by Grafton  though Berkley be then alive and grafton patent do not take place till  berkeleys death so in latter time the law patentee have exercise a concurrent  right in the statute be print by the assignee of more so in by the assignee of  atkins and the king printer not name Kebles edition have the assignee of sayer  join with the king printer and so have the late edition as to the university  print law book in John legate print doctor cowel institute and the right be  not dispute and hadthe university print roll abridgment as the stationer  company do they will have show a much better title their right to print bible  be not dispute and if the general word be sufficient to pass the king  copyright as to they why not as to other but it be find they have all along  print the Act of uniformity at the beginning of the common prayer book and  that alone be sufficient to establish the usage for if they have a right to  print one they have the say to all but the argument be much strong in the case  of abridgement as this be which require labour and the learning and judgement  of a author and therefore Mr comens reason be not applicable to they to  conclude as to the inconvenience the public Kenyon may sustain by give this  power to the university there certain can be none as to its occasion incorrect  edition of the statute which may be the case if leave at large to all printer  it will have the direct contrary tendency as it will stir up a emulation  between the different printer and probable produce a more correct as well as a  cheap edition for several edition by the king printer be know to be so  incorrect that frequent reference have be have to the parliament roll the  public then will be advantage by it and a dangerous monopoly overthrow and  such a construction be most consistent with the public good and most consonant  to law and reason reply the king printer may be restrain from set exorbitant  prince on his book by statute h c and Ann c but the university be except and  therefore under no restraint whatever may be the case as to other book it be  clear the king have the sole right of appoint who shall print the statute and  that bring it to the question I set out with whether upon the true  construction of all these patent together it can be the intention of the crown  to grant to the university a right of print the statute under the general  description all book though in the patent to the king printer the word statute  act of parliament be add as well as the general word all book c which clear  prove that the grantors of those patent consider they as distinct it will be  derogatory from the bonour of the crown Kenyon to say that the prince intend  in the same year to grant the same thing to one that he have before grant sole  to another Lord Mansfield CJ the case have be exceed well argue and the  subject quite exhaust and therefore there needs be no further argument the  question be place in as clear a light as possible and we be oblige tlo the  gentleman for the pain they have take what power the crown have assume in fact  at the time of the grant by h to the university be very material as to the  construction of those patent whether to operate as to the general right of  print or only with respect to the king copyrights because we must presume the  crown intend to grant what they bad or in fact assume a right over Mr common  admit that by the word all men et of every sort scales the university have the  right of print bible and common prayer book and the whole of the distinction  between these and the statute be that the latter be not to be consider as book  in a few day afterward the judge certify their opinion as follow videlicet  have hear counsel on both side and consider of this case we be of opinion  Kenyon er p that during the term grant by the letter patent date of Oct in the  that year of the reign of queen whether the plaintiff be entitle to the Kenyon  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 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 VIII and the  letter patent hear date the that day of February in the rd year of the eign of  king Charles I 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 Mansfield m foster that Nov t DENSN e WILMOT