2 18 Chas. II. to the year 1781.1 But some of these cases went the length of asserting the sole right of the crown to print the other law books, such as the Reports, the Year Books, and Rolle's Abridgment, and this right was contended for on grounds of property. These notions are now of course exploded, and the right of the patentees of the crown to the sole printing of the statutes, as now recognized in England, must depend upon usage and the force of a decision of the court of king's bench, made in 1758, and upon the recognition of the doctrine of prerogative copies by the house of lords in 1828. The former was a case stated by order of the court of chancery, between the king's printer and the university of Cambridge, both claiming under grants from the crown. The court certified it as their opinion, that the plaintiffs were entitled to the right of printing acts of parliament, and abridgments of acts of parliament, exclusive of all other persons, not authorized to print the same by prior grants from the crown; but that the university of Cambridge is intrusted with a concurrent authority to print acts of parliament and abridgments of acts of parliament, within the university, upon the terms of their pa Atkyns's Case, Carter 89. Bacon's Ab. Prerogative, F. 4 Burr. 2315. Roper v. Streater, Skin. 234. Stationers' Co. v. Parker, Skin. 233. Eyre v. Strahan & Carnan, Bac. Ab. Prerog. F. p. 597. Baskett v. University of Cambridge, 1 W. Black. R. 105. Baskett v. Cunningham, 2 Atkyns's Case, Carter 89. Roper v. Streater, Skin. 234. Stationers' Co. v. Parker, Ib. 233. Vide ante chap. 1, p. 40-44. tents. This case is open to the same remark that has been made upon Oxford v. Richardson, that it does not present the question of the validity of these patents, as between the crown and the public, for direct decision. It does, however, assume the exclusive right to be in the king, and it will require solemn argument and great deliberation, to set it aside. It was subsequently followed in the court of chancery, and to this day constitutes the principal authority upon which applications for relief in that court have been rested. The case in the house of lords has been already cited.3 It seems to be agreed, that the privileged copies, both the Bible and the Statutes, may be printed by others than those having the patent right, if accom Baskett v. The University of Cambridge, 1 W. Black. R. 105, 121. (1758.) * Baskett v. Cunningham & others, 1 Black. R. 370, (1762.) The defendant, in conjunction with several booksellers, was publishing in weekly numbers, A Digest of the Statute Law, containing the Statutes at large, with notes from Lord Coke and other writers of the law. He had contracted with Strahan and Woodfall, the proprietors of the patent for printing law books, to print this work, and it was printed at their press. Baskett, the king's printer, (whose patent extended to Statutes) filed his bill against the proprietors and the law printers, for an injunction. The Lord Chancellor was of opinion that the work was entirely within the patent of the king's printer, and that the notes were merely collusive. But he would not interfere between the two contending patents, in the summary method of injunction; but left them to adjust their respective rights, at law. He therefore ordered an injunction to issue, to restrain the proprietors from printing at any other than a patent press; which, as Woodfall and Strahan were secretly in league with Baskett, and were at that time jointly concerned in a new edition of the Statutes, was equivalent to a total injunction. In 1804, a bill filed by the king's printer in Ireland, to establish his right to print and distribute the copies of the statutes for Ireland, and for an account against the king's printer for England, was dismissed, upon the ground that the plaintiff had no equity which the court could administer. Grierson v. Eyre, 9 Ves. 341. 3 Manners v. Blair, see ante, p. 119-123. panied by bona fide notes.1 But with this exception, the sole right to print the Bible and the Statutes, is now held in England to be vested in the two universities of Oxford and Cambridge, concurrently with the king's patentees.2 4. Almanacs. A patent was granted by James I. for the exclusive printing of almanacs, which were claimed as prerogative copies, upon the following curious reasons: 1st. Because an almanac has no certain author, and the property of such books is in the king; 2dly. Because almanacs regulate the feasts of the church.3 In the 15 George III., upon a case sent from the court of chancery, the court of common pleas, after two arguments, decided that the crown had not a prerogative or power to grant the exclusive printing of almanacs. A bill was then brought into parliament to revest the monopoly in the universities and the stationers' company, and Mr. Erskine was heard at the bar against it, and defeated it. 5. The Latin Grammar. The foundation of the claim, in the case of the old Latin Grammar, was the allegation that it was originally composed and published at the king's expense. But the pretension is now considered utterly groundless." Maugham, p. 106. 2 Evans's Statutes 19, note 11. 2 Burke on Copyright, p. 5. Lond. 1842. Manners v. Blair, 3 Bligh's R. (N. S.) Stationers' Co. v. Seymour, 1 Mod. 256. Bacon's Ab. Prerogative, F. 5. 4 Burr. 2317. Stationers' Co. v. Carnan, 2 W. Black. R. 1004. 5 4 Burr. 2329, 2401. lb. 2315. 3 P. Williams, 255. X. REPORTS OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS. The house of lords, in England, has for a long time claimed and exercised the right to appoint the publisher of any trial that takes place before it, as an exclusive privilege, and the practice has been to order that the lord chancellor do cause the trial to be published, and that no other person do presume to print or publish the same.1 The lord chancellor appoints a publisher of the trial, upon this order, and it seems that any one who infringes upon the exclusive privileges thus conferred, may be enjoined by a court of equity.2 But it does not appear to be held that the order of the house confers anything like literary property; but that it proceeds upon the ground that the house, as a court of justice, exercises of right a superintendence over the publication of its own proceedings, on the principle that such superintendence is necessary for the due and impartial administration of the laws.3 It is likened to the publication of the statutes by the king's patentee, and the person who is appointed publisher of a trial is said to stand in the same situation as the king's printer.* The courts of law have, in modern times, claimed and exercised the right to restrain the publication of their proceedings, when such publication would be likely to defeat the ends of justice. Formerly it was held to be a contempt of court to publish any 1 Gurney v. Longman, 13 Ves. 493, 506, 507. 2 Ibid. 3 Ibid. Godson, p. 340. • Ibid. The king v. Clement, 4 B. & Ald. 218. 2 reports whatever,' but the practical application of this doctrine has been much relaxed. The ancient doctrine was, that the property of all law books is in the king, because he pays the judges who pronounce the law; and in the reign of Charles II. this doctrine was twice affirmed by the house of lords, in relation to Rolle's Abridgment, and Croke's Reports.3 Soon after the restoration, an act of parliament, founded apparently upon the doctrine of the king's prerogative copy, prohibited the printing of law books without the license of the lord chancellor, the two chief justices and the chief baron; and in consequence of this act, it became the practice to prefix such a license to all reports published after that period, in which it was usual for the rest of the judges to concur, and to add to the imprimatur a testimonial of the learning and judgment of the author. The act was renewed from time to time, but finally expired in the reign of King William. But the same form of license continued in use until the judges, as it is said, came to a resolution not to grant them any longer, and from Douglass down to the present day, the Reports have appeared without them.5 Sir James Burrow offers an apology for publishing his Reports without an imprimatur, and says he is aware that it is a contempt of court to publish their proceedings. Preface to Sir J. Burrow's Re ports. 9 Skinner, 234, 1 Mod. 217. Bacon ut supra. 4 Burr. 2316. It |