Francis Smith and the Opposition Press in England, 
1660-1688 
Timothy Crist 
King's Colleg e 
UNIVERSITY 
LIBRARY 
CAMBRIDGE 
A dissert a tion submitted in part fulfilment of the 
requirements for the de gree of Doctor of Philosophy 
in the University of Cambridg e 
May 1 9 77 
Timothy John Crist 
SU~L\'!ARY 
"Francis Smith and the Opposition Press in England, 1660-1688" 
Timothy Crist 
Partisan publis hil g h ecame Cl major influence i n political affairs 
during th e thr ee de cades he t Hce n the Restor" tion of Cl1a i~ l es 11 i1nd tlw 
Revolution oE ] 688 . During tile Exclusion Crisis of 1679-82, in particular, 
both oppos ition and government parties made extensive use of printed 
mat e rial to influence public opinion and to. promote and support their 
policies . Political debate WRS fuelled by an immense amount of printed 
propag.::nl.cla . Na rratives, petitions , informations , addresses, speeches , 
and vot es of Parliamen t abo un ded . Newspapers appeared, and broadsides 
circulated on every i ssue . 
At the centre of the propnpanu<t effort hy the fi r5 t ~\Th i gs ~·.Ias <'I 
small p,roup of oppositton s t at ioners ~vho pr.oduced and distributed. hThi g 
tracts. Thes e sta tioners brought to thei r task the ex tra cuttin?, ed ge 
of persona l commitment , and t he ir name s appeared on tI le mos t important 
and influential \.JJli g publications. As puhlishers they Here respons ihle 
at l a\·! for th e. cont ent o f t he ir publications . They f ac:ed a con s tant 
threat of sea rches and examinat ions, and the government concentrated 
its pros ec ution s a gainst them . 
Foremost among the se oPT)Qsition stationers \.;as Francis Smith, 
Hhom one contemporary des cribed as 'the prime dispenser of all sorts 
of the mos t h~\'ld and seditious pamphlets '. A llaptist with repu blican 
opinions , Smith actively publis hed for the opposition throu ghout 
Charles 11 I S rei gn. Often searched and interroga ted, Smi th cla i r-.e d 
at . the e nd of, his caree r to have been imprisoned or detained on f6rty-
one occasions . 
Gove rnment policy towa rd the press Has one of strict supervlslon 
and suppression of controvers ial or critical books. Programmes to 
implement this po licy Here developed soon af t er th e Restoration. 
Control of th e pr ess proceeded on the basis of roya l prerogative and 
common l a'.,I un t il the passage of the Printing Ac t in 16 62. The lapse 
of this Act in 1679 a llowed greate r fr eedom for opposition s tationers 
and rais e d ne\v di.fficulties for t he gove rnmen t. Despite roval 
proclClm.::! U ons, judicial orders, and Stationer.s I Company by-Im.Js, 
Francis Smith and oliler stationers ~orkeJ virtually without restriction 
during the Exclusion Crisis. Not until Ch a rJ.es IT sei zed political 
initiative after the dissolution of the Oxford Parliament in March 
1681 ,vas the gove rnment ab l e t.o t ake effective s t e ps, through propaganda, 
prosecution, and manipul a tion of the Stationers' Compan y, to control the 
press. 
The power of the political press developed s i gnificantly duri.ng 
the l"Ci r, I1 S of Charlps 11 and J a lnes lI. Opposition stationt=~'s such "IS 
Frand s Smith secured an enduring place for a parti sclH p r es~, h y ou tl.:1s tin g 
government att e mrt s to suppress t hem . Th e val ue nf their Ca reel"S lies 
as much in this f ac t of thei:.' survival as :in th e collective me ri. t of their 
publications . Tbr:)llgh the ir rtctivi ties t hey ilelppd to es c;!blis h part1.Sni "' 
publi s h:l.ng tol e r Cl t ed by go ve r nment . 
· I 
Contents 
Preface page iii 
Abbrevi a tions vii 
Note on Da tes and Style vii 
Introduction viii 
1 Francis Smith's Early Career 1 
2 'This Spirit of Libelling' 51 
3 ' Some Better Remedy for Regulating the 
Press' 93 
4 Cheap, Brief, and To pic al: Smith's 
Publ ic a tions before the Oxford Parliament 156 
5 'The Press must set 'urn Right again' 182 
6 Collapse of the Whig Publishing Alliance 234 
7 Attempts to Persevere 291 
8 Quiescence and Collabora tion 317 
9 Conclusion 353 
Bibliography 
iii 
Preface 
Partisa n publishing was a prime influence in p olitica l 
af f a irs during the three decades between the Restoration 
of Charles 11 and the Revolution of 16 88 . P a rticularly 
during the Exclusion Crisis of 16 79-82, both opposition 
and g overnment parties ma de extensive u s e of printed 
materi a l to influence public op inion and to p rovide s u pport 
for their p olicies. Few historians h ave looke d closely 
a t publishing and the book trade in the l a ter seventeenth 
century. Bibliographical re s e a rch h as been the p rovince 
of litera ry schola r s , wh o assuredly have a ccompli s he d 
much g OGd work . But neglect by histori ans h as been 
e specia lly unfortunate for the reigns of Cha rles 11 and 
J ames 11, because publishing during thi s p eriod was 
prima rily politic a l and relig ious r a ther than litera ry 
in nature. 
My a i m in thi s s tudy h as been to beg in to meet the 
nee d for more thorough h i s torica l research on the Engli s h 
b oo k trade and it s rela tionship to politica l events. I 
h ave concentra ted on the c a reer of Francis Smith, a 
Bapti s t bookseller wh o s e deep involvement in opposi tion 
publishing h as provided many clues to the activities of 
opp o s ition s t a tioners as a g roup . Bec ause the oppos ition 
iv 
p re ss i s most rewarding ly studied in the contex t of effort s 
to curt a il it, I h ave a lso examined g overnment a ttempt s 
to control the p re s s between 1660 and 1688 . 
Re s e a rcih on the book tra de must be b a sed on a physic a l 
e xami nation of books and their imprints, as well a s a 
study of their conten t. I h ave tried, and in all but a 
fe w c a se s h ave s ucceeded, i n s eeing t wo or more co p ies 
of every known public a tion of Fra ncis Smith. I h ave a lso 
sought contempora ry de s cription s in print and manuscrip t 
of politica l events and public a tions , and I h ave reviewed 
legal record s for the p eriod. To accompli s h the s e t a s ks , 
I h ave vi s ited many libraries and h ave been a ssisted by 
many individua ls • . The l a te Dr. A. N.L. Munby, Libra ri a n 
of King 's Colleg e, directed my re a ding and rese a rch for 
fiftee n mon ths before his dea th i n December 1 9 74. Hi s 
e xample ' of c a reful s chola rship and love of books will 
h ave a l a sting influence for me. Dr . John L. Miller, 
formerly of Gonville and Ca ius and now of Queen Mary 
Colleg e, London, kin dly a s s umed s u p ervi s ion of my work , 
and I h ave ben efited f rom h i s wide knowledg e of Eng l and 
during the reign s of the l a ter Stua rt s . 
Much of my work was done in the r a re book r00m a t 
Cambridg e University Libra ry, where the s t aff and especi ally 
Mr. Davi d McKitterick f ound the books I wish ed to see and 
answered my many question s with g ood s p irit. I a lso 
u se d t he r e s ou rc es of t h e lib r a ri es a t Ki ng ' s College , 
St . John ' s Colleg e, and Trinity Colleg e, Cambridg e. In 
v 
Oxford I worked in the Bodleian Library and used their 
fine collection of newspapers as well as books. At All 
Souls Colleg e Mr. J.S.G. Simmons p ermitted me to examine 
the Luttrell manuscripts in his care, and a t Regent's 
Park College Dr. B.R. White let me look a t early Baptist 
books and discussed with me the early c a reer of Francis 
Smith. 
In London, members of the staff of the British 
Libra ry, the Public Record Office, Dr. Williams's Libra ry, 
Guildhall Library, and the Corp oration of London Record 
Office were a lso unf a ilingly helpful. Mr. James Moran , 
archivist of the Stationers' Company, a llowed me to 
examine the very extensive records preserved a t Stationers' 
Hall. 
The l a te Dr. J ames M. Osborn took a s upportive 
interest in my project and encouraged me to use his file, 
begwL thirty ye a rs ago, of Narcissus Luttrell's annot a tions 
of da te of public a tion on books acquired by him. These 
annot a tions have proved to be as v a luable to my research 
as the dates noted by George Thomas on have been to students 
1 
of t he Civil War and Interregnum . The Curator of the 
Osborn Collection a t Yale, Dr. Stephen Parks, first 
guided me to Cambridg e to do research, and he has been 
generous with his advice a t al l stages of my work . 
1 . See J ames M. Osborn, ' Reflections on Narcissus Luttrell 
(165 7- 1732)', The Book Collector, VI (195 7), pp . 15-17. 
vi 
In the United States, in a ddition to the Ya le Libra ry, 
I ma de use of the resources of the Huntington Libra ry in 
San Ma rino, California; the William Andrews Clark Libra ry 
in Los Angeles; and the Houghton Library a t Ha rva rd, 
where Dr. Hugh Amory help ed me with bibliog raphic a l 
questions. 
In May 1976 Dr. D.F. McKenzie delivered his valuable 
Sandars Lectures a t Cambridg e on 'The London Book Trade 
in the l a ter Seventeenth Century'. I was fortunate to 
di s cuss with him the results of my rese a rch, and some 
of my conclusions were shaped by his lectures. 
I should a l s o record my appreciation to many friends 
i n King 's Colleg e, both Fellows a nd students, who 
p a tiently li s tened when I rep orted on the prog ress of 
my study. 
Tl1i s dissertation is the result of my own work and 
i n cludes nothing which is the outcome of work done in 
collabora tion. 
Abbreviations 
C.J. Journals of the House of Commons 
C.S.P.D. Calendar of State Papers Domestic 
Publications of the Historical Manuscript 
Commission 
H.M.C. 
L.J. Journals of the House of Lords 
Morrice 'The Entring Book' of Roger Morrice, 
Dr Williams's Library 
P.C. 
S .P. 
S.R. 
Privy Council Re g isters in the Public 
Record Office 
State Papers Domestic in the Public 
Record Office 
A Transcript of the Registers of the ••• 
Stationers ••• 1640-1708, ed. G.E.B. 
Eyre and C.R. Rivington, London, 1913-4. 
Note on Dates and Style 
Throughout the text of this study, Old Style dates 
have been used, with the year t aken to begin on 
1 J anu ary. However, in the footnotes contemporary 
newspapers and manuscripts dated New Style in the 
orig inal h ave been cited under both Old and New Style 
da tes. 
In transcripts from contempora ry sources, abbrevia-
tions h ave been extended and contractions filled in. 
Otherwise, the style a nd spelling of the original 
material h ave not been a ltered. 
viii 
Introduction 
Behind the facade of restoration revelry and 
c av alier loyal ty, the reign of Charles 11 was a period 
of intense politica l controversy. Opposition sentiment, 
restrained in the t wo decades after 1660 , erupted into 
f urious debate during the Exclus ion Crisis of 1679 to 
1682. England was deeply divided on the issue of whe ther 
the Duke of York, . as a Roman Ca tholic, should be excluded 
from the throne, and the first Wh i gs under the leadership 
of the Earl of Shaftesbury severely cha lleng ed Charl es 11 
-.... 
and his g overnment. The debate was fuelled by an immense 
amount of printed propaganda. Informat ions, narrative s , 
pe titions , addresses, s pe eches, and votes of Parliament 
abounded. Several newspapers appeared, and broadsides 
circula ted on every issue. 
At the centre of the Whig propaganda effort was a 
small group of opposition s t a tioners employed by 
Shaftesb ury to produce and distribute Whig tra cts. The se 
s t a tioners brought to their task the extra cutting edg e 
of p ersonal commitment, and their imprints appeared on 
the most important and influential Whig publ icati ons. 
r i x 
Unlik e Thomas Dawk es with his P op i s h Plot playing c a rds, 
they were not merely exploiting a p opul a r sentiment. 
Their commitment to opposition principles stretched b a ck 
many ye a rs a nd, in one or two c a ses, to the Interreg num. 
Publishers were resp onsible a t l a w for the content of 
their public a tions. They f a ced a const ant thre a t of 
se a rche s and eX8~inations, and the g overnment concentra ted 
its p rosecutions against them. The ma jority of opposition 
tra cts app e a red anonymously; thus, severa l st a tioners 
bec ame individually more p rominent than authors a s 
a dherents of the Whig c ause. When fervent supporters 
of the Ki ng i n Norwich ma r k ed his birthday in 1682, they 
celebra ted with a l a r g e bonfire of opposition tra cts 
and par a ded effig ies of 'severa l Factious and Seditious 
Libellers ; a s Ca re, Curtis, J aneway, Ba ldwin, Smith, 
Vile, &~ .' All e x cep t Henry Ca re were Whig publishers. l 
One of the mysteries of Exclusion politics is the 
~reci s e rel a tionship of opposition publishers to Whig 
le a ders . Document s h ave not survived to demons trate 
the extent to which Sha ftesbury and other politician s 
p l anned and directed Whig propaganda . But much more 
p ropaganda was published than they could h ave specifically 
encouraged, and it seems clea r tha t individua l publi shers 
con tributed to the Whig c a use by t aking on themselves 
1. Nathaniel Thomps on, The Loya l P rotest ant #16 5 , 8 June 
1682 . 
the p l anning and distribution of Whig boolcs and broad-
sides. Oppo s ition public a tions reached a wide audience 
and were very influen ti a l in shap ing public op inion. 
'You shall s ome times find a seditious libel to h ave 
passed through so ma ny h ands tha t it is a t l as t scarce 
leg ible for dust and swe at,' remarked the Tory Edmund 
Bohun i n 16 83 , ' whil s t the loya l answer stands in a 
g entleman ' s study as clean and as neat as it came from 
1 the press'. 
F oremost among opposition s t a tioners was Franci s 
Smith, and it i s with him tha t this study is primarily 
x 
concerned. Rog er L'Estra n g e c a lled Smith 'the Favourite' 
of t he opposition party, while another contempora ry 
described h i m as 'the p rime disp enser of a ll sorts of 
2 t he mo s t lewd a nd seditious pamphle t s '. A Bapti st 
publi sher with republic an op i n ions , Smith was the senior 
s t a tioner among a fr a tern ity of young er men . His trade 
was well est ablished before Charle s r e turned from ex ile, 
and he work e d clo s ely with the i mport ant 'Confede r a te' 
b ooksellers of the e a rly Restoration, Gile s Calvert, 
Livewell Cha-.:pman, and Thomas Brewster. During the 
Exclus ion Crisis, Smith was joined by fellow Baptists 
1. E. Bohun, The Third and Las t Part of the Address to 
the F ree-men , 1 683 ( Wi ng B3461), e p istle dedic atory. 
2. Rog e r L ' Estrange, The Observ a tor, I, 17, 26 May 16 81; 
Henry Muddi man ' s newsletter of 4 1VIarch 16 84, cited by 
J.G. lVIuddi man , The Ki ng ' s Journal i st, p . 243. 
John Darby and Georg e Larkin, both printers, and 
Ben j amin Harris, a YOillLg bookseller and publisher. 
Langley Curtis, Richard J aneway, and Richa rd Baldwin, 
wh o wer e tra ined as bookbinders, a lso published extensively 
for the Whig s. 
Although most opposition s t a tioners, including 
Francis Smith, worked on the fringe of the Stationers' 
Company, they were still liable to its regulations and 
restrictions. First chartered during the reign of 
Queen Mary , the Stationers were g r anted a monopoly in 
printed matter, though individual printers were 
occ asionally awarded special patents from the Crown. 
In return for its privileges, the Stationers ' Company 
was cha rged with regulating its members, limiting the 
number of presses, and suppressing public a tion of 
controversi a l or seditious works. Individua l stationers 
ordinarily began their associ a tion with the Company 
by apprenticeship. On completion of apprenticeship , 
they gained the freedom of the Company and in time 
bec 8~e elig ible to purchase the livery. Lucrative 
positions i n the g overnance of the Company were based 
on seniority in the livery.l 
Business rel a tionships were most succinctly expressed 
in the 'imprint', or printed a cknowledgement of responsi-
bility, required on every public a tion. In the formula 
1. The best s tudy of the St a tioners' Company remains, 
Cypri a n Ba l g den, The Stationers' Company: A History, 
1403-1959, 1960. 
xii 
' Printed by A, for B, to be sold by Cl, A would h ave 
been the printer, B the publisher, and C the distributor. 
Th i s full form of imprint r arely occurred. More 
commonly, a st a tioner p erformed multiple roles. Thus, 
in the form ' Printed by A to be sold by B ' the printer 
p rob ably h ad -participated a t le a st a s part-publisher and 
h a d a rranged with a bookseller for ret a il distribution. 
lVI ost of the imprints i n which Francis Smith's n ame 
occurred were in the form ' Printed by A for Francis Smith' 
or ' Pri n ted for F r ancis Smith', in which c ase, whether 
the printer was identified or n ot, Smith served as both 
publi she r and ret a il distributor. I f there we re more 
than one publisher or bookseller, they were usually 
listed in order of seniority in the Stationers' Company. 
The publisher, u s u a lly the copyri ght-ovmer, underwrote 
"-
public a tion. He could be a printer, bookseller, book-
binder, or indeed the a uthor, but during Cha rles II's 
reign he was most commonly a b ookseller. La ck of an 
address for the publisher or b ookseller , or the l a ck of 
an i mprint a ltog ether, often indic a ted surreptitious 
public a tion or distribution by me rcury women or h awke rs. l 
Governmen t policy toward the p ress was one of .strict 
supervi s ion and suppression of controversi a l or crit i cal 
books. So on after the Restora tion, the Privy Council 
1. W. W. Greg , Some Asp ect s and Problems of London 
Publishing , between 1550 and 1650 , 1956 , pp. 82-9. 
\ 
xiii 
developed a p ro g ramme to control the p ress. It issued 
p rocl amations against specific books and interrogated 
Francis Smith, Livewell Chapman, and other stationers. 
Licensing of the press began under the direction of 
John Berkenhe a d i n October 1660, and the Stationers' 
Company regul a rly se a rched printing houses for unlicensed 
public a tions. La ter, the King appointed Ro g er L'Estrange 
Su p ervisor of the Press. Control p roceeded on the b a sis 
of roy a l p rerogative and COlmnon l aw until the 1662 
Printing Act gave it s t a tutory force. The l ap se of the 
Printing Ac t i n 1679 provide d g re a ter freedom for 
opposition st a tioners and r aised new difficulties for 
t he g overrunent. Desp ite roya l p rocl amations , judicia l 
orders, and St a tioners ' Company by-laws , Franci s Smith 
and other s t a tioners work ed virtually without restra int 
"-
during the Exclus ion Crisis. Privy Council examina tions 
and g enera l se a rch warrants did little to discourage 
them. Public op i n ion s upported them and I.'vhig-domina ted 
juries i n London i gnored indictments brought agains t 
them. 
Not until Cha rles 11 seized politica l initi a tive 
with the dissolution of the Oxford Parli 8~ent i n March 
16 81 was he abl e to challeng e effectively the opp o s ition 
p ress. A c ampai gn of To ry propaganda helped to change 
the pol itic a l climate i n f avour of t he Ki ng , and the 
introduction of Tory jurie s i n December 1682 f i nally 
silenced opposition publishers by assuring successful 
gover~~ent prosecution. J ames 11, who had been bitterly 
condemned. by the opposition press during the Exclusion 
Crisis, quietly succeeded to the throne in 1685. 
Ne ither Cha rles 11 nor J ames 11, however, managed to 
do more than s ilence stationers. The opp o s ition press 
ret a ined undiminished its potent i a l for p ersuasive 
publishing , and it was again active duri ng and aft er: 
the Revolution of 1688. 
Chapter One 
Francis Smith's Early Career 
Francis Smith's deep understanding of the book 
trade and his keen commitment to Whig political ideals 
were the basis of his success as publisher for the 
1 
first Whigs. His perseverance as a propagandist despite 
government efforts to obstruct his trade stemmed from 
his experience of hardship while imprisoned in 1661. 
His fervor and style in election campaigns, especially 
for Slingsby Bethel, originated in his long career as 
a Baptist preacher. His knowledge of publishing, his 
experience in distribution, and his contacts in both 
the Eookselling and Dissenting communities were invaluable 
aids during the Exclusion Crisis. Smith's Baptist 
o , beliefs and republican ideas were intertwined, though 
( his religious beliefs were the source of his political 
opinions. Both aspects of his outlook were equally 
repugnant to Tory opponents, and the development of both, 
as expressed in his publishing activities, need to be 
traced in order to understand his later career as a 
Whig propagandist. 
Contemporary satirists often noted Smith's adherence 
to General Baptist principles . Heraclitus Ridens 
referred to him as 'the Baptist Oracle Frank Smith, he 
UNIVERSllY 
LIBRARY 
CAMBI?IDGE 
2 
has been dip'd over head and ears', while others 
simply designated him as 'Anabaptist Smith,.l The 
author of The Leacherous Anabaptist: or, The Dipper 
Dipt, a libellous poem directed entirely against Smith, 
termed him 'This Protestant News-monger, and Munster 
2 Imp'. The shadow of Manster, where Thomas Muncer had 
led a brutal massacre more than a century before, 
darkened the reputation of both Particular (Calvinistic) 
and General (Arminian) Baptists throughout the seventeenth 
century. In the minds of Presbyterians during the 
Interregnum (to William prynne there could hardly be a 
worse term of opprobrium than 'Anahaptist Libeller') 
and Anglicans during the Exclusion Crisis, Baptists and 
other radical sects were inextricably linked with political 
dissent of an often violent nature. 3 Baptists expended 
much effort, through declarations, petitions, and 
sermons trying to live down Manster (which had no 
connection with their origins) and prove their worth 
as citizens. 
Smith was publisher and bookseller, leader and 
preacher to the General Baptists. Baptist works were 
the mainstay of his bookse11ing trade, and he published 
the majority of General Baptist books and tracts .written 
between 1655 and 1685. He signed several important 
1. Heraclitus Ridens #3, 15 February 1681. 
2. 1681, Wing L808. 
3. Wi11iam Prynne, A Fresh Discovery of some Prodigious 
New Wandring-B1asing-Stars, 1645 (Wing P3963), f. A2v. 
Baptist declarations and petitions. He regularly 
preached to a London congregation and was granted a 
licence to preac~ after the Declaration of Indulgence 
in 1672. Smith came from Bradford in Yorkshire, where 
his father, also named Francis, was a farrier. In 
London he became apprenticed on 3 May 16~7 to Thomas 
Hansard, a claspmaker and member of the Stationers' 
Company. After seven years he was made free of the 
Stationers' Company on 5 May 1654,1 but he had already 
-
3 
begun his lifelong association with the General Baptists 
by 'disposing of' Benjamin Morley's A Vindication Of 
that Righteous Principle of the doctrine of Christ, 
called la~ on of hands upon Baptized Believers, printed 
in 1653 by Henry Hills. 2 
Apparently Smith came from a Puritan family and 
joined the General Baptists while an apprentice. He 
dedicated his Symptomes of Growth & Decay to Godlinesse 
in 1660 'To all that are called to be saints, especially 
my dear Relations in Yorkshire West-Riding; Together 
with my Brethren and Companions, in and about the City 
of London,.3 During his apprenticeship, it seems, he 
1. D.F. McKenzie, Stationers' Compan.y Apprentices, 1641-
1700, p. 76. He should not be confused with the Francis 
Smith who was active in 1642; MdKenzie makes this mistake 
in his volume for 1605-1640, p. 178, where the Fleet St. 
claspmaker is actually the Baptist Francis Smith. 
2. 'London, Printed by Henry Hills, and are to be disposed 
of by Francis Smith, living at the sign of the Sugar-
Loaf in Queens-Head Alley, 1653'; W.G. Hiscock, Christ 
Church Supplement, M2785+. 
3. Wing S4030, f. Al. 
came to the notice of several General Baptist leaders, 
principally Benjamin Morley and John Griffith. They 
hel,ped him to set up as a bookseller (rather than only 
making clasps for binding books) in 'Fly,ilng- horse-Court 
in F,leet-street, near Chancery-lane end' and engaged 
him for the distribution of their own pamphlets. As 
Smith commenced his business, the General Baptists in 
London were feeling the first effects of Quaker 
proselytizing. They defended themselves by thorough 
criticism of Quaker beliefs and by publication in 
October 1654 of Thomas Lover's The True Gospel-Faith 
4 
as a confession of faith for use by their congregations. 
Lover had recently died, but John Griffith, John Foxwell, 
Thomas Parret, and Francis Smith, 'not willing to slip 
any opportunity', published the manuscript posthumously 
---
'as the present Faith and Practice of the Church of 
Christ'. Griffith's A Voice From the Word of the Lord 
to those grand Imposters called Quakers was published 
jOintly with Lover's tract, but wiffi h separate signatures 
and pagination, 'to witness against the abominable 
fleshly-mindedness, and yet spiritual pride of ••• 
Quakers.,l Thus from the beg~nning of his career Smith 
was involved in the central doctrinal and corporate 
statements of the General Baptists as publisher or 
1. Wing L3248, f. A4v; W.L. Lumpkin, Baptist Confessions, 
1959, pp. 189- 90. Griffith, A VOice, p. 1. 
bookseller and occasionally as signatory. 
Like other Baptist stationers, Smith maintained 
only tenuous ties with the Stationers' Company. He 
rarely entered books at Stationers' Hall, but he was 
more diligent before the Restora~ton~than after. By 
the late 1650s the 'register of Copies' had become 
merely a means of recording proprietorship of a work 
and intention to publish it. Entry did not signify 
official approbation of the work's subject matter. Nor 
was protection from government prosecution afforded by 
paying the 6d. fee and adding another title to the 
register, at least while the licensing system was ~ 
inoperative. Smith did not always note the fact of 
entry in a book, though Mathew Caffyn's The Deceived, 
5 
and deceiving Quakers Discovered carried this explanation 
, 
on the title page: 'Entred into the Register book, kept 
by the Company of St ationers,.l The entries in the 
register were usually transcriptions or conflations of 
the printed title page, even down to the description 
of the author. Thus we learn ~rom the register that 
Thomas Tazwell was 'the meanest and unworthiest of all 
God's servants'. Perhaps his book, The free grace of 
God to all the sonnes of Adam, was of similar stature 
b . h . d 2 ecause no cop1es ave SUTV1ve • 
1. Wing C206; S.R. 11, 30, 11 February l655t 6. This 
was the first book entered by Smith. Caffyn's book was 
~ublished with William Jeffery's Antichrist made known 
{Wing J522), with joint title page and conti~uous 
pagination, but only Caffyn's work was entered. 
2. ~ 11, 91, 21 October 1656. 
Political uncertainty in 1659 and 1660, coupled 
with the lack of any control of the press, helped to 
6 
unleash immense numbers of· books, tracts, and broadsides. 
The output of the press neared 2000 titles in 1659 and 
surpassed that mark in 1660, a level not even remotely 
approached again until the Popish Plot and the lapse 
of the Printing Act in 1679.1 Sectarians and commonwealth 
men issued more or less detailed recommendations for 
republican government based on biblical guidelines. 
Letters from military leaders, petitions from county 
groups, and, as the tide turned, satiric attacks by 
royalists on the now fallen 'phanaticks' appeared on 
the bookseller's stall. They were 'cried up and down 
the streets, perhaps given away to those who would take 
2 them, in any case ready to hand and very cheap'. Like 
other' sectarian stationers, Francis Smith greatly 
expanded his publishing activity during 1659. The year 
started calmly enough with Jeremiah Ives's attack on 
Sabbatarian Baptists, Saturday no Sabbath . 3 Then Smith 
and Stephen Dagnall combined to publish William Jeffery's 
exposition of the General Baptist position, The Whol& 
Faith of Man, which long remained a standard work among 
1 . W.G. Mason, 'The Annual Output of Wing- Listed Titles, 
1649- 1684', The Library, 5s., XXIX (1974), p. 220 . 
2. W.L. Sachse, The Diurnal of Thomas Ruggg 1659- 1661, 
1961, introduction, p. xiv. See also p . 4 • 
3. Wing Il1~4; the postscript is dated 17 March 1658/9; jointly published with 'Dan. White at the seven Stars . 
in Pau1s Church yard'. Smith's imprints increased from 
3 or 4 in 1658 to 13 in 1659 . 
the Baptists.l In June or July of 1659 Smith moved his 
shop from Flying-Horse-Court in Fleet Street near 
Chancery Lane to the Elephant and Castle, 'a little 
wihout Temple-Barre', from which he issued ~he fifth 
2 
edition of Henry Haggar's Order of Causes. Though he 
moved again, Francis Smith retained the trademark 
'Elephant and Castle' for the rest of his career. 
Because of his common surname, he was tagged with the 
nmckname 'Elephant Smith'. 
Smith first entered the political arena by selling 
Captain William Bray's A Plea for the Peoples Good Old 
Cause, in October 1659) Smith's imprint next appeared 
7 
on a letter of General George Monck to 'Lord Fleetwood', 
dated 3 November from Edinburgh and published 'by his 
Excellencies (i.e., Fleetwood's) special command,.4 
Over the ensuing five weeks Smith produced political 
tracts a~ weekly intervals in support of the army and 
espousing an increasingly radical, nearly Fifth Monarchist 
position. Baptists were active adherents of the Army 
cause in the Autumn of 1659. They took up commissions 
in the militia and defended the Army in pamphlets. 5 
Jeremy Ives left off his theological quarrels to assert, 
in a pamphlet published by Smith, that the Rump had no 
1. Wing J52~ . 
2. Wing Hi 90; Thomason purchased his copy on 16 July. 
3. Wing B4307; Smith entered it s n 27 October, S.R. II, 240. 
4. Genral Monck's Last Letter to his Excellencthe Lord 
Fleetwood, 1 5 ing 4 • 
S. L.F. Brown, The ~olitical Activities of the Baptists 
and Fifth Monarchy Men, p. 185. 
grounds for readmission as the 'free Representative of 
the People of England' because it had been the Army 
which had forced the abolition of the monarchy and 
peerage. Ives asked what he meant to be a rhetorical 
question; 'whether some other nmnber of honest men 
chosen out to serve the present Exigency, may not be 
as ' lawfull an Authority as they, and sooner answer the 
1 desire of all good People?' This question evidently 
pleased the Council of Safety in their search for 
justification as a governing body because they hindered 
8 
the publication of William Bray's point-by-point reply 
to Ives. Since Smith now agreed with Ives in supporting 
the claims of the Army-controlled Council of Safety, 
Bray turned to John Clowes to print his book. Clowes 
reported that Bray's book would have been published on 
-.... 
22 December had he not been delayed for several weeks 
by 'Agents of the late Council of Safety (so called) 
who preyed upon the wnitten Copy, amongst other Papers, 
then ready to be published in vindication of the present 
Parliament ( i. e., the restored Rump] '. 2 
By casting their lot with the Army, Smith and other 
Baptists were defending a republican stance against the 
1. Eighteen Questions Propounded, 1659 (Wing 11698), p. 6 
(question eight); printed by Gertrude Dawson for Smith 
and dated by Thomason, 21 November. The Rump had been 
reconvened by the Officers of the Army on 6 May 1659 
and sat until 13 October 1659, when the Army officers 
established the Council of Safety. The Rump was again 
reestablished on 26 December. 
2. W. Bray, A Plea for the Peoples Fundamentall Liberties 
and Parliaments, 1659/60 (Wing B4306), p. [ 20J . 
9 
growing calls for a return of the nobility and monarchy. 
The author of A Reply to Mr. William Prinne, entered by 
Smith at Stationers' Hall on 18 November and published 
about a week later, feared that Prynne's proposal for 
a new Parliament called by the nobility would 'revest' 
Charles Stuart. The nobility were 'part of the old 
decripit, decayed, and gray-headed Tyranny'. 'If the 
Souldiers will be true to their principles', Smith's 
author added, 'we may find out the most righteous 
government that ever we were under,.l Baptists had 
been drawn into politics originally by their opposition 
to tithes and their advocacy of liberty of conscience 
and toleration. Tithes remained a 'perplexing business~ •• 
so unlike the maintenance of a true Gospel Ministry', 
according to the authors of A Word of seasonable and 
sound' Counsell. Toleration was necessary because 'the 
wrath of man doth not at all accomplish the righteousness 
of God'. The question now exercising Baptists was what 
form the government should take. To judge from the 
anonymous broadsides to which he added his imprint and 
thus public notice of his approbation, Smith was quite 
determined that it should not be monarchical. The 'Relicts 
1. Wing RI061, pp. 5-6; ~ 11, 242. 
and Props of corrupt Monarchy' and of the religious 
hierarchy should be 'speedily removed·. l Smith's 
political publishing continued only during the tenure 
of the Council of Safety, when he believed that the 
Army Officers might implement a thorough-jreform of the 
social, governmental, and penal structures along 
10 
biblical and egalitarian lines. With sufficient 
prospects for change, Smith aggressively publ rushed 
political tracts. During the two months of the Council 
of Safety's eXistence, he issued seven pamphlets and 
broadsides. He was equally prolific during the more 
extended period of the Popish Plot and Exclusion Crisis 
when again he felt the popular voice had political 
impact. 
The Baptists had been so closely allied with the 
Army that as its power waned, the London populace 
feared armed uprisings by Baptists and sectarians. 
After Monck's return to London on 3 February 1660, 
exaggerated rumours led to continuous searches for 
hidden arms by Monck's soldiers and private citizens. 2 
As publisher to the General Baptists and as one who had 
1. A Word of seasonable and sound Counsell, 1659 (Wing 
W3562). See also its sequel by J.C., Magna Charta: 
Containing that which is very much the Sense and 
A reement of the Good Peo le of these Nations, 1659 (Wing 
062 , which presents alternative proposals to monarchy 
based on the model of the Sanhedrin; and William Pryor, 
The Out-Cries of the Poor, Oppressed, & Imprisoned, 1659 
(Wing P4132), which concerns the poor and penal reform. 
2. W. Kennett, Register, pp. 47, 58; Rugg, Diurnal, p. 47. 
\ 
espoused radical policies, Francis Smith did not escape 
suspicion. He later recalled that 'soon after General 
Monk came to London, under the notion of being a 
disaffected Person, and a Phanatick, I had my House 
frequently Searched for Armes, and all my Windows 
Broaken'. Smith's lodgers, who had yielded him'above 
50 1. per annum', soon left and for two years he was 
unable to keep new lodgers because of more 'Ryotous 
Proceeding,.l 
The General Assembly of the General Baptists met 
in London in March and issued A Brief Confession or 
Declaration of Faith 'to inform all Men (in these dayes 
of scandal and reproach) of our innocent Belief and 
Practise'. The forty signatories, including Smith who 
also published it, denied emphatically the 'wicked, and 
divillish reports' that some of them had gathered 'knives, 
hooked knives, & the like, & great store of Arms besides 
what was given forth by order of Parliament, intending 
to cut the throats of such as were contrary minded to 
us in matters of Religion'. After the Restoration, 
General Baptists presented their confession to Charles IT 
with assurances of subjection to the government. Smith 
re-issued it as a broadside with the note that in 
addition to the subscribers the confession was 'Owned 
1. F. Smith, An Account of the Injurious Proceedings, 
(1680) , Wing S4024 . 
1 
and approved by more than 20000'. 
While acquiescing publicly to the restoration of 
the monarchy, Baptists looked for signs and portents 
of God's favour for the righteousness of their cause. 
They exchanged reports of extraordinary happenings 
which might be interpreted as a vindication of their 
position. These events supported the faithful in a 
time of severe dislocation, when their hopes for 
religious and social reform had been crushed by the 
cavalier surge in 1660. Henry Jessey collected some 
of these reports for distribution, added a preface 
dated 13 August 1660, and tUrned the notes over to 
Livewell Chapman and Francis Smith f or publication a 
2 day or two later as The Lords Loud Call to England. 
12 
Strange deaths had occurred at Oxford where the putting 
--
out of 'the godly people' had transformed the University 
into 'a barren wilderness'; great numbers of toads and 
flies had appeared in June in Fairfard';I. Glos., where 
'a Company of Christians going to a meeting' had been 
mocked; a strange whirlwind had happened in Leicestershire; 
1. Wing B4559, dated by Thomason 15 March; the broadside 
edition (Wing B4560 ) reached Thomason on 26 July. After 
being slightly revised, the Brief Confession was 
reaffirmed at the 1~63 General Assembly. It was edited 
by Thomas Grantham in 1678 and again approved by the 
Assembly in 1691. It has been reprinted by W. McGlothlin, 
Baptist Confessions, pp. 111- 22; Lumpkin, Bavtist 
Confessions, pp. 224-35; and W.T. Whitley, M1nutes of the 
General Assembly, pp. 10-22, from which I have cited pp. 
21-2. 
2. Wing J694. There were two issues, with variants in 
line ten of the title page and an alteration of 
signature E • 
.. ------
13 
and a minister had suddenly fairited during his sermon 
'against those peaceable people ••• he called Anabaptists'. 
Also included were accounts of the imprisonment and 
ill-usage of various Dissenters since the Restoration 
and the petition of the Lincolnshire Baptists on 26 July 
to Charles 11. Jessey's advice on how to interpret 
these 'relations' was spiritual rather than provocatively 
political. Readers should recognize the vanity of 
material objects and learn to love their enemies while 
examining themselves more closely to determine if their 
present troubles were judgements for ill they had done 
to others. Above all they should turn to the Lord 
for their strength and sustenance. 
Compared to later tracts, The Lords Loud Call to 
England was tame. If political attack had been implied 
it waa directed more against the cavalier Anglicans 
who were displacing godly ministers and college fellows 
than at Charles 11, who after all had promised tolerance 
of tender consciences. Jessey, Chapman,and Smith must 
have been astonished by the denunciations which 
followed. Smith was apprehended for questioning and 
was 'three times a Prisoner in the Kings Messengers 
Hands at a Noble a day,.l Chapman was put in Lambeth 
1. Smith, An Account, p. 8. 
House, from which he was transferred on 7 September 
by Privy Council order and 'secured in some lawfull 
and fitt prison,.l Jessey claimed that he had delayed 
publication to get the 'clearest evidence' for proof 
of these events and had discarded other stories for 
lack of corroborative sources. Within a day of 
publication, however, the vigorous attacks started. 
Readers of Mercurius Publicus were warned 'that the 
14 
most impudent, dull, and senceless pamphlet that even 
Lieden it self hath known, crept yesterday upon a stall, 
by help of Livewel Chapman ••• telling you Tragical stories 
of Frogs, Dogs, Toads, Men, some suddenly dead (yet 
alive) for reading Common-prayer at Oxford; which 
pitifull design under pretence of piety, spread about 
such pretty, bottomless, impossible fictions, as these 
very Saints (if they knew how) would blush at ) But half 
a line is too much by half (though but in a News-book) 
to spend on it,.2 In September Robert Clark responded 
with The Lying Wonders ••• With some observations on ••• 
the Lord's Loud Call to England, and John Gadbury included 
an appendix to Britain's Royal star in November about 
'that nest of sedition and phanatick forgeries published 
by Mr H. Jessey·.3 In Oxford, Anthony Wood investigated 
1. P.C. 2, 54 (154). 
2. Mercurius Publicus, 9- 16 August 1660. This passage 
was probably written by John Berkenhead. 
3. Wing C4488; Wing G77. 
----- . 
15 
the allegations and concluded that they were 'very false,.l 
Royalist vigilance in searching out seditious notes 
of nonconformity in pulpit and press was based on a 
2 deep-seated fear of carefully orchestrated plots. 
These fears were exacerbated by the ill-fated uprising 
of the Fifth Monarchist Thomas ' Venner and his fifty 
supporters on 6 January 1661, the same day the Anglicans 
strengthened their hold on the religious establishment 
with the consecration of the Bishops of Bristol, Norwich, 
Hereford, and Gloucester. 3 Venner and his followers 
were soon suppressed and swiftly tried and executed, 
but royalists felt justified in implementing stricter 
controls on Dissenting meetings. On 10 January the 
Pri~y Council issued a proclamation, first mooted on 
2 January, banning meetings of Anabaptists, Quakers, 
and Fifth Monarchists in large numbers at unusual hours. 4 
Tales of Mnnster were trotted out again and the report 
of Venner's trial and execution had large sales. 5 
Popular hysteria led to indiscriminate ransacking of 
houses of radical Dissenters, whether they had been 
1.A. Wood, "Fasti Oxonienses, ' pt . I (ed •. P.-Bli$s,18l5Y, p. 436. 
Wood admitted that the two Oxford men had died at the 
end of July but under different circumstances. Andrew 
Clark, ed., The Life and Times of Anthony Wood, I, 322-3. 
2. R.S. Bosher, The Making of the Restoration Settlement, 
p. 204; D. Ogg, England in the Reign of Charles 11, p. 208. 
3. Kennett, Register, p. 354. 
4. Sir William Foster, 'Venner's Rebellion', London 
Topographical Record, XVIII (1952), pp. 21-33. Bosher, 
p. 205; Kennett, Refister, pp. 352, 351; Steele, Tudor 
and Stuart Proclama ions, I, 3218. . 
5. The Old Anab.aptists Grand Plot Discovered, 1661 (Wing 
0191). 
associated with Venner or not. Francis Smith's 
experience indicates that there were also some brutal 
physical attacks: 
At the time of Venners Rising, though many 
of my Neighbours knew and testified, I had 
kept my Bed and Chamber six weeks, yet from 
a false suggestion by a Butcher Woman and 
an Hearb Woman, Ignorantly or rather 
Maliciously informed the Multitude of the 
Inconsiderable Rabble then in the Streets, 
as if I were in the said Venners Rising, and 
had Armes hid in my House; upon whieh I was 
ten times Searched by the Lawless Company, 
my Goods Torn and Stole, Chests, Trunkes and 
Closet Doors broke open, and a Carbine put 
three times to my Brest to Shoot me; at last 
they HaIled me for White-Hall, one tore my 
Head; others pushed me so much on my Body, 
that I was not able for some time to turn 
my self in my Bed. l 
16 
The intervention of the city- train-bands saved 
Smith from further bodily harm, but suspicion still 
persisted that Venner's rebellion represented a wide-
spread plot among Dissenters. To counteract this fear, 
the Baptists issued a series of apologies and petitions 
protesting their loyalty and denying any sympathy or 
support for 'the late wicked and most treasonable 
Insurrection and Rebellion acted in the City of London'. 
For the first time, Particular and General Baptists 
united in response to 'those black obloquies and 
reproaches cast upon those of our profession and 
1. Smith, An Account, p. 8. A proclamation prohibiting 
the seizure of any persons or search of houses without a 
warrant was issued by the King on 17 January; Steele, 
Tudor and Stuart Proclamations, I, 3281. 
practice in the point of Baptism' ,on account of the 
'tragical actings' by Bome who 'never had communion 
with us in our Assemblies'. Henry Hills, in a final 
stand with the Baptists, printed The Humble Apology 
Of some commonly called Anabaptists and Francis Smith 
sold it; thirty Baptists signed it, including Hills 
17 
as a member of William Kiffin's church and Smith with 
Hnery Denne's congregation. l Smith also published 
appeals for the release of Baptist prisoners and 
pamphlets urging prisoners to take the oath of allegiance 
to gain their release. 2 When the likeliho.od of real 
toleration faded, he joined Thomas Monck and five other 
Baptist leaders in offering Sions Groans for her 
Distressed to the King and Parliament as a plea for 
liberty of conscience. 3 
While publishing for the Baptists Francis Smith 
also aided in the distribution of political tracts 
critical of the government. His involvement in the 
radical book trade after the Restor ation served as 
an additional apprenticeship for his extensive activities 
during the Exclusion Crisis. At the Restoration, 
1. Wing H3404, pp. 5, 8, 14. 
2. Henry Denne, An Epistle Recommended to all the Prisons, 
1661 (Wing DI020); Jeremiah Ives, The Great Case of 
Conscience Opened, 1661 (Wing Il099). 
3. Wing S3870, 'Printed for the Authors, and are to 
bee sold in London, and at Westminster. 1661'. 
UNIVERSITY 
LIBRARY 
C MBRIDG!j 
- -
l 
Smith was a junior member of a small band of Dissenting 
booksellers who were responsible for the opposition 
pamphlets which most troubled the government. Roger 
L'Estrange called them the 'Confederates' and claimed 
that if the leaders were imprisoned the number of 
seditious publications would immediately decline. l 
At the core of the Confederates were Giles Calvert, 
Thomas Brewster, and Livewell Chapman -- all prominent 
Commonwealth stationers. Simon Dover and Thomas Creake 
were the printers most often employed by the ConfedeDates, 
and George Thresher did much of the stitching and 
binding. Giles GR~vert was the senior stationer of 
the group. His wife Elizabeth Calvert continued in 
opposition .after his several imprisonments and death 
in August 1663. Calvert's former apprentice Brewster 
took care of the details of publishing and distribution, 
and Chapman masterminded many of the books before his 
forced exile in 1661. 2 Thomas Creake had taken up his 
freedom in 1638 but had never developed a thriv,ing 
printing business. Though personally sympathetic ,to 
Dissenters, he was also attracted by the extra business 
provided by the Confederates. Thresher was a contemporary 
1. L 'Estrange , Considerations and Proposals, 1663, p. 6; 
'The most Dangerous People of all are the Confederate 
Stationers, and the breaking of That Knot would do the 
work alone'. 
2. Calvert's business was located in the west end of 
St. Paul's, Brewster's at the Three Bibles in St. Paul's 
Churchyard, and Chapman in Pope's Head Alley. 
1 
of Brewster and Chapman, having taken up his freedom 
in 1647.1 While the Confederates, including Smith, 
19 
used evasive replies and straight-faced denials when 
examined by authorities, Creake and Thresher preferred 
their liberty to prison and truthfully answered questions 
put to them by Secretary of State Sir Edward Nicholas 
and Roger L'Estrange, but th~y did not volunteer 
harmful evid~nce about their employers. The devotion 
of Calvert, Brewster, Chapman, Smith, and Dover to 
their cause was such that they endured long imprison-
ments, physical suffering, and large fines without 
sacrificing their loyalty to each other. 
The Confederates published the Speeches and Prayers 
of the regicides at their execution and The Phenix, Or 
The Solemn League and Covenant, an' _ingenious libel 
intendad to embarrass those, including King Charles 11, 
who had taken the oath of the Covenant. 2 These 
publications were direct challenges to a government 
still trying to consolidate its support after the 
passion and divisions of the Interregnum. At the end 
of June 1661, Roger L'Estrange discovered another libel, 
1. D.P. McKenzie, State Co. Apprentices, 1605-1640, 
pp. 23, 129. 
20 
'Several Prodigies & Apparitions', in the process of 
being printed by Thomas Creake. He learned from Creake 
that Brewster had supplied the copy. Brewster immediately 
fled London and remained away until the crisis passed, 
and Chapman escaped overseas; but Ca~vert was taken 
and questioned and committed close prisoner to the 
Gatehouse. l In defiance of the authorities, Francis 
Smith proceeded in August with publication of the 
tract, having received 'great encouragement for its 
Publication' from a 'Person of Quality'. 'The very 
day it was published', Smith later recalled, 'one of 
his Majesties Messengers came to my shop, with a 
2 Warrant both to seize the Book and my Person'. Smith 
was examined before Secretary Nicholas and committed 
close prisoner to the Gatehouse on a warrant dated 
15 August 1661. 3 Elizabeth Calvert was probably 
responsible for another more successful attempt in 
September to publish the 'Prodigies & Apparitions'. 
She was committed close prisoner to the Gatehouse on 
4 October by warrant from Nicholas. 4 The title of this 
seditious tract was ENIAUTOS TERASTIOS Mirabilis Annus, 
or The year of Prodigies and Wonders. The head-title 
1. L'Estrange, Truth and Loyalty Vindicated, p. 56; 
S.P. 29, 38 (56-7). 
2. Smith, An Account, p. 9. The preface was dated 25 
July 1661 -- more than three weeks after L'Estrange's 
discovery. 
3. Smith, An Account, p. 9; S.P. 29, 43 (23), 'for having 
a hand in the compiling and printing of Seditious and 
Dangerous Books'. 
4. C. S .P.D. 1661-2, p. 106. 
21 
was identical to that on the sheets impounded by L'Estrange 
in June: 'Several Prodigies and Apparitions seen in 
the Heavens from August the 1. 1660~ to the latter end 
of May, 1661'. Two editions of Mirabilis Annus 
survive, both covered by Wing E3127. By far the more 
common edition begins with a frontispiece of twelve 
woodblock illustrations of the prodigies and contains 
fifty leaves and eighty-eight pages of text. Since 
Mrs Calvert had more time in which to distribute her 
copies, she was probably responsible for this edition. l 
The other edition lacks the frontispiece; there are 
also variations in spacing on the title page and a 
different collation. There are iliirty-six leaves and 
. 2 
the last page of text is numbered 64. The 'Calvert' 
edition was printed entirely at one press, but the 
'Smi th k edition was divided between three different 
presses. 3 
Mirabilis Annus, or The year of Prodigies con-
tinued the account of divine portents begun by Renry 
Jessey's The Lords Loud Call, published by Chapman and 
Smith a year earlier, also in the middle of August. 
The year of signs and portents, therefore, stretched 
from May 1660 to May 1661, or the first full year after 
1. The collation is ".2A_M4. Huth copy in the Huntington 
Library. 
2. A-D4F-H4 2H-I4. Hoe copy in the Huntington Library. 
3. The divisions are A-D4; F_H4; 2H-I4. 
22 
Charles II's Restoration. The political and religious 
significance of the prodigies was emphasized in the 
preface and in the text by a series of parallels which 
explained God's judgement on England during the first 
year of restored monarchy. Following the preface are 
descriptions of 114 prodigies between August 1660 and 
May 1661 for which 'cr~dible' reports had been received; 
fifty-four signs in the heavens, twenty-three on earth, 
and ten in the waters, with twenty-seven strange 
accidents. Interspersed among the accounts are 
parallels to earlier prodigies. A meteor had been 
seen from Woodstreet in London on 12 October 1660 and 
the parallel was to a meteor in 1550 which appeared 
'when the persecution began to wax hot in Scotland 
against the Professors of the Truth,.l There are stories 
of doub~e stars, strange floating bodies, clouds dropping 
fire on Whitehall, and hogs wandering into Canterbury 
Cathedral and disturbing the Prebends in their devotions. 
Sprinkled among the truly miraculous reports are accounts 
of the merely unusual, such as flowers in bloom at odd 
times. Among the strange accidents is the tale of the 
fate of a Yarmouth Clerk of the Peace who tried to 
prevent distribution of the Speeches and Prayers in 
January 1660: he dropped dead after completing a letter 
1. Calvert edition, p. 5 (Heavens IX). 
1 of information to a J.P. The intent of Mirabilis 
Annus was clear. As the unjust government falsely 
persecuted Dissenters, God sent signs to his people 
to encourage them in their faith while they waited 
for the return of righteous leaders and liberty of 
conscience. What to us seems rank superstition was 
an effort to interpret reported prodigies, which in 
general most jEnglishmen still accepted. Such portents 
were readily believed by the populace, and their 
political and religious interpretations were rendered 
23 
more effective by the multiplicity of accounts. Books 
about omens and prodigies were winely distributed and 
read. Bishop Parker recalled that they 'were consulted 
and perused with no less diligence than the Scriptures 
themselves,.2 
'Mirab~lis Annus alarmed the government. The 
wording of the secr.e tarial warrants for the arrest of 
Smith on 15 August and Mrs Calvert on 4 October clearly 
illustrated the official attitude. Sir Edward Broughton, 
Keeper of the Gatehouse prison, was instructed to 
receive Smith as a close prisoner because 'traiterously 
and seditiously he compiled, printe~ and published a 
treasonable and seditious book intituled several 
prodigies ••• and thereby did trayterously and seditiously 
1. Calvert edition, p. 72 (Strange accident XII). 
2. Parker, History of His Own Time, 1727, p. 25; K. Thomas 
Religion and the Decline of MagiC, 1971, pp. 111-2. 
instill into the hearts of his Majesties good Subjects, 
a superstitious belief [ in false and feigned prodigies] , 
and a dislike and hatred of his Majesties Person and 
government, and prepared them to effect a damnable 
design for the destruction of his Sacred Majestie, and 
to introduce a change of the Government established,.l 
Elizabeth Calvert was also charged with treason. Neither 
she nor Smith was informed of the exact cause of his or her 
commitment. 2 They were not charged with violating any 
sta~utebutwere arrested on the basis of the Secvetary 
of State's powers of detention. 
It is important to examine the investigation 
carefully as an indication of government practice in 
libel cases. Smith was detained in prison while the 
inquiry continued. On 20 September 1661 his petition 
for redress was read before the Privy Council, which 
referred the matter to Nicholas and ordered him 'to 
doe therein as hee shall finde most proper for the 
discovery of the Author of that seditious Booke, & the 
reliefe of the petitioner if hee finde cause,.3 Smith 
1. Smith, An Account, p. 10. This is the text of the 
affidavit presented by Broughton to the King's Bench 
after a successful habeas corpus by Smith. 
2. Mrs Calvert's warrant contained very similar wording; 
C.S.P.D. 1661-2, p. 106. Soon after her imprisonment, 
she petitioned Nicholas to be told the cause of her 
commitment and to be brought to examination, S.P. 29, 
43 (21); printed in N. Penney, Extracts from State Papers, 
1913, p. 134. She was released from prison on 21 Decem-
ber; C.S.P.D. 1661-2, p. 186. 
3. C.S.P.D. 1661-2, p. 87; P.C. 2, 55 (379). 
was not released; instead, Nicholas intensified his 
investigation. His methoa was to trace the line of 
distribution backwards from the purchaser to the 
bookseller. He learned that one Hugh Chamberlain had 
received a copy from a Mrs Hester and that he had 
delivered it to William Howard, Lord Escrick's son. 
25 
His next step was to discover if there was a link 
between Mrs Hester and Francis Smith.l In Leicestershire 
his agents questioned Francis Ward and Stephen Lincoln, 
booksellers, about Mirabilis Annus; Ward had been 
offered s ome at 16d. each by Nathan Brookes (the London 
bookseller later convicted for distributing the Speeches 
and Prayers) and Lincoln had bought three from Brookes 
which he in turn sold for 18d., but the copies he 
received were not covered in blue paper as had been the 
sample ~shown him. 2 
These bits of information presumably were not of 
crucial importance, but undoubtedly Brookes was 
questioned. The inquiries in Leicester occurred in 
early October; by then Nicholas had received intelligence 
about Elizabeth Calvert and had ordered her arrest. 
In the 17-24 October issue of Mercurius Politicus 
Henry Muddiman vigorously attacked the lies, hypocrisy, 
and gall of the compilers of Mirabilis Annus. Presumably 
1. C.S.P.D. 1661-2, p. 87. 
2. C.S.P.D. 1661-2, p. 104; S. p . 29, 43 (8-9J'. 
26 
prompted by the government, he reported that magistrates 
in the various areas mentioned in the prodigies had 
discovered that there was 'not the least colour or 
pretence for any of those abominable Untruthes' and 
promised that before long the forgers would be known, 
'the Publishers and Disposers being now detected, and 
some of them already in custody'. Later in October, 
Nicholas received information about George Cockayn, an 
Independent minister, implicating him as the author of 
Mirabilis Annus. Nicholas examined Cockayn but accepted 
his denial. l 
Secretary Nicholas was keen to find the author or 
compiler of Mirabilis Annus to emphasize government 
impatience with seditious libellers. Suspicion was 
directed at last to Henry Jessey, who as author of The 
Lords Loud Call was a logical ohoice for examination. 
Jessey was a Cambridge graduate who had been pastor of 
the important separat~st congregation in Southwark in 
1637 and had adopted Baptist opinions in 1645. He was 
highly respected for his learning and leadership among 
the Dissenters. An estimated 4000 or 5000 people 
attended his funeral. 2 Jessey was apprehended on 27 
November and in his examination on 8 December he admitted 
1. C.S.P.D. 1661-2, p. 128. On Cockayn, see A.G. 
Matthews, Calamy Revised. 
2. Matthews, Ca~amy Revised. 
27 
collecting notes of remarkable events for his private 
use. From his testimony, it became clear that prodigies 
were a subject of intense interest among Dissenters. 
George Cockayn was one with whom he often traded reports, 
and he recalled a discussion with Colonel Danvers and 
Francis Smith during the previous year when the mean~ng 
of 'strange Accidents' had been explored. But he did 
not recall any of his friends mentioning an intention 
to print or compile the prodigies; nor would he tell 
who had first brought him a copy of Mirabilis Annus . l 
Jessey was detained at the Lamb Inn near St. Clement 
Dane's and in a letter he urged William Howard (later 
third Lord Howard of Escrick) to work for his release 
'until a day be set to hear him and his Accusers face 
- 2 
to face'. Apparently Jessey was soon released and no 
charges~ were brought against him, though suspicion 
lingered that he had been responsible for Mirabilis 
Annus. 3 
Smith experienced a rigourous imprisonment while 
the government tried to gather facts for a case against 
him. For twelve weeks he was kept close prisoner in 
a sparsely furnished room lacking either a chair or 
stool. His wife was not permitted to visit· -him and 
1. S.P. 29, 45 (28). 
2. S .~. 29, 45 (33). 
3. Wood, F asti Oxoniens.esol p. 436; 'When these [Mirabilis Annus and the two sequelsj came out, which were advanced 
by several hands, it was verily supposed that Henry 
Jessie had a principal share in them'. 
his food was bleakly unsatisfactory and irregularly 
delivered. l After three nights the gaoler demanded 
seven pounds fifteen shillings for fees: 10s. for 
28 
the first week's lodging, 5s. for sheets, 5s. for food, 
~5 for release from wearing iron~, and the rest as 
gaoler fees. Whispered conversations through ceiling 
cracks with other close prisoners confirmed Smith in 
his resolution hot to pay unjust fees. 2 At all times 
during his imprisonment, Smith ste adfastly denied any 
participation in the publication of Mirabilis Annus 
and defiantly challenged illegal or cruel measures 
against him. To Secretary Nicholas he complained about 
his 'hard & chargeable Imprisonment', saying that he 
humbly conceived that prisons were 'appoynted by the 
law for safety; and not for Cruelties,.3 When the 
gaoler, again tried to extract fees for not wearing irons, 
Smith replied that he 'would not pay five groats to 
be excused, if he could by Law impose Irons on me, I 
would wear them,.4 In retaliation, his windows were 
nailed up in the presence of the Keeper so that, as he 
1. ' ••• frequent fasts ( were ) imposed on me, and what 
was sent for my Dinner at 12 of the Clock, must be 
given me 4 or 5 hours after, which I usually breakfasted 
with, and should be sure to want beare or bread, so I 
was forced to devise a way by a bag and a string to be 
let down in the night at a Window to convey some 
necessary food to me'; Smith, An Account, p. 9. 
2. Smith, S~ptomes of Growth and Decay in Godliness, 
1672, Epist~ Dedicatory, A4. 
3. S.f. 29, 49 (14) . 
4. Smith, An Account, p. 9. 
noted, he 'should not have the benefit of that Common 
Aire which is every Slaves Birth-right,.l During his 
imprisonment Smith explored all possible leg~l avenues 
for release. His petition to the Privy Council on 
29 
20 September had led only to authorization for Nicholas 
to expand his investigation, but his wife continually 
sought his relief thr.ough 'Constant attendance ••• first 
upon your Honour (Nieholas) ; then the King & Councell, 
with her humble petitions'. Her reward was Council 
permission to visit her husband in the presence of the 
Keeper, having first obtained an order from Nicholas. 2 
An intercepted letter from Eleanor Smith to her 
husband warned Nicholas. that the Smiths considered 
Lord Anglesey their sympathizer on the Privy Council. 
Anglesey was a Presbyterian who flirted with Anglicanism 
to keep his place at Court b~t maintained a lenient 
attitude toward nonconformists. 3 Anglesey's chaplain 
was Edward Bags~aw, the Presbyterian pamphleteer who 
outdid even L'Estrange in vituperativeness; L'Estrange 
was furious when he learned that Bagshaw kept stocks 
of his books in Anglesey's house. 4 Apparently Eleanor 
. v 1. Smith, Symptomes, 1672, f. A4 • 
2. S.P. 29, 49 (14); P.C. 2, 55 (422), 30 October 1661. 
3. On Anglesey's nonconformist inclinations, see D.R. 
Lace~, Dissent and Parliamentary Politics, 1969, pp. 
459- 62. When William Drake erred in the autumn of 1660 
by writing The Long Pa~liament Revived, Anglesey took a 
moderate stance in the Commons debate about an impeachment 
against Drake. W. Cobbett, Parliamentary History, IV, 147. 
4. L'Estrange, A Memento, 1662, p. 228. 
Smith's mother was in service to Lady Anglesey and 
could pass a personal note to Lord Anglesey. But at 
the time of writing (10 October) Anglesey was out o~ 
town and would miss the meeting of the Privy Council; 
'therfore it is in vaine toe trow the Counsel this 
morninge it be toe spoyle our busines when we have noe 
freind ther toe mend; it,.l This letter, or a la.ter 
one passed through the keyhole to Smith by an open 
prisoner, led to twenty days confinement in a trap 
room usually reserved for those condemned to death. 
30 
On 19 December, soon after the Jessey interviews, Smith 
was examined by Nicholas at Whitehall. Preferring 
blanket denials or silence, he refused to give any 
information. He denied that he had prior knowledge 
of publication of Mirabilis Annus or that he had aided 
compilation of prodigies or contributed the sum of 
~20 toward the printing costs. Smith even denied that 
copies had been in his house and under his cloak when 
the messengers first served him with the warrant to 
appear before Nicholas. He remained silent when asked 
if he had heard if a book containing prodigies would 
be printed and whether he had given copies to various 
2 persons. 
1. S.P. 29, 43 (42). 
2. S.P. 29, 45 (74), questions put to Smith; S.P. 29, 
45 (75), summary of the examination. The latter is 
printed by J.G. Muddiman, The King's Journalist, 1923, 
p. 160. 
Smith's wife and friends increas ed their efforts 
to gain his release, spending ~50 in fruitless legal 
approaches. On his third writ of habeas corpus, Smith 
31 
succeeded in bringing his case before the King's Bench. 
The day before the hearing, Smith's wife sought the 
legal advice of Sir Thomas Foster, son of Lord Chief 
Justice Foster, who agreed to represent Smith. Foster 
continued as his lawyer at no charge until his release · 
from the Gatehouse in the Spring of 1662, after more 
than six months in prison. l At the hearing, Smith 
learned for the first time that he had been charged 
with treasonous and seditious activities. Smith 
urged that he be brought to trial or be bailed and 
2 complained about his treatment in prison. Another 
hearing was set for the next term, and Lord Chief 
Justice, Foster sent Smith back to Newgate with a warning 
to the Keeper to improve the conditions under which he 
was detained. Somewhat spitefully the Keeper put him 
in the dungeon for three weeks for failing to pay his 
chamber rent when first demanded. On 2 January 1662 
Smith again petitioned Nicholas for his release. He 
claimed that he had been forced to sell the lease of 
his house and acknowledge judgement on his goods 
1. Smith, Symptomes, 1672, f. A5 v • 
2. Smith, An Account, pp. 9-10. Eleanor Smith petitioned 
the Attorney General and Solicitor General for her 
husband's release on bail. S.P. 29, 49 (14). 
because of his imprisonment for a book he had 'never 
so much as read'. Re concluded bold~y by demanding 
that 'some Reparations bee made for the losse I have 
sustained', which he believed Nicholas had once hinted 
might be forthcoming from the King. l What Nicholas 
32 
had in mind was a discreet bribe to get Smith to reveal 
what he really knew. In early Marchi Lord Chancellor 
Clarendon asked Nicholas to provide a pass for William 
Roward to have liberty to speak with Smith in the 
Gatehouse, and added, 'I hope wee shall make him confesse 
wha~ he knows which is enough'. Howard, who acted as 
an intermediary in the investigation, was probably the 
'Gentleman of quality' whom Smith later said was present 
at Whitehall when he was 'offered 100 pounds and 
present discharge, but to declare my knowledge ••• of 
the Authors or Printers' of Mirabilis Annus. 2 Smith 
again refused, 'rather than occasion hurt to any', and 
was sentl'"back to prison. Eventually he was bailed by 
the good services of Sir Thomas Foster after more writs 
of habeas corpus. 
Stationers soon learned the intricacies of the 
English legal and penal system. Expensive writs of 
habeas corpus became an important defence against 
1. S.P. 29, 49 (14). 
2. S.P. 29, 52 (147). Smith, An Account, p. 10. 
indefinite detention when the government took its 
time in gathering evidence • Wives 'and friends served 
as agents in delivering petitions, contacting lawyers, 
and demanding that specific charges be brought against 
stationers. Many stationers were placed in the 
custody of King's Messengers or committed to prison, 
b~t few had charges filed against them or informations 
prosecuted. Because the government had considerable 
difficulty in defining responsibility for seditious 
publications, a conspiracy of silence and evasion 
33 
was most effective in' preventing successful litigation. 
Not until 1680 did Smith admit to having a part in 
Mirabilis Annus and even then he did not implicate 
anyone else. 
Devastating as his imprisonment for Mirabilis 
Annus was to his trade, Smith succeeded in rebuilding 
his business during the first decade of Charles II's 
reign. His fellow Confederates were less fortunate. 
Giles Calvert died in 1663; John Twyn was executed in 
February l664 for printing A Treatise of the Execution 
of Justice; Calvert's son Nathaniel died in April 1664, 
followed by Thomas Brewster and Simon Dover in Newgate 
prison, where they had been sentenced for their role 
in printing and publishing the Speeches and Prayers 
of the regicides; and Livewell Chapman was reduced to 
selling patent medicines to end his career. l Smith 
lost his shop and trade for two years for his involve-
ment in the publication of Mirabilis Annus in 1661 
and his refusal to cooperate with the authorities. By 
the spring of 1665 he was reduced, like Chapman, to 
selling balms for the cure of the gout and advertising 
in Roger L'Estrange's newspaper a book called The Poor 
mans Physicwan, or the true Art of Medicine, by Thomas 
O'Dowde. 2 When the Plague settled in London in 1665, 
Smith gathered together what funds and possessions he 
could and retreated with his family to a small v~llage 
near Dorking in Surrey, but not before the cries of 
'Bring out your dead, Bring out your dead' were burned 
into his memory 'Whose hearts were not affected 
34 
then',~e recalled later, 'whose looks were not dejected, 
whose tongues were not imployed when we ( i.e., Baptists] 
met together, to be talking as in Joels time,.3 His 
reputation followed him to Surrey. He was arrested 
as a disaffected person, 'because I was an Anabaptist, 
as they are called, or Phanatique, I must therefore 
be looked upon, as disaffected to the Government'. 
He was questioned by the 'lieutenancy' and committed 
1. Smith, An Account, p. 19 (of the second pagination). 
The widows Brewster, Calvert, and Dover remained active 
through the next decade. Joan Dover married John Darby. 
2. The Intelligencer #23, 27 March 1665 and repeated 
in #35, 8 May 1665; Wing )139A. The advertisement for 
the balm appeared in The Newes #26, 6 April and #32, 
27 April 1665. 
? 
3. Smith, Symptomes, 1672, p. 77. 
to Windsor Castle, but he obtained temporary release 
on parole to contact Sir Thomas Foster, who had helped 
him during his impriso~~nt for Mirabi1is Annus. In 
his epistle dedicatory to Foster in the 1672 edition 
of his Symptomes of Growth and Decay in Godliness, Smith 
gives a dramatic account of ·~"'hd: s ride to Foster's 
estate, Foster's immediate decision to help, and their 
hurried return to Windsor before the expiration of 
Smith's liberty at 9:00 the next morning. Lord Mordaunt, 
constable of Windsor, examined Smith in Foster's 
presence and released him upon Foster's offer of 
himself 'body for body' for his good behaviour. 
With the decline of the Plague, Smith returned 
to London with his family, where he tried to rebuild 
his trade by selling his old stack of Baptist works. 
LtEstrange, who had successfully ended the careers of 
several radical stationers of the Restoration, kept a 
close eye on Smith. In 1666, he sent two assistants, 
the stationer Peter LilJicrop and one other, to search 
Smith's shop and Warehouse near Temple Bar for unlicensed 
books by Wi11iam Allen and John Bunyan, and other items. l 
Smith seems not to have suffeIted as catastrophic losses 
as other stationers from the fire of London in 
September 1666. He does not speak of losing his shop) 
1. Smith, An Account, p. 11. Lillicrop had spent several 
weeks in custody in the summer of 1663 for printing 
part of the farewell sermons of the ejected ministers. 
Apparently he had decided to aid L'Estrange; C.S.P.D. 
1663-4, pp. 213, 267. 
and in later years he occasionally advertised Baptist 
tracts published before 1666. 1 Nonetheless his trade 
was at a very low point; he had scarcely any capital 
left after his entanglements with the government, and 
the market for his two publishing interests, Baptist 
controversial works and opposition political tracts, 
was not good. He managed to recover some of his 
confiscated books from L'Estrange, but he still 
estimated his losses at ~50, or several hundred books. 
At the end of 1666 his business prospects were 
exceedingly dim. 
Through the combination of hard work, depositions 
blaming the fire of London on the Papists, and the 
works of John Bunyan, Francis Smith again put his 
trade on firm and, by 1672, profitable footing. Like 
many no.nconformists, Smith was driven to 'redeem time' 
for work and prayer by avoiding casual visits and 
'unprofitable' conversation. 'Do not over indulge or 
pamper the body', Smith advised his readers, and pre-
sumably he followed this nearly ascetic lifestyle 
himself; 'spare exceedings at meals; to add a Meal to 
them that have none ••• , abate something daily, to 
relieve some poor family daily,.2 Another aspect of 
36 
1. See, for example, 'The Booksellers Advertisemant to 
the Reader', FOrrery Detected, and Innocency Vindicated, 
1673 (Wing ·F1558 , p. 15. 
2. Smith, Symptomes, 1672, pp. 245-7. 
his religious temperament which he shared with others 
was a visceral suspicion of Roman Catholics. He 
37 
capitalized on popular distrust by publishing narratives 
demonstrating the culpability of the Papists for the 
fire of London. Some of these tracts were seized by 
L'Estrange, but they had large sales for many years 
under various titles. l The core of his trade, however, 
lay in the writings of John Bunyan. At least nine and 
probably as many as a dozen of Bunyan's works were 
first published by Smith (no copies are extant of some). 
These include nearly all his books during his two 
imprisonments, Profitable Meditations, (1661?); Christian 
Behaviour, (1663?); The Resurrection of the Dead, (1665?); 
A Confession of my Faith, 1672; and others. 2 George 
Larkin printed Bunyan's Grace Abounding to the chief 
of Sinners in 1666, but Smith issued the third and 
revised edition in 1679. After 167? Bunyan turned to 
other stationers, including Jonathan Robinson with whom 
Smith was friendly,3 though Smith published Light for 
them that sit in Darkness and Instruction for the 
Ignorant in 1675 and The Strait Gate in 1676. Bunyah 's 
1. London Flames discovered, 1667 (Wing L2928); Tra~ 
ad Crucem t or, the Papists Watch-word, 1670 (Wing .T 029). 
LtEstrange ascribed both of them to Smith, though neither 
has his imprint; The Observator, I, 359, 18 June and 
I, 369, 4 July 1683. Smith, An Account, p. 18 (of the 
second pagination). 
2. F.M. Harrison, A Bibliography of the Works of John 
Bunyan, 1932. Harmsworth Trust Library, 'Catalogue .~·.of 
the ••• Works of John Bunyan' , Sotheby's, 27 January 1947. 
3. They published jointly Thomas Plant's A Contest for 
Christianity, 1674 (Wing P2377). On Robinson, see D.H. 
Shepard, 'Some Bookseller-Publishers, 1659-1800', Notes & 
Queries, CCXIV (1969), pp. 172-81. 
38 
Pilgrim's Progress, as is well known, went to Nathaniel 
Ponder, who made his fortune from it, earning the 
nickname 'Bunyan Ponder'. Smith earned enough from 
his :tirade in Bunyan and other Baptist works to fine 
for the livery of the Stationers' Company on 30 June 
1668. The following year he purchased a half-yeomanry 
share (~40) in the English Stock of the Stationers' 
1 Company. 
Encouraged by the success of his trade in Baptist 
tracts and the usual grammars and arithmetics, Smith 
reprinted in 1672 his own Symptomes of Growth and Decay 
in Godliness. Smith's Symptomes is a good example of 
his publishing methods and provides insights into his 
own ~aptist practices. He had begun work on his book 
early in his career. By 1658 he completed a list of 
thirty signs of 'decay' (or falling away) in Christian 
life, which he printed on a spare page of W.S.'s Meanes 
t P t P 'h' 2 o reven er1s1ng. He added thirty signs of growing 
in faith and described the signs of decay for the first 
publication of Symptomes of Growth & Decay to Godlinesse: 
in LX. Signs of a Living and Dying Christian, entered 
at Stationers' Hall on 24 February 1660. Timing its 
appearance for the General Assembly of General Baptists 
1. State Co. Court Records, Liber D, entry for 30 June 
1668; Smith received his first dividend (~4.10.0, in 
succeeding years ~5) on 24 December 1669; Dividend books, 
1644-1672 and 1673-1689. 
2. Wing S198, f. 14r - v • 
in London in May 1660, Smith included an epis tle b~ 
Henry Jessey, Henry Denne, and John Gosnold and added 
the names of four other important Baptists as an 
·imprimatur,.l Smith waited until 1672 to bring out 
the second edition, with ten additional signs each 
for living and dying. He dedicated it to Sir Thomas 
Foster, fulfilling a promise he first made to himself 
on the ride to Windsor in 1665. 2 He again entered 
Symptomes at Stationers' Hall and put advertisements 
in the Term Catalogue for Trinity term 1672 (price 
bound 2s. ) and in several books which he published 
at that time. 3 He also distributed a broadside with 
an engraving, giving the title, listing the eighty 
signs, and providing his address 'where those that 
ple ase may have these Signs ••• in Octavo, price bound 
Is. 6d.,' Presumably this was tacked on booksellers' 
doors and posted in public places, and dispersed 
throughout London. 4 One 1673 issue involved the 
alteration of only one piece of type to change the 
date from 1672, but another issue required a new 
title page, the removal of the 1660 'imprimatur', and 
39 
1. Wing S4030; Wi.lliam Jeffery, Benjamin morley, Thomas 
Monck, and Joseph Wright signed the impr imatur; S.R. 
II, 251. 
"." 
2: Smith, Symptomes, 1672, f. A8. 
3. S.R. 11, 444, 19 June 1672; Arber, Term Catalogues, 
I, 113. The epistle and postscr i pt are dated 15 June 1672. 
4. Wing S6361. On distribution of nonconformist books, 
see Enoch Prosser's letter printed by L'Estrange, The 
Observator, II, 198, 10 January 1684/ 5. ---
40 
the addition of the engraving from the 1672 broadside 
as a frontispiece. The engraving illustrated in the 
top frame the living Christian reaching for the crown 
of heaven and in the lower frame the dying Christian 
reaching glumly for worldly goods. The collation of 
the text remained the same. Smith again altered the 
date for a 1674 issue. l 
His descriptions of the signs of Christians 
falling from faith are presented in outline form 
with many biblical and contemporary references. Some 
pOints are expanded more than others, but the intention 
of the whole is to commend the responsibility of 
prayer, meditation, study of the Bible, keeping a 
diary, and regular worship. Smith had a tendency 
toward asceticism and believed that self-denial was 
the essential lesson of Christian life. Yet he was 
also capable of everyday proverbs ('A Man without heart 
is like a Cupboard without meat. It is no satisfaction 
to hunger to see an empty table') and of the sublime 
('while we esteem others better than ourselves, there 
will be Love, and where Love is, there will be 
forbearance, ••• there will be peace,).2 Symptomes 
1. Wing S4032. The variant issues for 1673 and 1674, 
with just the change of date, are in the Angus Collection, 
Regent's Park College, Oxford. The book remained in 
Smith's stock at least through 1678, when it was 
advertised in T. Grantham, Chri stianismus Primitivus. 
2. Smith, Symptomes~ 1672, pp. 19, 191, 307, ~ passim. 
I. 
41 
was probably a book of Smith's sermons; certainly he 
would have used this material in preaching to Baptist 
congregations. He wrote in his postscript that he had 
been preaching for twenty years, or from the last 
year of his apprenticeship. He was reported in May 
1670 to be preaching to a congregation of four or five 
hundred persons in Goswell Street, and in 1672 he ~0 
received a licence to preach to two groups, one 
meeting in an old malt house in Croyden, Surrey and 
the other gathered in Cornhill, London. l Smith 
defined a true minister as 'one that hath ordinary 
approbation and seal from Heaven to his Ministry, in 
the bringing through grace sinners to conversion'. 
He believed in free will (most Dissenters were Calvin-
ists and predestinarians) and considered his sermons 
very important in helping to bring people to God. 2 
After the Restoration it was not easy for Dissenters 
to meet,and their leaders were especially vulnerable 
under the 'Clarendon code' of religious legislation. 
Smith was often harried during 1671 under the 
Conventicle Act and was taken several times at 'Religious 
2. Smith, Symptomes, 1672, p. 27. 
41 
was probably a book of Smith's sermons; certainly he 
would have used this material in preaching to Baptist 
congregations. He wrote in his postscript that he had 
been preaching for twenty years, or from the last 
year of his apprenticeship. He was reported in May 
1670 to be preaching to a congregation of four or five 
hundred persons in Goswell Street, and in 1672 he ~~ 
received a licence to preach to two groups, one 
meeting in an old malt house in Croyden, Surrey and 
the other gathered in Cornhill, London. l Smith 
defined a true minister as 'one that hath ordinary 
approbation and seal from Heaven to his Ministry, in 
the bringing through grace sinners to conversion'. 
He believed in free will (most Dissenters were Calvin-
ists and predestinarians ) and considered his sermons 
very important in helping to bring people to God. 2 
After the Restoration it was not easy for Dissenters 
to meet, .and their leaders were especially vulnerable 
under the 'Clarendon code' of religious legislation. 
Smith was often harried during 1671 under the 
Conventicle Act and was taken several times at 'Religious 
2. Smith, Symptomes, p. 27. 
Protestant meetings'. He relinquished his trade for 
six months to avoid warrants totalling ~140 issued 
against him. To prevent seizure of his goods to 
meet the outstanding warrants, he was also forced 'by 
Night to remove my Goods from place to place nine 
several times'. His midnight moves did not stop his 
pursuer, Justice Sabbs, from stripping all the seats 
from his meeting house. l 
The Declaration of Indulgence helped to cheer 
Dissenters, and a host of Baptist works appeared in 
1672 and 1673 with Smith's imprint, including Henry 
Danvers' historical and controversial Treatise ~f 
Baptism. 2 Thomas Parkhurst, John Starkey, and Dorman 
Newman, the leading Presbyterian and Independent 
booksellers, joined Smith to issue Robert Wilde's 
witty l ,etter and clever poem heralding Charles II' s 
declaration, A Letter from Dr. Robert Wild to his 
Friend Mr J.J. 3 In 1674 Smith concentrated again on 
anti-quaker tracts. He changed s~ops in the summer 
42 
of 1673 and for a few months used both the Elephant and 
Castle near the Royal Exchange in Cornhill (his new 
shop) and 'the same sign the first shop without 
1. Smith, An Account, pp. 11-2. 
2. Wing D233 and successive editions. Smith's Baptist 
imprints went from two or three in 1671 to a dozen or 
more annually, 1672- 6. 
3. Wing W2140. 
I· 
Temple-Bar' in his imprint. His Baptist publishing 
was climaxed in 1678 by the appearance of Thomas 
Grantham's Christianismus Primitivus. This magnum 
43 
opus, at 12s. perhaps Smith's most expensive publication, 
was entered at Stationers' Hall on 11 October 1677 
and advertised in the Term Catalogues for Easter term 
1678. 1 In over 500 folio pages Smith reprinted numerous 
General Baptist pieces and included most of Grantham's 
contributions to General Baptist theology. Smith's 
shop served as the center for Baptist works and for 
discussion of controversial matters. When he published 
anti-quaker tracts, Smith procured copies of the 
'erring' Quaker books to prove the validity of citations 
to questioning customers; he also received some 
unsolicited manuscripts for publication. 2 The Quakers 
knew Smith well, and in responding to Robert Rich's 
Hidden Things brought to Light, the Quaker author 
termed it 'a fit work for Francis Smith to get Money 
by,.3 Smith had a different view of his trade, of 
course. At the end of his life with his trade lost, 
he applied for aid from the White's Alley Church 
1. Wing G1528; ~ Ill, 46; Arber, Term Catalogues, I, 
308. . 
2. ( Thomas Thompson) , The ~Uakers Quibbles, 1674 (Wing 
TI012), f. C4; The Second art of the Quakers Quibbles, 
1675 (Wing TI014), f. H3v• 
3. Somethin in Answer to a Book Printed in 1678. Called 
The Hidden Thinis brought to Light, 1 79 Wing S4 5 • 
Rich's book is ing R1358. 
explaining that 'he did severall years past at the 
Request of divers Brethren of the Babtized sic] 
perswation as well particulars as generalIs print 
severall papers which were Judged to be for the 
Interest of the Babtized Churches in Generall, and 
did give away severall of them for which as he sayes 
he was never yet fully satisfied,.l 
* * * 
While Smith redeveloped his bookselling and 
44 
publishing trade in Baptist literature, he also engaged 
~ 
in surreptitious planning and distribution of opposition 
political tracts. His imprisonment for publishing 
Mirabilis Annus had taught him to take greater care 
in his activities, but it had not altered his political 
opinions or his determination to challenge the govern-
ment. Most opposition publications before the outbreak 
of the Popish Plot appeared without imprint and were 
1. White's Alley Church Book, I, 38, 11 March 1689; 
Guildhall Library, London. The church decided it was 
not their responsibility to reimburse him, but they 
gave him lOse in consideration of his great necessity. 
45 
dispersed by stealth. Therefore it is difficult to 
assign responsibility to Smith ( or any other stationer) 
for individual tracts against government policies. 
Authorities discovered offenders in only a few cases, 
though the House of Lords Libel Committee received 
detailed testimony from stationers in 1677. From that 
information and from clues given by Smith in his 
Account of the Injurious Proceedings in 1680, it is 
apparent that Smith played an active, if discreet 
role in the distribution of opposition literature. He 
was under continual suspicion and was often examined 
by Secretary of State Arlington and questioned before 
the Privy Council. In July 1667 he was interrogated 
concerning his intention to publish Marvell's verses, 
'The Second and Third Advice to a Painter'. Smith had 
gone to the house of William Burden to ask if he would 
permit his lodger Johnson, a printer, to print two or 
three sheets of verses. When asked if the verses 
reflected on the state, Smith replied, 'yes, They did 
reflect upon my Lord Chancellor, The Duchess of 
Albemarle, and others of the Court'. Burden refused 
to become involved in the matter and reported the 
conversation first to Warden Royston and then to the 
Secretary of State. l Smith's project was probably an 
1 . C. S . P . D. 1667, p . 330; S . P . 29, 211 (13); C.S.P.D. 
1666-7, p. 430. The poems have been attributed to 
Andrew Marvell; H.M. Margoliouth, The Poems and Letters 
of Andrew Marvell, 1952, I, 267-70. The printed 
version of 1667 is Wing S2258. 
attempt to print together what had already been 
circulating separately in manuscript. Pepys acquired 
a copy of the 'Second Advice' on 14 December 1666 and 
1 
was lent the 'Third Advice' on 20 January. 
The enactment of the 1670 Conventicle Act and the 
46 
resulting constraints upon their meetings greatly 
distressed the Dissenters. The most effective pamphlet 
response was Some Seas~nable and Serious Queries Upon 
the late Act against Conventicles, 1670, attributed to 
Nic~olas Lockyer, an Independent divine and provost of 
2 Eton during the Interregnum. The queries tried to 
show that the Act contravened Magna Charta, the law of 
nature, and dictates of prudence and policy. Justices 
of the Peace, the pamphlet charged, were thrust into 
the illegal role of 'Advocate, Jury, and Witness, and 
sole Juftge both of Law and Fact, as well as of the 
Ability of the Offender'. Lockyer encouraged Dissenters 
to be 'purse as well as Prison proof' against the Act. 3 
secretary Williamson received reports from the provinces 
that the pamphlet tended 'to the stirring up of Sedition 
& Rebellion' and was distributed at church meetings. 
1. R. Latham and W. Matthews, ed., The Diary of Samuel 
Pepys, VII, 407 arid VIII, 21. 
2. Wing L280l. 'Dr. Barlow's note in the title t of the 
Bodleian copy] runs thus -- I am told (by one who should 
know) that Mr. Lockyer (a nonconformist minister) was 
the author of this seditious pamphlet -- He is now, June 
9, 1670, fled beyond sea'; Wood, Athenae Oxonienses , 
IV, 164. 
3. Some Seasonable and Serious Queries, pp. 5, l3~16. 
In May Roger L'Estrange was dispatched to search for 
the author and printer. l Francis Smith was almost 
certainly the publisher of Some Seasonable and Serious 
Queries, as Samuel Mearne contended before the House 
of Lords Libel Committee in 1677. A warrant for his 
arrest was issued on 14 September, and he was examined 
before the Privy Council on 16 September 1670 for 
selling and dispersing the tract. Though he was 
required to put up a ~100 bond for appearance at the 
next Middlesex session-s to face an indictment brought 
by the Attorney General, Smith seems to have avoided 
t . 2 prosecu l.on. 
A year or two later he planned to publish a tract 
47 
against tithes and the temporal power of bishops. Taken 
into custody on a general warrant by Roger L'Estrange, 
he was harassed to and from Lam,beth House and Whitehall 
for nearly five months without receiving a hearing 
from either the Bishop of London or a Secretary of 
State. In 1673 Smith helped to distribute an effective 
piece of Dutch propaganda, Englands Appeal from the 
Private Cabal at White- hall, and was questioned by the 
Privy Council. 3 On 24 November 1673, Robert Yard 
1. C.S.P.D. 1670, pp. 219, 226, 227, 290, 554. 
2 . H . M~ C . 9th R ~, _ II , _ 76; C.S.P.D. 1670, p. 437; 
P.C. 2, 62 (288); Smith, An Account, p. 12. 
3. Smith, An Account, p . 12; 'That Neither Tempor alities, 
nor Tythes' was not published. Englands Appeal is Wing 
L2372; see K.H.D. Haley, William of Orange and the 
English Opposition, 1672- 4, pp. 97- 111. 
48 
reported to Williamson, 'Here is some days since come 
abroad a pamphlett containeing the votes and addresses 
of the House of Commons duremng their last two sessions, 
and is publickly sold up and down towne·. l Upon 
suspicion that he had printed and sold 'certaineVotes 
of the last session of Parliament without any license 
or Authority' (presumably the same tract noted by Yard), 
Smith was arrested by a King's Messenger. According 
to his own account, he avoided the excessive fees 
demanded by the Messenger by refusing bed, fire, or 
food. 2 The King took a personal interest in the 
investigation. Smith and John Starkey were apprehended 
during the first week of December, and after examination, 
the King granted bail to Smith but refused it to 
Starkey. After a petition to the Council, Starkey 
was perm~tted to put up a bond for appearance at the 
King's Bench. Suspicion lingered despite their denials, 
and they were again questioned by the Council on 16 
January 1674 for selling 'divers dangerous and unlicensed 
Books'. Whether these dangerous books were the Votes 
and Addresses or Englands Appeal or A Relation of the 
1. W.D. Christie t ed., Letters Addressed to Sir Joseph Williamson, 11, ~2. Votes and addresses of the 
honourable-}buse of Commons ••• 1673 concernin 0 er 
and other grievances, 1ng • 
2. S.P. 29, 338 (49); Smith, . An Account, pp. 12-13; 
S.P. 29, 338 (39, 58). This arrest prevented him from 
sealing his bonds for delivery of goods to Barbados . 
49 
most Material Matters handled in Parliament, which was 
also distributed at this time, is not clear, but Smith's 
denials were accepted and the King ordered his release 
1 from custody, upon payment of fees, on 21 January. 
By the time of the Exclusion Crisis, Francis 
Smith had been examined on more than a dozen occasions 
and his shop had often been searched. It is even 
more dif.ficult to reconstruct his political activities 
today than it was for his contemporaries. He sold 
Andrew Marvell's An Account of the Growth of Popery 
and Arbitrary Government (from his stQck 'as many 
( were) burnt by the Common Hangman, as would have 
yielded above 150 1.1), but whether he published or 
sold other political tracts before the Popish Plot 
. . t 2 rema1ns conJec ure. What seems certain is that 
Smith Learned to be very discreet while maintaining 
contacts with distributors in London and the counties. 
His 'apprenticeship' to the Confederates taught him 
methods of clandestine publishing, while his unwearying 
devotion to Dissenting religious and political opinions 
1. C.S.P.D. 1673-5, p. 46; P.C. 2, 64 (153, 164, 166-7); 
Smith, An Account, p. 12; Christie, ed., Letters ••• to 
••• VlJilliamson, 11, 103. John Ayloffe was indicted for 
printing ~he Appear and 'Votes of Parliament', and · for 
having laid in a libellous manner a wooden shoe on the 
Speaker's chair; H.M.C. 4th R., p. 235 (Coventry Papers). 
A Relation of the most Material Matters, 1673 (Wing R855). 
2. 'The Case of Francis Smith', appended to The Speech 
of a Noble Peer of ·this Realm, 1689, not in Wing but 
copies in the Guildhall Library, London and the 
Huntington Library. Marvell's Growth of Popery is 
Wing 00860. 
I 
made him a reliable liaison for authors wishing to 
publish opposition tracts. This experience was of 
enormous value to him when he published propaganda for 
the Whigs during the Exclusion Crisis. 
50 
51 
Chapte r Two 
'Thi s Spirit of Libelling ' 
52 
The Restoration of Charles 11 meant the disappoint-
ment of republican hopes and the beginntng of years 
of restricted trade for Francis Smith. For the 
officers of the Stationers' Company, however, it was 
as much an occasion for joyous celebration as it was 
for the general population throughout England. The 
prospect of imminent improvement after fifteen years 
of diminished trade encouraged the Court of Assistants 
to choose 'Tenn of the most grave tall & comely 
Personages of this Company well horsed and in their 
best ar~ay or furniture of velvet Plush or Sattin & 
Chaine of Gold' to join the Lord Mayor and Aldermen 
in welcoming the still youthful Charles to London. 
John Cleaver was deputed to carry the company banner 
on horseback and several of the younger freemen were 
selected to help raise a great shout of acclaim with 
their ' whistling. l 
Despite the public joy at the return of Charles 11, 
the government was wary of its strength and stability. 
The restoration of the monarchy had proceeded smoothly, 
1. Stationers' Co. Court Records, Liber D, 22 May 1660. 
53 
but th e memories of travel s in exile and disrup tions in 
English society in the p revious two dec a des were vivid. 
The King app ealed to many segments of society for support 
in est ablishing his g overnment, and he was g enerous in 
his distribution of offices and pardons. Nonetheless, he 
was vulnerable to p ossible political cha lleng es from 
opposition g roup s, esp eci a lly disenchanted commonwe a lthmen. 
To a id a l as ting settlement in g overnment and relig ion, 
the King and his a dvi s ers a do pted a p olicy of strict 
regul a tion of the p ress to restrict p olitica l deb a te a nd 
critici sm. Thi s policy derived from the exp erience of 
previous reigns , and it rema ined const ant throughout 
Charles's reign. Yet the g overnment faced considerable 
trouble in imp lementing it as long a s there were stationers 
lik e the 'Confedera tes' soon after the Restoration or the 
Whi g publishers during the Exclusion Crisis who d a red 
( often su'Ccessfully ) to p rint and publish for the 
oppo s ition . Before 1679 ( when the Printing Act l apsed ) 
mo s t measures to c arry out the 'no criticism' p olicy were 
directed agai ns t printers i n an effort to prevent the 
publication of seditious pamphlets. The g overnment turned 
to the off icers of the Stationers' Company to control 
their membe r s , usua lly through economic sanctions. Parlia-
ment was encourag ea to p rovide leg isla tion. The P rinting 
Act of 1 662 cont a ined p rovisions for a limitation to the 
number of p rinters and p resses, a licensing sy s tem, 
and p owers of search -- all measures to p revent public a tion 
of opposition tra cts. Once a 'seditious 
libet had been published the government seized as many 
copies as possible and searched for the offending 
printer or bookseller. These investigations were 
conducted by a Secretary of State under direction 
from the Privy Council and mandate from the King.l 
54 
He could detain a bookseller in prison for an indeterm-
1nate period while the inquiry continued. The Secretary 
of State acted on behalf of the King and under his 
prerogative, as did the Surveyor of the Press, a 
crown officer. The Privy Council also considered 
regularly proposals to prevent publication and 
distribution of libels. While the Printing Act was 
in force, indictments were directed mainly against 
printers who kept supernumerary presses. Booksellers 
and publishers could be prosecuted on the basis of 
the common law of seditious libel, which of course 
existed before and after the passage of the Printing 
Act. 'The essence of a libel was the intentional 
publication of a document, bearing the seditious or 
defamatory meaning alleged by the prosecution,.2 The 
law of seditious libel was an important aid in attempts 
1. Peter Fraser, The Intelligence of the Secretaries 
of State, chap. I. 
2. W.S. Holdsworth, A History of English Law, VIII, 345. 
For a contemporary discussion of libel, see William 
Sheppard, Action upon the Case for Slander, 1666 (Wing 
S3173A) , pp. 115-7; 'The offence ••• lyeth either in the 
contriving of it, or in the procuring of it, to be 
contrived; Or in the malicious publication of it after 
a man knoweth what it is'. 
to punish stationers, but most programmes considered 
by the government for control of the press were 
concerned with preventing the appearance of the libel 
in the first place. 
55 
At the Restoration the Presbyterians and Anglicans 
on the Stationers' Court reasserted their control of 
the Company and reaffirmed their dutiful submission 
to royal authority. In return for government restrictions 
on the printing and dispersing of books without licence, 
the Court undertook again to prevent stationers from 
handling printed matter critical of the King and 
Parliament. What concerned the Stationers' Court most 
at the Restoration and throughout the reign, however, 
was protection of copy and the Company's English Stock. 
James I had granted the Company an exclusive patent 
to print- almanacs, psalters, catechisms, primers, and 
certain classics. The group within the Company which 
organized printing and publishing of these books, 
known as the English Stook, held shares in the monopoly. 
The higher the office a stationer held in the Company 
hierarchy, the more shares in the English Stock he 
was eligible to purchase. Therefore most of the Court's 
efforts were directed at conserving :_ the most successful 
books for the English Stock and insuring the lucrative 
l2-~ annual dividend. The Court was never so active 
at searching out publishers of seditious literature, 
despite the continual urging of S,ecretaries of State 
and the Surveyor of the Press, as at ferreting out 
the luckless printer who had tried to print a thousand 
copies of an almanac for his own use. 1 
At the first meeting of the Stationers' Court 
after Charles II's return to London, the Court 
deprived Cromwell's printers, John Fields and Henry 
Hills, of their warrant to print psalters on the 
sound financial ground that 'very small profit has 
accrued to the English Stock thereby'. They also 
ordered that one of the 'best sellers' in the English 
Stock, John Foxe's, Acts and Monuments, be presented 
'to his most Excellent Majestie as a token of this 
Companies duty and submission to his Royall person 
and Government'. The book was to be an example of the 
highest art of the printer's craft, printed on 'the 
best paper Ruled' and bound in 'Turkey Leather' with 
the royal arms stamped in gold. With political acuity 
56 
they remembered later in the meeting to present another 
copy of Acts and Monuments to Edward Hyde, the Lord 
Chancellor, but they tempered their generosity by 
ordering only that it be 'fairly bound and gilt', 
1. C. Blagden, 'The English Stock of the Stationers' 
Company in the Time of the Stuarts', The Library, 5s., 
XII (1957), 167-186. Joyce H. Brodowski, 'Literary 
Piracy in England From the Restoration to the Early 
Eighteenth Century', chap. 11 (Unpublished doctoral 
dissertation, School of Library SCience, Columbia 
University, 1973). 
1 though it was still to be of the 'best paper'. 
Charles II and his Privy Council were equally 
concerned with the control of the press, though it was 
seditious literature which most commanded their 
attention. On 27 June 1660 the Privy Council ordered 
57 
the Attorney General to prepare a proclamation against 
John Milton's Eikonoklastes and Pro Populo Anglicano 
Defensio and John Goodwin's The Obstuctours of Justice, 
2 which had justified the execution of Charles I ... The 
proclamation was issued on 13 August and the books 
were burned on the 27th. 3 Upon Charles II's recommenda-
tion on 18 July that 'speedy Care should bee taken to 
suppress libellous and seditious Papers and Pamphlets', 
the Privy Council ordered the Attorney General to 
prepare a proclamation 'against the Licentious Liberty 
of Printing'. Members of the Council had little 
experience in regulating the press, but they did not 
seize the opportunity to formulate new laws or programmes 
for control. Instead, Secretary of State William 
Morrice informed the Council that he had looked out 
copies of printing acts from previous reigns, upon 
1. Stat. Co. Reco;rds, Liber D, 4 June 1660. The royal 
copy is now in the King's Library at the British Library. 
See Howard lVI. Nixon's notes on the binding in The Book 
Collector, IV ( 1956 ) , pp. 53-4, 150, where it is 
illustrated. 
2. P. C. 2, 54 (46). 
3. Mercurius Publicus, 9-16 August 1660; Kennett, Register, 
p. 230. 
which they could base their proclamation. l 
Abuses in printing and the seditious nature of 
many tracts troubled the House of Commons. On 24 
August, the Committee for Printing, chaired by William 
Prynne, was ordered 'to prepare a Bill for remedying 
the Inconveniences of the Press for the future'. This 
bill, which was not presented, was to be based on 
58 
previous acts and ordinances for controlling the press, 
with the one stipulation that a clause be inserted 
'to authorize the breaking open of Doors of any Printer,.2 
Already the Commons were concerned with providing legal 
justification for the general search warrant which, 
with a system of licensing and restriction on the 
number of printers, would be the core of the 1662 
Pr inting Act. But searches and lic.ences did not wait 
for legislation; royal prerogative served well in 
the meanwhile. Secretaries of State often provided 
warrants for searching stationers' shops and John 
Berkenhead began his three year stint as Licenser on 
29 October 1660 by granting permission for publication 
of an account of the trial of the regicides. 3 
Parliamentary machinery slowly ground its way 
toward a consensus on controlling the trade in seditious 
1. P.C. 2, 54 (87). The proclamation was never issued. 
2 . C. J . VIII, 134 . The Stationers' Company presented 
Prynne with a s ample bill f or consideration; State Co. 
Cour t Records, Liber D, 10 October 1660. 
3. P.W. Thomas, Sir John Berkenhead, p . 210. S.R. 11, 
282; An exact and most impartial accompt of the indict-
(ent, arrair nment, ••• of nine and twenty r egicides, 1660 
Wing N1403 • 
I · 
59 
books which threatened the government. On 3 July 1661, 
within days of the discovery of Mirabilis Annus and 
the seizure of A Phenix, Or The Solemn League and 
Covenant, the Commons took notice of 'several traiterous, 
schismatical, and scandalous Pamphlets'. In response, 
the House ordered that a bill be prepared for the 
regulation of printing and 'for calling in of all 
seditious and schismatical Books and Pamphlets, in 
whose Hands soever they be t • l This motion was followed 
immediately by another sending the Bill for Uniformity 
to committee. The bills for controlling pulpit and 
press were parallel in timing and intent. Both con-
templated an orthodoxy of written and spoken opinion 
and set strict limitation on expression of dissent. 
Both eventually received the royal assent on the' same day. 
The Commons order of 3 July did not bear fruit, but 
that of 25 July did. On that occasion Heneage Finch, 
the Solicitor General, was entrusted with the task of 
bringing in a bill 'to impower his Majesty ~to regulate 
the Press'. First and second readings occurred the 
next day and) after being sent to committee) the bill 
with amendments received its third reading on the 27th. 
The House of Lords worked with equal dispatch and 
1. C.J. VIII, 288; the matter was referred to the 
lawyers Sir John Maynard, John Kelyng,_ and Sir Solomon 
Swale. 
I . 
proposed a conference with the Commons on 29 July. 
However, the Lords amendment for excepting the houses 
of peers from searches for seditous literature was 
not accepted by the Commons and the bill was lost at 
the end of session. l 
Members of Parliament were dramatically reminded 
that the problems of an unregulated press would not 
disappear merely because of their negligence when a 
seditious pamphlet was distributed at the door of 
the House of Commons on 12 December 1661. The matter 
was referred by the Commons to committee, but the 
government decided to let the initiative for new press 
legislation come from the House of Lords. 2 On 17 
December the Attorney General was ordered to brang in 
a bill after the adjournm~~t. The first reading took 
place Qn 16 January 1662. 3 After a second reading the 
next day, the bill was referred to committee where it 
remained submerged until 22 April when the Earl of 
60 
Bridgewater reported back with several minor amendments. 
After the third reading on the 28th, the bill was sent 
1. C.J. VIII, 312-16; L.J. XI, 323-26. John Berkenhead 
and-wiIliam Prynne were-aIDong those on the Commons 
committee. One of the reasons for the refusal of the 
Corrunons to accede to the Lords amendment was that 'the 
Matter of some books may be ••• Treason and Sedition, 
for which there neither is, nor ought to be any 
Sanctuary' • 
2. C.J. VIII, 331. The committee was the same one 
which had considered Prynne's ill-conceived Summary 
Reasons in July; ~ VIII, 299, 301-2. 
3. L.J. XI, 353,365. 
61 
to the Commons where it quickly received the first and 
d d · 1 secon rea ~ngs. To the great irritation of the King 
the bill again stalled in committee. He informed the 
House through Secretary Morrice on 10 May that next 
to the Militia Bill he believed the Printing Bill would 
do most to secure the peace of England because the 
'exhorbitant Liberty of the Press [ had) been a great 
Occasion of the late Rebellion in the Kingdom, and the 
Schisms in the Church,.2 The committee considering 
the bill, on which the licenser John Berkenhead per-
formed a major role, was ordered to meet 'de die in 
diem'. Nonetheless, a message from the Lords on 19 _  
May was necessary to remind them of the importance of 
acting on the matter. 3 The government feared that the 
Printing bill would again be lost at the end of the 
sess~on, but with timely dispatch Berkenhead managed 
the bill through an amendments vote and third reading 
in Commons, a vote in the Lords on Commons amendments, 
a conference in the Painted Chamber on a few minor 
changes, and presumably a final vote in the Commons. 4 
The 'Act for Preventing the Frequent Abuses in Printing 
1. L.~ XI, 435, 439; C.J. VIII, 417-8. 
2. ~ VIII, 425. 
3. 1!..d..:. XI, 468. 
4. ~ VIII, 434-6; L.J. XI, 468-70. The Presbyterians 
and Congregationalists had proposed an amendment which 
would have excepted reprinted books from licensing 
restrictions, but it was soundly defeated; Lacey, 
Dissent, p. 37. 
62 
Seditious, Treasonable and Unlicensed Books and Pamphlets, 
and for Regulating of Printing and Printing-Presses' 
received the royal assent that same af ternoon, before 
Charles prorogued Parliament. l 
All attempts to control the press stemmed from 
a long-standing policy of intolerance to criticism of 
the state and established church. The 1662 Printing 
Act was based on a 1637 Star Chamber decree, which in 
2 turn drew upon Elizabethan and Henrician precedents. 
The Act contained a refinement of the licensing system. 
It also required stationers to enter all books at 
Stationers' Hall. Before publication stationers also 
had to procure approval from an authorized licenser 
and print a legitimate imprimatur at the front of 
each book. Imprints were also required. Since the 
license:r:s would not perlnit any book containing opinions 
'contrary to the doctrine or discipline of the Church 
of England' or to the government, Dissenting stationers 
rarely bothered to obtain a licence. A large proportion 
of books did not carry imprimaturs because booksellers 
av ojded the tedium and delay of providing a copy for 
licensers to peruse. 3 The licensing system was not 
1. L.J. XI, 472. 
2. Blagden, Stationers' Company, p. 153. D.M. Loades, 
'The Theory and Practice of Censorship in Sixteenth-
Century England', Transactions of the Royal Historical 
Society, 5s., 24 (1974), pp. 141- 57. 
3. See Charles Blount's criticism of licensing and the 
Printing Act in 1693, 'this Law avails nothing to the 
suppressing of Scandalous, Seditious and Libellous Books, 
which ••• were mainly intended to be suppress'd. Reasons 
Humbl~ offered for the Liberty of Unlicensed Printing, 
Wl.ng 3313. 
properly policed; consequently, it was often ignored 
by stationers. 
There were fifty-nine master printers in 1662. 
The Printing Act provided that the total should be 
reduced to twenty, each of whom was to put up a 
surety of ~300.1 The number of printers declined to 
twenty-eight by 1668, but it is probable that the 
Plague and Fire of London did more to put printers 
out of business than parliamentary legislation. 2 The 
decrease in the number of presses and to some extent 
the licensing system help to account for the drastic 
decline in new books printed from 1662 until the lapse 
of the Printing Act in 1679. 3 As well as trying to 
limit the kind of book which could be printed, the 
Printing Act was al s o designed to help prevent 
distribution of books which dishonoured religion, 
endangered the peace of the kingdom, and discredited 
monarchical government. To accomplish this almost 
impossible task, the Act provided for searches by 
King's messengers or officials of the Stationers' 
Company. Search warrants were obtained under the 
royal sign manual, from a Secretary of State, or from 
63 
1. Statutes of the Realm, V, 428-33; 14 Car. 11. c. 33~ 
State Co. Court Books, Liber D, 12 May 1663, ' ••• there 
are now in and about London 0perating the Trade of 
Master Printers Fifty Nine in the wh.ole ••• '. 
2. Siebert, Freedom of the Press, p. 239. 
3. See W.G. Mason, 'The Annual Output of Wing-Listed 
Titles, 1649-1684, The Library, 5s., XXIX, 219-20. 
64 
the Master and Wardens of the Stationers' Company. 
These general warrants permitted search of shops or 
warehouses of printers, booksellers, and binders upon 
certain knowledge or reasonable suspicion of unlicensed 
or seditious book trade activity. The agents were 
given the right to see what was being printed, to 
examine the licence, and to seize unlawful books. 
Offenders were brought before J.P.'s or a Secretary 
of State, and could be imprisoned until tried. Frantiis 
Smith often complained about the injustice of searches 
based upon general warrants. He reckoned that he had 
been 'Eighteen Times in Custody upon General Warrants, 
that neither expressed his Name nor Crime'. - Other 
booksellers were equally adamant in their opposition. 
In July 1670 Richard Jeffreys, L'Estrange's deputy, 
went ,with a constable to search the printing house 
of John Streater, where he tried to seize an unlicensed 
piece which William Thomas was setting in type. 
Thomas refused to go peacefully with the constable, 
claiming that he was a free - born subject and not 
to be meddled with by such warrants. l 
The influence of John Berkenhead is apparent in 
1. 'The Case of Francis Smith'. C.S.P.D. 1670, p. 322. 
See also L. W. Levy, Legacy of Suppression-, 1960, pp. 
12-13. 
the text of the Printing Act, which provided only a 
general framework for press control. Chairman of the 
Commons committee for printing, he believed that 
efficient censorship could be maintained through 
licensing, but he feared that a severe Printing Act 
not only would be so repressive as to spark increased 
resistance but would inhibit the publishing of ortho-
dox books except 'with much difficulty as may be 
65 
wrought upon by money'. The more defined and restictive 
the law the more likely loopholes would exist; 'as 
soon as we understand the method of the Law, we may 
understand the method of affronting the Law' were the 
words Berkenhead put in the mouths of his nonconformist 
plotters. l He was also concerned that the traditional 
privileges of the Stationers' Company should be 
maintained in order to ensure cooperation in identifying 
and controlling seditious printers and booksellers. 
Against this attitude of cooperation between licensers 
and the Stationers' Company should be placed Roger 
L'Estrange's attacks on the 'Confederates' and the 
inefficiency of Berkenhead and the officers of the 
Stationers' Company in preventing abuses in printing. 
L'Estrange, after all, wanted Berkenhead's news monopoly 
Berkenhead, p. 210. Cabala, 9r an Imfartial 
the Non-c onformists Private Desi ns, Wing 
27. 
I . 
and position as Licenser. It was to his advantage to 
exaggerate the output and consequence of opposition 
tracts and to denigrate current efforts to control 
the press. 
L'Estrange was the most outspoken advocate of 
press control after 1660. Believing that 'where 
Papers of fublique Scandal are not Punish'd ••• 'tis 
fit they should be Answer'd', he became the most 
prolific pamphleteer for the royalist cause. l Libels 
had not only been the 'Forerunners, but, in a high 
Degree, the Causes' of the Civil War, and to prevent 
a recurrence of the 'same Distempers' a new 'Paper-
Scuffle' must be quickly suppressed 'by the Seasonable 
Execution of Laws,.2 Happy though the Restoration 
was, L'Estrange found 'the Press as Busie, and as 
Bold; Sermons as factious; Pamphlets as seditious' in 
66 
1662 as in 1641. He insisted that there is 'Nothing 
more certain, than that the Freedome of the Presse and 
Pulpit, is sufficient to embroyl the best ordered 
Government in the World,.3 There could be 'no Dallying 
with the Combination' of the 'Liberties of Conventicles, 
and pamphlets,.4 The refrain was taken up by most in 
1. L'Estrange, A Whipp a Whipp, preface, A2v; published 
7 February 1662. His printer was Henry Brome. 
2. L'Estrange, A Memento, pp. 6, 169; published 11 April 
1662. See also his A Seasonable Meqlorial in some 
Historical Notes upon the Liberties of the Presse and 
Pulpit, 1680, p. 4. 
3. L 'Estrange, A Memento, p. 6; Interest Mistaken, 1661, 
p. 128 • . 
4. A Memento, pp. 169, 207. 
authority. Clarendon urged Parliament to 'Root out 
all anti-monarchical principles' and the Speaker 
recalled that 'much of our late misery took its rise 
from seditious Pamphlets and Speeches from pulpits,.l 
The Bishop of Gloucester seized some unlicensed 
pamphlets in his diocese and justified his action to 
the Archbishop of Canterbury; 'Tis well said, by Mr 
Hooker, that it is not so much considerable, how small 
the sparke is, as how apt the matter is to take fire 
into which it falls,.2 Clarendon again warned Parlia-
ment about the danger from the press in his speech on 
19 May 1662 at the end of the second session of the 
Cavalier Parliament, when the Printing Act received 
the royal assent: 
67 
And without doubt this seditious daughter 
of the earth, this spirit of libelling, was 
never more pregnant than it is now; nor king, 
nor parliament, nor church, nor state, ever 
more exposed to those flagella linguae, 
those strokes of the tongue, fr om which God 
Almighty can only preserve the most innocent 
and most excellent persons •••• 3 
In additi on to his pamphleteering, L'Estrange 
was active in the search for printers and publishers 
1. W. Cobbett, Parliamentary History, IV, 207, 219 • . 
2. S.P. 29,118 (32), letter of 15 April 1665. 
3. L.J. XI, 475. At Thomas Brewster's trial in 
Febr~ary 1664 the prosecution lawyer, Serjeant Morton, also 
sounded the theme: 'Dispersing seditious books is 
very near a-kin to raising of tumults; they are as 
like as brother and sister: raising of tumults is the 
more masculine; and printing and dispersing seditious 
books is the feminine part of every rebellion. State 
Trials, VI, 549. 
68 
of seditious tracts. Despite his successful investi-
gat ion of the publication of A Phenix, Or The Solemn 
League and Covenant and his dramatic discovery of 
Mirabilis Annus in the course of publication, L'Estrange 
was often put off track by various ruses of opposition 
booksellers. He was convinced that they had private 
warehouses in London and sympathetic receivers in 
provincial centers, and that they used 'Posts, Carryers, 
Hackney-Coachmen, Boatmen, and Marriners' to deliver 
their letters and parcels of books. He was foiled in 
his exposures by false names in correspondence and 
special codes to settle business matters; 'so many 
Dozen of Gloves stands for so many Dozen of Books [ and] 
Such a Marque for such a Price, etc.,l Mercury-women, 
who were wholesale distributors, and hawkers, pedlars, 
ballad~ingers, and sundry carriers, who retailed 
printed items, also troubled L'Estrange. He wished 
to prevent the importing of books from Holland and 
elsewhere and the shipping of books by land or water 
disguised in 'Dry-Fatts, Bales, Packs, Maunds, or 
other Fardells,.2 L'Estrange was appointed a 
surveyor of the press on 24 February 1662, which 
rewarded his diligence and legitimized his previously 
1. L'Estrange, Considerations and Proposals, 1663, p. 6. 
2. Ibid., pp. 1, 6, & 7. 
unofficial detective work. l 
The Printing Act, which went into effect for 
two years on 10 June 1662, was reviewed by a Commons 
committee in the Spring of 1663. When no report was 
made from the committee L'Estrange published his 
69 
Considerations and Proposals In Order to the Regulation 
of the Press, which presumably he had prepared for 
presentation to the committee, to further public 
debate and to win support for his rather draconian 
2 ideas of punishment for press offenders. The 
co~nittee to inspect the Printing Act was revived on 
30 June 1663 and 'an additional Bill for the better 
regulating of the press' was read for the first time 
on 9 July, but it was then laid aside. 3 For his un~ 
flagging concern with press control, L'Estrange was 
rewarded with Berkenhead's news monopoly and the 
crown office of Surveyor of the Press under royal 
warrant on 15 August 1663. The language of the 
warrant shows that his arg~ents about the danger 
from seditious tracts had been persuasive. Printers 
and publishers of 'treasonous, seditious, and unlicensed 
1. Kitchin, L'Estrange, p. 105. 
2. C.J. VIII, 439 (23 February 1663); Considerations, 
f. A2v , ' ••• the matter being at This Inst.ant under 
Publique Debate'. The tract was published 3 June 1663 
with dedications to the King and Parliament. 'The 
Ordinary Penalties I find to be These; Death, Mutil ation, 
Imprisonment, Banishment, Corporal Peyns, Disgrace, 
Pecuniary Mulcts' (p. 31). 
3. C.J. VIII, 513, 520. 
Pamphlets, Libells and Papers' were termed 'obstinate 
and implacable Enemies of Our Royal person and 
Government ••• ,.l 
70 
L'Estrange used his news monopoly to give uncommonly 
full coverage to the trials of John Twyn for printing 
A Treatise of the Execution of Justice and of Thomas 
Brewster, Simon Dover, and Nathan Brookes for their 
involvement in the printing and dispersing of The Speeches 
and Prayers of the late King's Judges and A Phenix, Or 
The Solemn League and Covenant. He reported the 
execution of Twyn on 25 February 1664 in The Newes 
and carefully included descriptions of Brewster's, 
Dover's, and Brookes's hours in the pillory.2 During 
the spring of 1664, L'Estrange used his news sheets 
to lobby for stricter laws against nonconformists and 
seditious presses. 'I' reckon it an Essentiall Part 
of my Duty,' he wrote when attacked for his rough 
handling of the sectarians, 'to endeavour to make any 
Party ridiculous, that labours to make the Government 
odious to the People,.3 His seizure of some libels 
in early April provided 9Pportunity to review the 
state of the press. He claimed with some hyperbole 
that as many as a million seditious pamphlets had been 
distributed since the Restoration, and he blamed the 
1 . S.P . 29, 78 (96); C. S . P . D. 1663-4, p . 240 . 
2. The Newes, 25 February and The 1ntelligencer, 7 March 
1663/4. He saved details of Twyn's trial for An Exact 
Narrative of the Tryal and Condemnation of John Twyn, 
which he edited for publication on 10 March. 
3. The Newes, 21 April 1664. 
71 
Stationers' Company by inference for failing to control 
its trade. He alleged that Mene Tekel Ca treasonous 
tract published at the time of the Northern Rising in 
1663) had been printed on a press 'belonging to a 
Ruling Member of That Society' who could not 'pretend 
Ignorance'. A raid on a Quaker meetinghouse on 16 April 
uncovered a bookseller and bookbinder with their 
stock of books and sparked another tirade against 
the unholy union of pulpit and press among the 
Dissenters. He claimed with certain exaggeration 
that 460 unlawful books had been published since the 
Restoration. l L'Estrange's propaganda efforts ceased 
suddenly with the passage without amendment of a 
continuation of the Printing Act on 7 May 1664. 2 
The involvement of many persons, sometimes working 
at c~oss-purposes and with overlapping responsibilities, 
hindered effective control of the press during the 
reign of Charles 11. Berkenhead's efforts were 
supported by Se cretary of State Nicholas, while 
L'Estrange gained prominence through the good graces 
of Secretary Arlington who succeeded Nicholas. The 
1. The Intelligencer, 18 April 1664. L'Estrange's 
total had .increased sharply since early March when 
A~ could muster only a list of 300~ An Exact Narrative 
of the Trial ••• of John Twyn, f. A4. L'Estrange, of 
course, considered all non-Anglican and non-royalist 
books unlawful, even if printed before the Printing 
Act of 1662. 
2. C.J. VIII, 559. 
72 
Stationers tended instead to report to Secretary 
Morrice. Parliament referred seditious pamphlets to 
committees, which had investigatory powers of subpoenaing 
persons, papers, and records; the King and Privy Council 
questioned printers and booksellers whenever seditious 
tracts came to their attention; and the Stationers' 
Company conducted searches and regulated members of 
the trade. The Bishop of London was involved through 
his licensing responsibilities, and the Lord Mayor 
of London and Justices of the Peace for Westminster, 
Middlesex and Southwark could initiate investigations. l 
The Stationers, however, took the brunt of disapproval 
from the other parties (especially from L'Estrange) 
when a series of opposition tracts appeared. Because 
of these various agents, the life of an opposition 
stationer was very unsettled indeed, but with determina-
tion and some craftiness he could usually maintain 
his trade. The e.xperience of John Darby is a case in 
point. He married the widow of Simon Dover and took 
over her printing establishment, where he occasionally 
printed for Francis Smith.2 On 5 February 1667 Warden 
Richard Royston informed the Stationers' Court that 
he had discovered Darby in the 'evill practices' of 
1. C.S.P.D. 1673, p. 191. 
2. S.P. 29, 332 ( 96, 961) . 
rinting and disp osing of several books belonging to 
the English Stock, and in the Warden's accounts for 
1667-8 there is an entry for payment to four messengers 
for searching for Da rby and taking down his presses. l 
Da rby was taken into custody in April 1668 for 
printing The Poor Whore'sPetit i on. L'Estrange was able 
73 
to p rove tha t Da rby h a d distributed this book, but he 
could not find a witness to speak directly against him. 2 
Darby was released from close imprisonment upon a 
recognizance of blOO, but he was again committed to the 
Ga tehouse on 7 December 166 8 for printing William Penn's 
The Sandy Foundation Shaken. 3 Charles 11 confirmed the 
close i mp risonment u p on Arlington's rep ort to the Privy 
Council on 16 December, though he reduced the order to 
safe custody in resp onse to a p etition by Jo an Da rby on 
, 
29 J anuary. When Da rby was released in May 1669 u p on 
security g iven to the Clerk of the Council not to print 
anything prejudici a l to the g overnment, he faced an indictment 
brought in the King's name for Penn's book a nd a nother 
1. Stat. Co. Court Records, Liber D, 5 February 1666/7; 
Warden's accounts for 166 7-8; Liber D, 22 August 1667. 
2. S.P. 29, 239 ( 6 ) . 
3. C.S.P.D. 1667-8, p . 378; C.S. P .D. 1668-9, p. 92. 
indictment in the London Sessions brought by the 
Stationers' Company for printing unlicensed books on 
a supernumerary press. Darby was convicted of 
printing Perm's book and stood in the pillory, and 
his two presses were pulled down in July 1669. A 
new press was seized by L'Estrange in October 1670. 1 
By January 1673 he had three more presses and when 
questioned by the Stationers' Court, he promised to 
take one down. 2 In 1674 he faced two more indictments 
similar to the earlier ones, the fir s t for printing 
74 
Henry Danvers' A Treatise of Baptism for Francis Smith 
and the second for having an illegal press. 3 Nonetheless, 
he appears on the list t aken in March 1675 of printing 
houses as a 'Printer sett upp since the Act was in 
force'. More surprising is to find the Company 
paying parby for printing almanacs for the English 
1. P.C. 2, 61 (143, 189, 290). State Co. Court Records, 
Liber D, 25 May 1669, 9 July 1669, and 3 October 1670. 
' Penn and his Printer', Journal of the Friends' Historical 
Society, 46 (1954), pp. 64- 5. London Sessions Minute 
Book #29 for 5 July 1669. Darby had been indicted for 
keeping a supernumerary press on 12 October 1668. 
2. State Co. Court Records, Liber D, 15 January 1672/3. 
Darby must have received considerable backing from 
generous supporters to finance his reconstructions of 
trade. 
3. 'Report on Printing Presses seized by the Stationers', 
ca. 1685; 'Some remarques in the years 1673 & 1674 
about the business of the Company of Stationers'; both 
reports in a folder of documents relating to 'searching' 
at Stationers' Hall. The Common Serjeant (Jeffreys) 
was paid a guinea on 5 June 1674 for hi s opinion on 
the indictments against Dar by and William Battersby; 
Warden's Accounts, 1673-4. 
I 
I 
\ 
75 
Stock in 1679. 1 This did not mean that _Darby had relented 
in his opposition or had become a pawn of the Stationers' 
Company, but that he had earned his position in the 
printing trade by exhausting the best attempts of 
nearly all the parties responsible for controlling 
the press. His experience substantiated L'Estrange's 
remark to Arlington in April 1668, 'The Law is so 
short, that unless the very Act of printing the very 
poynt in Question, be expressly proved, The Printer 
will come off,.2 Darby remained active as a Whig 
printer during the Exclusion Crisis and eventually 
handed over his business to his son. 
Various programmes were considered to prevent 
stationers like Darby from succeeding in their fight 
to lceep their trade. Parliament twice voted for a 
contin~ation of the Printing Act in 1665, but other 
debates came to nothing. A bill for improving the 
Act never got out of committee in 1666, and a renewed 
attempt in the Commons in 1675 failed after the 
second reading. 3 The draft of a 'Bill for Explaining 
and supplying certaine Defaults [ in the Printing Act] ' 
1. S.P. 29, 369 (97). A list of books printed by 
Darby is among the Coventry Papers at Longleat, H •. M.C. 
4th R., p. 236. State Co. Records, 'Journal Book for 
Money Disbursed, 1656-1698'. 
2. S.P. 29, 238 (179). 
3 . C. J . VIII, 636; C. J. I X, 372- 3, 378. 
\ 
among the State Papers may date from 1675. Intended 
to strengthen the provisions of the 1662 Act, the 
bill stipulated automatic fines for publishing 
unlicensed books, provided for temporary and then 
permanent disablement from trade for keeping super-
numerary presses, and confirmed the use of general 
search warrants. l In March 1677 the Lords ordered 
the Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas and the 
Lord Chief Baron of the Court of Exchequer to prepare 
a bill for 'supplying the defects' in the Printing 
Act, and the Master and Wardens were likewise directed 
t . d· 2 o gl.ve a Vl.ce. The bill was passed by the Lords 
on 13 April 1677 and sent to the Commons, where it 
was lost at the end of the session. 3 The Lords also 
instituted a Libel Committee in November 1675, which 
76 
over the next eighteen months completed a very thorough 
survey of the book trade and investigation into the 
printing and publishing of unlicensed political tracts. 
Upon the report of the Committee to the full house, 
several political tracts were condemned and ordered 
burnt. 4 
1. S.P. 29, 375 (38). 
2. L.J. XIII, 60. In the Warden's accounts for 1676- 7 
there is an entry for 8 March 1677, 'Spent waiteing 
on the Lords with our Supplement for printing ••• 13s. 
6d.' See also Mearne's testimony before the Lords 
Libel Committee, R.M. C. 9th R. , 11, 77 . 
3. L.J. XIII, 90, 94, 111, 113; C.J. IX, 421; R.M.C. 
9th R. , 11, 79n. All Souls College Ms. 162 (28). 
4. R.M.C. 9th R., 11, 66, 69- 77; L.J. XIII, 42, 54- 5, 
60-1, 64-5 . 
Meanwhile the King and Privy Council continued 
to review the state of the press and to suggest areas 
of stricter control to the Stationers' Company. In 
July 1668 the Privy Council sent an order to the 
Stationers' Court not to dispose of any books to 
hawkers and to make more frequent searches. l Two 
years later the King issued a quo warranto against the 
charter of the Stationers' Company. This decision 
seems to have stemmed from L'Estrange's belief that 
the Stationers could be forced to regulate themselves 
77 
through a series of by-laws to their charter. L'Estrange 
presented proposals on behalf of the King to a meeting 
of the Stationers' Court on 5 September 1670. When 
the Stationers agreed to consider his suggestion of 
a recognizance from all members not to handle unlicensed 
tracts , with offenders losing their interest in the 
English Stock, and his plan for turning over all 
dealers in books (e.g. some haberdashers) to the 
Company, the guo warranto was stopped. The charter 
was renewed the following year without additional 
charge to the Company. The Stationers backed down 
from putting into practice the recognizance but resolved 
not to deal in any manner with unlicensed books. Of 
course L'Estrange's proposals affected little those 
1. P.C. 2, 57 (394), 22 July 1668. The order was 
acknowledged by the Stationers' Court on 10 August 1668. 
I 
) 
78 
stationers (including most of the opposition booksellers) 
who did not own shares of the English Stock.1 The Privy 
Council again debated 'expedients' and more proposals 
by L'Estrange in 1673 during the height of the Dutch 
2 propaganda during the Anglo-Dutch war. On 29 
December 1675 the Privy Council made further recommenda-
tions to the Stationers' Court about by-laws. Recog- · 
nizing that the Stationers' Company was burdened with 
great expense in bring prosecutions, Charles II 
granted them the fines and forfeitures levied and 
recovered in Printing Act cases. 3 The Company was 
also directed to suppress unlawful presses and to 
pass a by-law disenfranchising any freeman who 'shall 
willingly & knowingly Print Utter or sell or cause to 
bee pr~nted uttered or sold any Libellous or seditious 
book or Pamphlett,.4 Coupled with this, the Attorney 
General prepared a royal proclamation offering rewards 
1. P.C. 2, 62 (267, 295). C.S.P.D. 1670, pp. 175, 
436-7, 451-2, 502; C.S.P.D . 1671, pp. 421, 447. 
State Co. Court Records, Liber D, 5 September, 19 Sept-
ember, and 17 October 1670; 3 August 1671 (resolutions 
passed by the Company before the continuation of the 
charter) • 
2. P.C. 2, 64 (43, 77, 87); S.P. 29, 336 (68); C.S.P.D. 
1673, p. 413. 
3. P.C. 2, 65 (80). The grants were intended to stop 
the Company from 'compounding underhand' with offenders; 
cf. C.S.P.D. 1676-7, pp. 460-1. Legal costs included 
payment of retaining fees to the Solicitor and Attorney 
Generals and other lawyers, costs of drawing up breviates, 
producing witnesses on the day of trial, and fees for 
the Cryer, Court Keeper, and Clerk of the Peace. 
4. State Co. Court Records, Liber D, 7 February and 
6 March 1675/6 (when the by-law was approved). 
I 
. 1 
of b20 to those who discovered libels and b50 to those 
who identified the author or person who delivered a 
libel to the press. Only a half-dozen rewards were 
paid, and the system proved to be no more successful 
79 
than by-laws in preventing seditious books or discover-
1 ing the agents. On 21 November 1677 the King in 
Council ordered the Master and Wardens to refuse 
entry of any book in their register without first 
receiving 'sufficient security' from the printer or 
publisher to print the licence at the beginning of the 
book. 2 Another discussion took place in the Privy 
Council on 23 January 1678 with the Master and 
Wardens and L'Estrange present, with the result that 
L'Estrange's servant was sworn a Messenger in Extra-
ordinary to assist him in searching for and seizing 
libels and ~Ullicensed books. 3 
A stationer who aided the government in the 
campaign to control the press could receive a boost 
t o his career, and no stationer reaped greater rewards 
from the King than Samuel Mearne. In May 1668 he was 
1. P.C. 2, 65 (81, 85). The order for printing and 
publishing the proclamation was dated 7 January 1676. 
Cal. Treas. Bks. V, 1323, 1325, 1329. 
2. P.C. 2, 66 (163). Why this was considered effective 
is difficult to determine. Many books registered at 
Stationers' Hall were unlicensed, but few were 
especially seditious or heretical, unlike the increasing 
number of unlicensed and unregistered tracts which 
appeared after 1675. 
3. P.C. 2, 66 (232-3 ). L'Estrange had proposed more 
than a year earlier that his servant be deputized to 
act only in matters of books to save time in hunting 
up a messenger required by law for a search; C.S.P.D. 
1676-7, p. 591. 
) 
. l 
granted the press he had detected and seized, and 
later the same month as a further encouragement for 
services in suppressing 'licentious practices in the 
mystery of printing' the King commanded that he, Roger 
Norton, and Thomas Roycroft be made members of the 
Stationers' Court. l During his year as Warden in 
1673-4, he conducted searches every two weeks (on the 
average) and spent over ~1200, the largest amount 
during the reign of Charles 11 except for the hectic 
year of 1663-4. 2 At the end of the year he prepared 
a report listing indictments against three printers 
for keeping illegal presses and detailing various 
other actions taken in behalf of the Company. This 
helped to earn his appointment in June 1674 as 
stationer to the King (he was already the royal 
bookbinder).3 The following month he received 
permission to import 10,000 reams of paper to reprint 
books of public interest, such as Camden's Britannia, 
1. C.S.P.D. 1667-8, pp. 380, 403. 
2. Mearne was also Warden in 1672-3 and 1676-7 and 
was Master of the Stationers' Company in 1679-80 and 
1682-3. 
80 
3. Robert Battersby pleaded guilty to keeping an illegal 
press; John Marlow was convicted of the same offence; 
and John Darby was indicted for keeping an illegal 
press. Most of the other actions were taken out in 
the Court of Exchequer. Stat. Co. Records, 'Some 
Remarques in the years 1673 & 1674 about the business 
of the Company of Stationers'. London Sessions files 
for January and April 1674; Sessions Minute Book #44, 
(10 April 1674). C.S.P.D. 1673-5, p. 279. 
'in consideration of the great expense and trouble he 
had been at, and his good service in inspecting the 
press' .1 
Mearne's aggressive searches on behalf of the 
Stationers' Company did not earn him general commenda-
tion from his fellow stationers. When John Seymour 
81 
submitted a paper against Mearne to the Lords Libel 
Committee, Abel Roper, Mast er of the Company; Richard 
Clarke, Warden; John Lilly, Clerk; Henry Garret, Under-
clerk; Thomas Newcomb, King's Printer; and four other 
stationers were willing to appear as witnesses to 
charges that Mearne had sold unlicensed and seditious 
books while Warden. Mearne's opponents alleged that 
he gave warnings of searches to his friends or at 
least delayed his search long enough for materials to 
be hidden. 2 The case of Francis Smith and his publi-
cation of A Treatise of Baptism by Henry Danvers was 
often put forward as evidence of Mearne's favouritism 
and fraudulence. 3 Smith's difficulties began with his 
own discovery of a stolen impression of The Lady's Calling, 
probably printed for Mearne. Smith also reported that 
1. Cal. Treas. Bks. IV, 558-9. See also H.M. Nixon, 
~nglish Restoration Bookbindings: Samuel Mearne and 
his contemporaries. 
2. H.M.C. 9th R. 11, 75-9. 
3. C.S.P.D. 1676-7, pp. 460-1; H.M.C. 9th R. 11, 77-8. 
82 
Randal Taylor had sold Englands Appeal from the Private 
Cabal at White-hall, for which Taylor, the Beadle of 
the Stationers' Company and friend of Mearne, was 
called before the Privy Council. l Apparently, Taylor 
was furious at Smith for exposing him, and seconded 
by Thomas Sawbridge tried to settle the account. 
Strong words must have led to a scuffle. Smith and 
his friend John Starkey each brought charges of assault 
against Taylor and Sawbridge at the London Sessions 
of the Peace in January 1674. Taylor and Sawbridge 
each brought counter-suits, but they were each twice 
2 fined 53s. 4d. while Smith and Starkey went free. 
Mearne retaliated to Smith's information against 
Taylor by seizing 2000 sheets of A Treatise of Baptism 
at a printing house. Later, presumably after the 
verdicts against Taylor and Sawbridge, he searched 
Smith's house and warehouse with Thomas Vere, Taylor, 
two messengers, and a porter for additional copies 
of A Treatise of Baptism. Not finding any copies of 
A Treatise, the searchers left with nearly a porter's 
load of Smith's stock, including many Bibles. Then, 
on 10 February, Mearne and Warden White seized 500 
1. P.C. 2, 64 (164); H.M.C. 9th 'R. 11, 78; S.P. 29, 
360 (149), Smith's complaint to Arlington in February 
1674. On The Lady's Calling, see F. Madan, Oxford 
Books, #2900-2. 
2. London Sessions file for January 1673/4; Sessions 
Minute Book #44 (7 January 1673/4). Henry Brome and 
John Wright served as sureties for Taylor's (~20) 
and Sawbridge's (~10) bail. 
1 
I ) 
83 
copies of the second impression of A Treatise of Baptism 
at the shop of William Redmayne, Smith's binder, and 
took them to Stationers' Hall. l 
Smith was never one to shrink from confrontation 
when he believed that he had been dealt with unjustly. 
The first impression of A Treatise of Baptism had been 
passed 'under the countenance of Dr. Parker' (though 
it was never licensed), entered at Stationers' Hall, 
and advertised in the licensed Term Catalogues. 
Smith was determined to recover his property. Having 
confirmed that the books had been taken to Stationers' 
Hall and not to the Bishop of London's palace as 
Mearne at first claimed, he complained to Lord Arlington. 
To strengthen his presentation, he engaged Benjamin 
Worsley to write a covering letter to William Bridgeman, 
one of the under- secretaries of state, with a 
narrative of h is pl ight enclo·sed. Wor s l ey , who was Lock e t s 
predecessor as secretary to the Council of Trade and 
an associate of Shaftesbury who collected a large 
library of his own, asked Bridgeman to oblige him by 
giving Smith 'any direction ••• for the better delivery 
of him out of his difficulty' . 'The persons who do 
pursue him', Worsley wrote, 'have been moved much more 
to do it out of malice toward him and Because he hath 
1 . Smith, An Account, p . 18 ; S . P . 29, 360 (149). 
beene somewhat forward to discover the undue practises 
of others then out of any desire to prevent what is 
eyther illegall or disorderly,.l If Smith acted with 
great urgency, it was from the realization that a 
swift response was the best way to rescue his books. 
A few days after the seizure, Mearne told Abel Roper 
'that if it cost him a hundred pound Mr Smith should 
never have his Books againe, but that he would forth-
with damask them'. Smith got an order from Arlington 
to have the books brought to Whitehall, but when 
served with the order by a King's Messenger Mearne 
84 
thrust it in his pocket and refused to obey it. Mearne 
later informed Arlington that the books were at the 
Bishop of London's palace. At a hearing with the 
Bishop, Smith learned that was not then the case, 
though , the books were later taken there. 2 
What transformed these proceedings from a matter 
of rivalry between two inflexible stationers to a 
serious infringement on a publisher's trade was the 
false republication of A Treatise of Baptism with 
Smith's imprint by Mearne's friends for their own 
1. S.P. 29, 360 (148, 150). K.H.D. Haley, Shaftesbury, 
p. 260. Worsley's library contained more than 6000 
items, with many theological and learned works and a 
good collection of contemporary controversial tracts, 
both religious and political. The library was sold 
at auction on 13 May 1678; Catalogus Librorum ••• 
Doctori s Benjaminis Worsley, Wing W36l2. 
2. H.M.C. 9th R. 11, 77-8; House of Lords Records 
Office, Main Papers, Libels Committee, 27 March 1677. 
85 
profit. Not only did Mearne wink at this stolen work 
in his role as Warden but he vindictively indicted 
John Darby for printing the original impression. In 
April 1674 Smith found sheet D of his book being printed 
at William Downing's house. Later he discovered 
where the stolen impression was being bound. Despite 
Smith's insistent complaints, Mearne was in no hurry 
to investigate and apparently sent warning to Randal 
Taylor and Thomas Sawbridge, the new publishers, when 
he did search. On one occasion Mearne put Smith off 
with the reply that he needed to see his barber for 
a trim first. In the end Smith's impression remained 
in the Bishop's custody while Taylor and Sawbridge 
distributed their books in great quantities. Smith 
responded by showing copies of the true and false 
books to several 'Persons of Quality'. Perhaps 
through Worsley's influence, he reached the Earl of 
Shaft e sbury , who resented 'such hard measure' and 
helped to bring the case before the King, who in turn 
granted an order for the restitution of the seized 
books. l 
After the long pror.ogation of Parliament for 
fifteen months (22 November 1675 to 15 February 1677), 
there were increasing calls from the opposition for 
1. Smith, An Account, p. 18. H.M.C. 9th R. 11, 78. 
a dissolution and new elections. The government 
quickly suppressed An Ace-ount oLtheProceedings at 
Guildhall, which purported to give the text of Francis 
Jenks's fiery speech for a new Parliament at the 
meeting of the Common Hall for the election of new 
sheriffs on 24 June 1676. Jenks was questioned by 
the Privy Council and committed to the Gatehouse on 
28 June, and search warrants were issued for the 
discovery of the printer and seizure of the tract. 
86 
The search turned up copies on 31 July, and the printer 
Henry Bridges appeared before the Privy Council on 2 
August. The Council ordered his press broken up and 
type defaced and directed the Attorney General to 
prosecute him to the 'utmost severity of the Law,.l 
Smith's sympathies were entirely with Bridges, and he 
considered Jenks's speech 'a good Service'. 'And 
notorious it is', he wrote, 'that one Mr. B--- a Printer 
was sworn against ••• and utterly ruined from all visible 
probability of ever recovering; his Materials so broken 
and dampnified; as disabled him from his common customary 
ability of getting Bread for his Family; And what was 
his Crime? •• he Printed, or was Printing a Speech made 
1. P.C. 2, 65 (269); Haley, Shaftesbury, pp. 409-10. 
P.C. 2, 65 (300); State Co. Records, Warden's Accounts, 
entries for 31 July and 2 August 1676; C.S.P.D. 1676-7, 
pp. 215 (Williamson's warrant of 9 July 1676), 251, 
253, 285 (Williamson's certificate that Robert Stephens, 
Messenger of the Press, had made the discovery). 
87 
in common Council, by a Member thereof, for a Petition 
to His Majesty to Dissolve that ••• late long Parliament. ,1 
The political climate remained volatile and 
Samuel Mearne, who was again Warden in 1676-7, kept 
pressure on opposition stationers by conducting more 
than twenty searches between October and the beginning 
of February. Tension existed between Roger L'Estrange 
and Samuel Mearne, but it had more to do with personality 
differences and encroachments on what the other considered 
his prerogative than with conflicting goals. Both 
were intensely committed to regulating the press and 
were deeply loyal to Charles 11. Both were willing to 
use extra-legal measures in 1677 in a propaganda effort 
against opposition politicians and stationers. The 
government expected Shaftesbury to argue that Parlia-
ment was legally dissolved when it met on 15 February 
1677. L'Estrange took responsibility for protecting 
and perhaps even writing parts of an anonymous and 
unlicensed tract, A Pacquet of Advice and Animadversions 
sent from London to the Men of Shaftesbury, which helped 
1. Smith, An Account, p. 20 ('of the second pagination). 
The Stationers' Company indicted Bridges in September, but 
prosecution was dropped eventually on account of his 
discoveries to L'Estrange about other libels and his 
cooperation with the Lords Libel Committee; P.C. 2, 66 
(54), 22 June 1677. John Marlow, who worked for Bridges, 
was also arrested and co~perated fully by securing 1000 
copies and disclosing the 'hander' to the press. Like 
Bridges, Marlow's indictment was not prosecuted by the 
Company until it became clear that he was becoming too 
aggressive in exposing their practices. Marlow was fined 
~40 and imprisoned three months, a combination of penalties 
not permitted in the Printing Act, so he won a reversal 
of judgement; P.C. 2, 66 (238, 241, 350); The Reports 
of Sir Peyton Ventris, 1696, I, 316-7; H.M.TI. 9th R. 
II, 76. 
to defuse Shaftesbury's support by answering his 
antiCipated arguments. l On 3 Februa.ry 1677, after 
learning that the Stationers had soized Nathaniel 
Thompson on 30 January, L'Estrange wrote to Secretary 
Williamson that some of Thompson's journeymen printers 
'may be usefull to me in my present design'. Next day 
he wrote to Mearne to leave unmolested his projected 
reply to the troublesome tract Letter from a Person 
of Quality to his Friend in the Country, which had 
appeared at the end of the parliamentary session in 
1675: 
As the Letter to a friend in the Country 
(commonly called my Lord Shaftesburyes) crept 
into the world last Session of Parliament & 
got loose by Stealth Soe I am to advise you 
that if you take any Notice of a Pamphlett 
entituled Animadversion to the Men of 
Shaftesbury or some such title You are to 
give no Interruption to itt. If the Businesse 
comes to be questioned Leave me to answer it. 
And further I am to desire that you have an 
Eye upon James the Printer,.2 
88 
A Pacguet of Advice appeared two or three days later. 3 
Shaftesbury and his supporters soon realized that it 
was an effective satire on his political career and a 
persuasive argument against the position that Parlia-
ment was dissolved. On 7 February Shaftesbury 
1. Wing N400; see Haley, Shaftesbury, pp. 414-16 for 
a discussion of its poli~al importance and the author 
attribution to Marchamont Needham. 
2. S.P. 29, 390 (132) ; C.S.P.D. 1676-7, pp. 534-5. 
State Co. Court Records, Liber D, 12 February 1677; 
a version of this letter is printed in H.M.C. 4th R. p. 231. 
3. 'Here has lately been underhand published & dispersed, 
a Book called, Advice to the Men of Shaftesbury ••• '; 
F. Benson to Sir Leoline Jenkins t 9 February 1677, Huntington Library Ms. 30314 (32). 
dispatched two of his most devoted servants, Thomas 
Stringer and John Harrington, to a private Court 
meeting of the Stationers' Company to challenge them 
to prevent distribution of A Pacguet of Advice. 
Their request caused quite a stir: 
89 
This day one Mr Stringer and one Mr Harrington 
came (as they said) from my lord of Shaftesbury 
& severall other Peers of this Realme to demand 
why the Wardens did not seize an Unlicensed book 
called The Pacquett of advices &c., sold by one 
Mr Edwin a member of this Company, they then 
producing one they bought of him. The Court 
thereupon did desire Mr Warden Mearne to produce 
a letter from Mr L'Estrange directed to him 
which they caused to be read, of which letter 
Mr Stringer & Mr Harrington did desire a Coppy 
which was debated & would not be granted & so 
was referred till Munday next at the generall 
Court. 
Goaded into action, several of the Stationers, 
including the Master and Warden Mearne, seized sixty-
four copies of the book at Jonathan Edwin's shop later 
the same day. At the next Court L'Estrange's · 
letter was entered into the minutes, but there the 
matter rested. l The incident was perhaps the 
most blatant example of partisan regulation of the 
press. Edwin remained unpunished; indeed, Lord 
Treasurer Danby turned to him in 1679 to publish two 
more tracts for the government. 
1. State Co. Court Records, Liber D, 12 February 1677, 
and Liber E, 7 February 1677; Warden's accounts for 
1676-7, entry for 7 February 1677. 
, 
90 
By contrast, the g overnment resp onded swiftly 
and thoroughly to the public a tion of an opp os ition 
tra ct during the same week. Dr. Nicholas Ca ry was sent 
to the Tower in close custody on 9 February 1677 and 
hi s house was searched. After thorough investigation 
by the Libel Committee, Cary was fined blOOO by the 
Lords for not disclosing the author of 'The Grand question 
concerning the prorogation of this Parliament for a 
year and three months stated and discussed', though a ll 
indic a tions led to Lord Holles. The p rinted sheets of 
the first section were seized with Cary 's manuscript 
corrections, thus the tract was never completed and 
distributed. Cary had g one to Ben j amin Southwood, a 
bookseller, to arrange a n edition of 1500 co p ie s. In 
turn Southwood engaged the printer Nathaniel Thompson , 
who informed L ' Estrange af ter receiving the corrected 
proofs fr om Ca ry. Southwood and Thomps on apparently 
were protected from prosecution for their cooperation. l 
The g overnment used the common law of seditious 
libel to h a rass stationers. Malicious intent on the 
part of a p rinter or publi sher was assumed in trials 
i nvolving seditious libel, and the p rosecution decided 
which passages were seditious. Searches could be delayed 
or prosecution dro pped if a stationer coop era ted with 
1. P .C. 2 , 65 (485 ) ; C.S.P.D. 1676-7, pp . 543-4, 550 , 
555 , 565 ; C.S.P.D. 1677-8, pp . 47, 135, 1 88 . Cary was 
rele ased fr om the Towe r on 10 June 1677 u p on security 
for app earance; H. M.C. 9th R. 11, 70-3; L.J. XIII, 54-5, 
65; All Souls Colleg e Ms . 162 (1 9V , 21, 27v). 
, 
90 
By contrast, the g overnment responded swiftly 
and thoroughly to the public a tion of an opposition 
tra ct during the s am e week. Dr. Nicholas Ca ry was sent 
to the Tower in close custody on 9 February 1677 and 
hi s house was searched. After thorough investigation 
by the Libel Committee, Ca ry was fined hlOOO by the 
. Lords for not disclosing the author of 'The Grand question 
concerning the p rorogation of this Parliament for a 
ye a r and three months stated and discussed', though a ll 
indic a tions led to Lord Holles. The p rinted sheets of 
the f irst section were seized with Cary's manuscript 
corrections, thus the tra ct was never completed and 
distributed. Ca ry had g one to Benjamin Southwood, a 
bookseller, to a rrange an edition of 1500 co p ies. In 
turn Southwoo d engaged the printer Nathaniel Thompson, 
who informed L ' Estrange af ter receiving the corrected 
proofs fr om Ca ry. Southwood and Thompson apparently 
were protected from p rosecution for their coo pe r a tion. l 
The g overnment used the common law of seditious 
libe l to harass stationers. Malicious intent on the 
part of a p rin ter or publi sher was assumed in tri a l s 
i nvolving seditious libel, and the prosecution decided 
which passages we re seditious . Searches could be delayed 
or pro se cution dro pped i f a st a tioner coo pe r a ted with 
1. P .C. 2 , 65 ( 4 85 ) ; C. S . P .D. 1 6 76-7, pp . 543-4, 550, 
555 , 565; C.S.P.D. 1677-8 , pp . 47, 135 , 1 88 . Cary was 
rele ased from the To wer on 10 Jun e 1677 u p on s ecurity 
for app e ~rance; H. M.C. 9th R . 11, 70-3; L.J. XIII, 54-5 , 
65; All Souls College Ms . 162 (1 9V , 21, 27v). 
91 
the g overnment. On the other h and, prosecution could 
be threatened against those who refused to aid investiga-
tions. The g overnment p rotected its OM~ supporters ( and 
public a tions) from the force of l aw and bargained with 
printers and booksellers whose concern lay more in 
preserving-their trade than in expressing politica l con-
victions. Thus, Samuel Mearne warned Henry Bridges about 
the warrant issued agains t him for printing J enks 's speech, 
be c ause he h a d promised him 'tha t he should not be meddled 
with a t tha t time' on direction from Secret ary Williamson. 
Bridges was then assisting in the discovery of a n illegal 
1 press. Favouriti sm in implementing the press policy 
a ided the g overnment only in the short run; in-the long 
term such pro cedure convinced many stationers to protect 
themselves first and help the government second. Some 
stationers, like Me a rne, were totally committed to the 
g overnment. Others, like Bridg es and Marlow, coope r ated 
so re a dily wi th the authorities after being found out 
tha t they e a rned the cont~mpt of the maj ority of 
stationers. These stationers, while wanting the trade 
regul a te d, did not wish their a ctivities so circumscribed 
by by-laws and other restrictions as to limit their 
profit. St a tioners knew where they stood with each 
other and some b ooksellers would not offer profitable, 
1. H. M.C. 9 th R. 11, 77. 
if unlicensed books to p rinters who would not conceal 
trad e secrets from L'Estrang e or the Privy COillLcil. l 
One g roup of booksellers, including the Presbyterians 
Thomas Parkhurs t and Dorma n Newman and the Independent 
92 
Nathaniel Ponder, were willing to take risks in relig ious 
but rarely in politica l publishing . They knew th a t an 
a ttitude of p enitence towa rd authority minimized 
p ecuniary losses and diminished p ena lties. Other stationers, 
such as Francis Smith and John Da rby, served the 
opposition i n both politics and relig ion. These men 
were h arasse d most by partisan me thods of controlling 
the p ress. Each stationer was aware tha t his own 
difficulties with regulation of the p res s could be eased 
by a iding investigations or informing on another stationer. 
This knowledge led stationers to be more s usp icious of 
e a ch other and ma de the r egulations more difficult to 
enforce. 
1. Marlow rep orted tha t Thomas Sawbridge told him 'if 
he would n ot pri n t hi s unlicensed work , he should n ot 
p rint his unlicensed work '; H. M.C. 9th R . 11, 78. 
93 
Chap t er Three 
'Some Better Remedy for Regulating the Press' 
94 
When the Printing Act of 1662 expired on 10 June 
1679, government control of the press entered a new 
phase. Without legislation enabling them to restrict 
the number of printers and to search printing- houses 
for work in progress, the authorities were hampered 
in their attempts to regulate the output of the press. 
Political considerations also reduced their options. 
In a political climate highly charged with the revela-
tions of the Popish Plot and the growing calls fo r 
exclusion of the Roman Catholic Duke of York from the 
---
line of succession, the government wished to restrain 
opposition propaganda without appearing arbitrary. 
Controls on the press were again grounded in the royal 
prerogative, as they had been during the two years 
before the passage of the 1662 Printing Act, and the 
government initiated a programme to limit opposition 
publications through regulation of hawkers, support 
for a Stationers' Company by- law requiring imprints, 
and judicial warrants for investigation of seditious 
libel. Several alternative methods of control were 
put to the test during 1679 and 1680. The failure of 
these methods was due mostly to their inadequacy in 
undermining the support opposition stationers received 
from the Whigs in Parliament and the Whig juries in 
London. 
At first the Court did not show great concern in 
1679 for the renewal of the Printing Act. To be sure, 
the government realized that the lapse of legislation 
would cause problems, but it was not until the end of 
the session in late May that extensive discussions 
occurred in the Privy Council about the press. Debates 
in Parliament centered on the prosecution of the Popish 
Plot, the impeachment of Danby, and the exclusion of 
James. No bill for extending the Printing Act was 
proposed, despite the Lord Chancellor's speech at the 
beginning of Parliament on 6 March 1679 suggesting 
that 'it may not be amiss to think of some better 
remedy for regulating the press, from whence there 
daily steal forth Popish Catechisms, and Books of 
Controversy'. He added that the law would also 'hinder 
schismatical and seditious Libels', and pointed out 
the crucial reason for press legislation; 'certainly 
it were much better for us to make such laws as will 
prevent offences, rather than such as serve only to 
punish the offenders,.l When Titus Oates complained 
1. W. Cobbett, Parliamentary History, IV, 1089. See 
also E. Bohun's The Second Part of the Address to the 
Free- men, 1682 (Wing B3460), p. 48. 
95 
96 
to the Commons that his examination had been erroneously 
printed, Secretary of State Coventry attempted to refer 
the matter to committee, where presumably the court 
members would have pushed for press legislation. But 
Coventry was thwarted by John Hampden's reply that the 
printer was in custody and 'that changes the case,.l 
The court party in the Commons was not strong enough 
to insist on its position then, but they may have been 
responsible for the move on 22 April giving the committee 
'appointed to consider of the Temporary Laws' (including 
the 1662 Printing Act and the 1665 continuation) power 
2 to investigate unlicensed books. 
Opposition to the renewal of the Printing Act did 
not strictly follow party lines. Even Lord North, 
Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, argued against 
greater ~restrictions on the press, if we may believe 
hi~ hindsight. North took the position that it was 
impossible to hinder completely the publication of 
libels and that 'an extraordinary Inquisition' only 
aroused public opposition and resulted in the conviction 
of ' ,p oor Wretches that sought to get a Penny by selling 
them'. By eschewing extra-legal measures the government 
would not expose itself to telling criticism. 3 The 
1. A. Grey, Debates in the House of Commons (1763), 
VII, 77 (4 April 1679). 
2. ~, IX, 582, 600. 
3. Roger North, The Life of ••• Francis North, 1742, p. 153. 
North expounded these ideas after the impeachment 
process against Scroggs and the success of Heraclitus 
Ridens and L'Estrange's Observator in responding to 
Whig propaganda. 
licensing system was unp opular and Charles Blount's 
pleas for the 'liberty of the press' and his castiga-
tion of licensing struck a responsive chord among 
members of both houses of Parliament, to whom his 
A Just Vindication of Learning was directed. Fear 
of popery was paramount and licenses were considered, 
in Blount's words, 'an old Relique of Popery, only 
necessary for the concealing of such defects of 
Government, which of right ought to be discover'd and 
amended,.l The spring of 1679 was a relatively quiet 
time in the book trade. The first plot n arratives 
appeared., but there was little else to divert parlia-
mentary attention from the immediate concern with 
exclusion. Even the disclosure that Lord Treasurer 
Danby had arranged the publication of two political 
tra cts a week before Parliament sat did not encourage 
the Whigs to debate the state of the press. The 
Commons did examine the printer Henry Hills and the 
publisher J onathan Edwin, ." but Hills was discharged and 
the matter was sent to committee, which contented 
itself with identifying the author and recommending 
1. Charles Blount, A Just Vindication of Learning: or, 
An Humble Address to the High Court of Parliament In 
behalf of the Liberty of the Press, 1679 ( Wing B3307), 
p. 2. Blount suggested that licenc es should be 
replaced by required imprints making the stationers 
responsible for publications in their names. 
9 7 
98 
1 his removal from the commission of peace . The episode 
did more to exacerbate sentiment against Danby than to 
stimulate new p ress leg isla tion. Indeed, there is some 
evidence that the ¥higs took a ctive steps to prevent 
consideration of a new Printing Act. 2 Strict re gulation 
of the p ress aided the g overnment and its supporters, 
while the party in opposition re quired a wide discussion 
of politics and pol icies. The press was crucial to Whig 
plans to win parli amentary and p opul a r support for exclusion. 
Government suppression of opposition propaganda after 1675 
had exp osed the partisan aspects of p ress control, and 
Danby 's manipulation of the p ress underscored for Whigs 
the need to limit g overnment control of the book trade 
by a llowing the Printing Act to lapse. 
Not until the prorogation of Parliament on 27 May 
1679 did the King and Privy Council take p ositive steps 
to explore a lternatives to leg islation for p ress control. 
On the following day the Council noted that 'severall 
seditious pamphlets were then in the press, and their 
numbers were likely to increase with the expiration 
of the Act for Printing ' on 10 June, the day on which the 
1662 Act had gone into effect. Though the Stationers' 
Company was in bad favour because of it s deficiency 
in stifling participation in opposition p ropaganda 
1. Grey, Debates, VII, 32, 49, 103-4, 167; Bohun , The Second 
Part of the Address, p . 26 . Morrice, P , 144-5, 147. 
Edwin had distributed the goverrunent's a tt a ck on Sh af tesbury , 
A Pac quet of Advice ... to the Men of Shaftesbury, in 1677. 
2. D.R. Lacey, Dissent and Parliament ary Pol itic s , p. 133. 
I 
I ' 
during the previous decade, the Master andWa~dens, with 
Rog er L'Estrange, were ordered to attend the next 
meeting of the Council. The following :fortnight was 
99 
a period of intense consultation at Whitehall -- quite 
unlike the preceding months. Members of the Stationers' 
.. ' , ", : . 
Court had met with the Bishop of London on 6 March 1679 
(the first day of Parliament) about the Act, b~t 
se'arches were infrequent and aimed mostly at discovering 
popish books ann stolen i'mpressions of almanacs. On 
29 May Samuel Mearne, the stationer most approved by 
the government, attended a meeting at Whi t 'ehall, and the 
next day the Master and Wardens met with the Attorney 
General, who also interviewed L'Estrange, to draw up 
,-, "'. 
proposals 'against the mischiefs that are likely to 
ensue by the Licence of the Presse'. The Attorney 
General !Sir William Jones) was ordered to report the 
results of these conferences to the Council with 
suggestions to the King about the extent to which his 
'aut'b.'ori ty' or royal prerogative could replace legis-
lation. This was the first of four occasions on which 
representatives of 'the iegal profession were questioned 
about prerogative and press control. In succeeding 
months the judges were called upon three times for 
their opinions on the matter. l I 
1. P.C. 2, 68 (60, 76), 28 and 30 May 1679. Stat . Co . 
Records, Warden's Accounts fo r 1678-9, entries for 6 
March, 15 March ( a ,search of thirty- four printing 
houses), 29 May, and 2 June 1679. 
I 
100 
Roger L'Estrange proposed the formation of a new 
livery company consisting only of master printers and 
separate from the large and cumbersome Stationers' 
Company dominated by booksellers and bookbinders. 
L'Estrange believed that printers were g ood searchers 
and less tempted by profit . _to :-- excuse · libels. By 
incorporating thirty master printers, the new company 
would provide self-policing of a small number of members 
and thus provide the control over libels before 
publication similar to the Printing Act. The Privy 
Council was sufficiently impressed with his ideas to 
order the Master and Wardens and the master printers 
to meet separately with him to consider them. At their 
conference with L'Estrange on 6 June, over twenty 
printers voluntarily offered to serve the King by 
incorporating themselves, but they were less keen than 
L' Estrange, though they had first mooted the idea of 
a Company of Printers in 1663. L'Estrange wrote to 
Secretary Coventry on 10 June (the day the Act lapsed) 
urging implementation of his proposals; the opportunity 
should not be lost to gain the loyalty of printers before 
the expected onslaught of pamphlets and tracts, 'For 
the Booksellers ( especially the Factious Part ) fall 
foul upon the Printers allready, and upon myself too; 
and the Printers are utterly ruin'd for their Loyalty, 
if they be not protected in it'. L'Estrange wrote 
1 
again to Coventry, but the project collapsed. 
Contemporaries noted that there was a 'World of 
pamphlets published' during the summer of 1679. The 
future licenser of the press Edmund Bohun complained 
of 'a swarm of Lying, Seditious treasonable and 
101 
scandalous Pamphlets, Papers -and Pictures' which appeared 
after the expiration of the Printing Act. Anthony 
Wood also attributed the great increase in publications ' 
to 'the act about licensing and printing of pamphlets 
being terminated by the last session of parliament,.2 
While there is evidence thai s~fue stationers made 
preparations for the anticipated lapse of the Printing 
Act, it is not clear that pamphlets and broadsides 
were delayed at the press until after 10 June. Most 
of the printed material of the Exclusion Crisis was 
, topical -and much impact on opinion and sales was gained 
by rushing a broadside onto the streets within a day 
of a particular event or by timing the appearance of 
a pamphlet for the meeting of Parliament or sessions 
1. Cyprian Blagden, 'The "Company" of Printers', Studies 
in Bibliography, XII (1960), pp. 13-14; L'Estrange's 
letters are among the Coventry Papers (VI, ff. 64-7) 
at Longleat and are cited by Blagden. State Co. Records, 
Warden's Accounts for 1678-9; the Stationers got little 
more than a ten guinea fee from the Attorney General. 
P.C. 2, 68 (94), 6 June 1679; L'Estrange was expected 
to report on 12 June to the Attorney General, who in 
turn would inform the King. 
2. Bohun, The Second Part of the Address, 1682, p. 48. 
Andrew Clark, ed., The Life and Times of Anthony Wood, 
11, 457-8. See also N. Luttrell, A Brief Historical 
Relation, I, 19. 
102 
of a court. Thus the major 'swarm' of tracts was not 
printed after 10 June (when Parliament had been prorogued 
two weeks) but a month later> after the widely unpopular 
verdict in the trial of Sir George Wakeman, the Queen's 
physician. 
Francis Smith was one of the stationers who made 
preparations for the lapse of the Printing Act and the 
expected discussion of political affairs after the 
discovery of the Popish Plot. Primarily this meant 
raising capital. Part of Smith's need for money ' 
stemmed from a search of his warehouse 'kept in a 
private place on the Top of the Leaas of the Globe 
Tavern in Cornwall (i.e., Cornhill), led by Samuel 
Mearne on a warrant of 12 July 1678 from the Privy 
Council. l Mearne was looking for Marvell's An Account 
of the Growth of Popery and other unlicensed political 
tracts. Since Roger L'Estrange had made a similar 
search a week before, it is not surprising that Mearne 
did not .find ·what he hoped to find. Nonetheless, he 
carried away a large quantity of Smith's stock and 
obtained a damasking order from the Bishop of London. 
Smith reacted swiftly and received a rescinding order 
from the Bishop, but not until over ~50 worth of books 
had been made 'good for nothing but to paste upon 
1. P.C. 2, 66 (370). Smith denied that his warehouse 
wa s hidden; 'my Warehouse, so suggested for private and 
dang erous, was in the open Street at the Globe Tavern 
near the Royal Exchange'; An Account of the Injurious 
Proceedings, 1680, p. 19. 
". 
103 
Trunks or Hat-Cases,.l Thus it may have been in response 
to this loss that Smith mortgaged his ~40 share of 
the Stationers' Company English Stock to Thomas Newcomb 
on 4 November 1678, but it is more likely that he was 
preparing for an increase in his publishing business. 
The following spring, as debates in Parliament showed 
the growing political strength of the opposition, Smith 
not only declined to serve as Renter Warden of ~he 
Stationers, a position offered to him by seniority, 
but arranged to receive 'the first 50 li. loan money 
which shall come into the Wardens hands'. Renter Wardens 
were responsible for collecting quarterly subscriptions 
from freemen and rents for company property. To be 
elected to the Court of Assistants it was necessary 
to have served as Renter Warden, but it was a time-consuming 
job which would have left Smith little time to publish 
-.... 
f th 't' 2 or e OppOSl lon. The ' loan money' was probably used 
to underwrite Smith's large impression of An Exact 
Collection of all Orders, Votes, Debates, and Conferences 
in the House d'f Peers, and House of Commons, Both in 
the Late, and Present Parliament .relating to, and con-
cerning Thomas Earl of Danby, And the other five Lords 
in the Tower. This consisted of extracts from the 
1. The Bishop's damasking order, dated 16 July 1678, 
is printed in C.R. Rivington's A Brief Account of the 
Worshipful Company of Stationers, 1930, between pp. 6 
and 7 of the pamphlet. Smith, An Account, p. 19. 
2. Stat. Co. Court Records, Liber D, entries for 4 November 
1678 and 26 March 1679. C. Blagden, The Stationers' 
Company, pp. 37-8, 159-60. 
103 
Trunks or Hat-Cases,.l Thus it may have been in response 
to this loss that Smith mortgaged his h40 share of 
the Stationers' Company English Stock to Thomas Newcomb 
on 4 November 1678, but it is ~Ore likely that he was 
preparing for an increase in his publishing business. 
The following spring, as debates in Parliament showed 
the growing political strength of the opposition, Smith 
not only declined to serve as Renter Warden of ~he 
Stationers, a position offered to him by seniority, 
but arranged to receive 'the first 50 li. loan money 
which shall come into the Wardens hands'. Renter Wardens 
were responsible · for collecting quarterly subscriptions 
from freemen and rents for company property. To be 
elected to the Court of Assistants it was necessary 
to have served as Renter Warden, but it was a time-consuming 
job whic~ would have left Smith little time to publish 
f th 't' 2 or e OppOSl lon. The ' loan money' was probably used 
to underwrite Smith's large impression of An Exact 
Collection of all Orders, Votes, Debates, and Conferences 
in the House df Peers, and House of Commons, Both in 
the JJate, and Present Parliament .relating to, and con-
cerning Thomas Earl of Danby, And the other five Lords 
in the Tower. This consisted of extracts from the 
1. The Bishop's damasking order, dated 16 July 1678, 
is printed in C.R. Rivington's A Brief Account of the 
Worshipful Company of Stationers, 1930, between pp. 6 
and 7 of the pamphlet. Smith, An Account, p. 19. 
2. Stat. Co. Court Records, Liber D, entries for 4. November 
1678 and 26 March 1679. C. Blagden, The Stationers' 
Company, pp. 37-8, 159-60. 
I . 
journals of both houses but included no commentary or 
annotation. Though the Commons had not then decided 
to print their votes, apparently Smith was confident 
that the opposition party would protect him if his 
breach of privilege was questioned when Parliament 
next met. By avoiding commentary Smith presumably 
believed the government would not prosecute him for 
seditious libel as had been threatened for a similar 
publication in 1673. 1 Another extensive undertaking 
demanding a large outlay of capital was The Narrative 
of Robert Jenison, in which Smith was the senior 
partner among five stationers. The same group also 
brought out The Additional Narrative of Mr. Miles 
Prance in the middle of October 1673. 2 Both of these 
104 
Popish Plot narratives were advertised in the government's 
London Gazette, and Smith and Samuel Heyrick, the two 
promoters among the five, announced their intention of 
printing Jenison's Narrative in the London Gazette of 
25 August 1679, with a warning that any other version 
would be disowned by Jenison. 3 Large sUms reportedly 
were paid to informers for the right to print their 
narratives, though there is no record of what Smith and 
his partners paid Jenison and Prance. But the fact 
1. Wing E1531. 
2. Wing J561; Wing P3170. The other partners we r e 
Thomas Ba ssett, John Wright, Richard Chiswell, and 
Samuel Heyrick. 
3. London Gazette #1436, 25 August 1679, repeated in 
#1437; #1451, 16 Ocotber 1679, repeated in #1452. 
- ~~---
of their joint promotion indicates exceptional costs 
not only for the size of the edition but for payment 
to theauthors. l 
On 18 July 1679 Sir George Wakeman was tried on 
a charge of high treason for conspiring to murder the 
1 05 
King. As Benjamin Harris reported in his two week old 
newspaper, Domestick Intelligence, the trial of Wakeman 
and three Benedictine monks took seven hours with the 
jury bringing in a verdict of not guilty after deliberating 
2 for an hour. Professor Kenyon has vindicated the legal 
procedure and judicial bearing of Lord Chief Justice 
Scroggs in Wakeman's trial, but to contemporaries who 
". ~. 
implicitly believed in the Popish Plot and therefore 
in the testimony of Titus Oates and William Bedloe, the 
verdict appeared to be both an unexpected and gross 
injustice and an extension of p opery.3 Scroggs had 
presided over trials which resulted in thirteen execu-
tions based principally on the evidence of Oates and 
Bedloe, and suddenly, it seemed, he altered his stance 
. ~: ...... 
by berating Oates and Bedloe and summing up the evidence 
1. For one bookseller's comments on the 'excessive rates 
for Copies', see John Peacock's 'An Advertisement To 
Booksellers', The Proceedings of the Honourable House 
of Commons, Who met at Oxford, 1681. 
2. B. Harris, Domestick Intelligence #5, 22 July 1679; 
Harris listed the members of the jury. 
3. J.P. Kenyon, 'The Acquittal of Sir George Wakeman: 
18 July 1679', The Historical Journal, XIV (1971) , pp. 
693-708. KenYQ~, The Popish Plot, pp. 168- 76. State 
Trials, VIII , 163-74. A.F. Havighurst, 'The Judiciary 
and Politics in the Reign of Charles 11', Law Quarterly 
Review, 66 (1950) , pp. 234-5. 
106 
in favour of Wakeman. Some thought Scroggs had responded 
to pressure from the King, while others believed he 
had accepted a large bribe. A visit of appreciation 
by the Portuguese Ambassador appeared to con-
, . 1 
firm charges that ~10,000 had changed hands. A spate 
of broadsides and tracts condemned Scroggs and the jury 
verdict, and cries of 'A Wakeman! A Wakeman!' and a 
dead dog thrown int'.o his coach greeted Scroggs on an 
, t 2 aSSlze our. 
The flood of pamphlets and satires on Scroggs, 
coupled with dissatisfaction among the opposition over 
the dissolution of Parliament on 10 July 1679, convinced 
Charles 11 that he should explore every possible means 
to control the output of the press. The King had 
several options open to him, based on both law and 
prerogative. His major problem caused by the want of 
a Printing Act was regulation at the source, the printing 
house. Only after publications reached the streets 
could the government act to punish the offending 
stationers, both printers and booksellers. But by 
then the propaganda value had probably been achieved 
through v a rious means of distribution and the damage 
done. If the government did decide to prosecute, and 
1. G. Burnet, History of His Own Time Cede 1823), 11, 
186, 222. Roger North, Examen, p. 568. 
2. Kenyon, The Popish Plot, p. 177. Luttrell, Brief 
Relation, I, 19-20. All Souls College Ms. 171 (49, 50, 
51v , 63v ). See Elias F. Mengel, Jr., ed., Poems on 
Affairs of State, 11, 280-91, for examples of poetic 
satires. 
I 
J 
I 
this occurred for only a few libels during 1679-80, 
they were on firmer ground. Under the modification 
of the treason st~tute of 25 Edward III passed soon 
after the Restoration (13 Charles 11, stat. 1, c. 1), 
printing and publishing could be construed as overt 
acts of treason in compassing the King's removal or 
death. This position was confirmed in the judgement 
against John Twyn in 1664 for printing A Treatise of 
1 0 7 
Injustice, though the charges were based on 25 Edward 
111.1 The treason statutes were a significant deterrent 
during the seventeenth century. Frederick Siebert 
noted two examples of execution of printers in the 
seventeenth century (John Twyn in 1664 and William 
Anderton in 1693), to whom should be added William 
Disney, who was convicted in 1685 for printi,ng Monmouth' s 
Declaration. Others, like Francis Smith and Elizabeth 
2 Calvert in 1661, were detaine d on treason charges. 
The common law of seditious libel was more often 
applied against opposition stationers, especially 
after 1680. While the Printing Act was in force, the 
government tended to prosecute printers for keeping 
1. Havighurst, 'Judiciary and Politics', p. 68. F.S. 
Siebert, Freedom of the Press, pp. 265-9. The statute 
of 13 Charles 11 was in force only during Charles's 
lifetime. 
2. Siebert, Freedom of the Press, pp. 267- 8. London 
Gazette #2046, 29 June 1685; Luttrell, ~B~r~i~e~f~R~e~l~a~t~i~o~n, 
I, 348, 350 . Disney was not a member of the Stationers' 
Company. 
1 0 8 
supernumerary presses rather than indicting booksellers 
for seditious libel. Determining seditious libel in 
political tracts was a partisan process, because the 
line between political criticism and libel was vague 
and was thus influenced by the state of Parliament, the 
political complexion of the judiciary, and public 
opinion. Libel action could be based on publication 
of 'seditious words not only against the king , but 
also against his government, the judges, or the established 
church,.l The government conducted only a few seditious 
libel trials in 1679- 80, principally a g ainst Benjamin 
Harris, Francis Smith, Jane Curtis, and the writer 
Henry Care, but libel actions became common after the 
King regained control of political sentiment in 1681. 2 
The other avenues of press control open to the 
King wer~ based on royal prerogative. Primary among 
these was manipulation of the Stationers' Company, 
which owed its existence to royal charter. The King's 
bookbinder) Samuel Mearne, was installed as Master of 
the Company in July 1679 for the ensuing year, and he 
1. W.S. Holdsworth, A History of English Law, VIII, 339. 
2. Siebert,Freedom of the Press, pp. 269- 75; Holdsworth, 
A History o:L English La w, VIII, 336-45. 
" 
pushed through an order from the Stationers' Court on 
4 August 1679 establishing a ~20 fine against those 
., 
who failed to include the imprint of the printer or 
." 
publisher resonsible for publication. Even though 
it was rarely invoked, the political nature of this 
order was obvious from the manner in which it was 
. 1· d 1 ap.p le • Mearne also extended what moral suasion 
h'e' 'could by arranging for the Stationers' Court to 
. , 
admonish printers of 'Scandalous Papers' and extract 
promises 'to desist from that evill Practice,.2 It 
was als o within the King's prerogative to appoint 
private agents for the discovery of libels. Roger 
L'Estrange was the most important and best informed 
of the private persons given public blessing to carry 
109 
out searches, and Robert Stephens was another successful 
agent. ~A printer and a freeman of the Stationers' 
Company, Stephens knew the tricks of the trade and was 
able to ferret out the printers and publishers of several 
libels after 1675. He had received three rewards for 
1. State Co. Court Records, Liber D, entry for 4 August 
1679. The order was invoked against Langley Curtis on 
25 August 1680 for prin~ing Care's Weekly Pacguet of 
Advice, James Astwood on 11 April 1681 for printing 
Stephen College's Ra-ree Show,·- David Mallet on 3 October 
1681 for a tract against Heraclitus Ridens and The . 
Observator, and Richa rd Janewa y on 1 March 168l~for 
a pamphlet against the Abhorrers. (These examples are 
t aken from Liber E ). 
2. State Co. Court Records, Liber D, entry for 24 
October 1679, when promises were given by James Cotterell 
and Mr. Hall, probably John Hall, the Oxford printer. 
Cotterell had appeared before the Privy Council on 
15 October for ·publishing a 'pretended letter conteyning 
a libel against the Church of Eng land'; P.C. 2,68 ( 231 ) . 
I. 
discoveries during 1676-77 and had been made a King's 
Messenger on 11 December 1678 'to attend the affairs 
1 
of all Printing presses'. On 9 January 1679 he was 
110 
granted a general search warrant by Secretary Coventry, 
and he attended several of the meetings at Whitehall 
concerning the expiration of the Printing Act in June. 2 
During the Exclusion Crisis he was as important if 
not so vocal as L'Estrange in the identification of 
offending printers and booksellers and in delivering 
them for interrogation or trial. For his services 
Stephens was granted ~50 per annum, plus disbursements 
when approved by a Secretary of State, out of the secret 
service money. From the Stationers he received 
incidental expenses and a yearly income of ~5.3 
The lack of legislation to hinder printing empha-
sized th! need to regulate distribution of printed 
material, particularly by hawkers. For this the King 
turned to the Lord Mayor and Court of Aldermen. Before 
the expiration of the Printing Act Charles had charged 
the Lord Mayor on 5 June 1679 'to make dilligent search 
after those disaffected Fanaticks who are the Authors 
1. Calendar of Treasury Books, V, 70, 478, 1329. P.C. 2, 
68 (294), 28 November 1679, petition of Stephens for 
allowance. 
2. C.S.P.D. 1679-80, p. 14. State Co. Records, Warden's 
Accounts for 1678-9. 
3. J.Y. Akerman, Moneys Received and Paid for Secret 
Services of Charles 11 and James 11, 1851, pp. 11, 17, 
23, 37, 52, 58, 66, 80, and 92. For a not always reliable 
account of Stephens's career up to 1695, see Leona 
Rostenberg, 'Subversion & Repression: Robert Stephens, 
Messenger of the Press', Literary, Political ••• Publishing ••• 
in England, 1551-1700, 11, 345-67. 
.. ~ 
of those false reports & of many Seditious Libells 
that are dayly dispersed', and now he directed the 
Lord Mayor and Stationers' Company to draw up an order 
against the 'loose and idle persons' who sold and 
dispersed seditious and scandalous books within the 
City of London and 'especially the Street of Cornhill 
and Passages to the Royal Exchange' (where Francis 
Smith and Benjamin Harris had their shops).l The Lord 
Mayor met with the Wardens to discuss the form of the 
order, and on 7' August the Wardens, with Abel Roper 
and Francis Tyton, attended the meeting of the Court 
111 
of Aldermen at the Fountain Tavern. An order was issued 
to the City Marshal and constables to take into custody 
any person hawking printed papers for questioning 
before the Lord Mayor or a justice of the peace. Offenders 
.~. . ... -:, . . ' \ 
were to be set at hard labour at Bridewell prison. 
The fo r mulation and publication of the order against 
: .. . 
hawkers is a good example of the royal power to orchestrat e 
expeditious cooperation between the Stationers' Company 
and the Lord Mayor and Aldermen, with immediate 
publication of the order in the government's London 
Gazette. 2 
1. All Souls College Ms. 171 (34); this is a collection 
of newsletters and notes by Narcissus Luttrell. The 
manuscript is a much fuller source of information for 
January 1679 to February 1681 than his Brief Relation . 
2 . Stat e Co . Records, Warden's AC,counts for 1679- 80, 
entries for 4- 7 August 1679 . Repertories of the Court 
of Aldermen, 84 (185), 7 August 1679. London Gazette 
#1432, 11. Augu$t 1679. The Privy Council had directed 
the Lord Mayor to suppress hawkers in 1668; P. C. 2, 57 
(394), 22 July 1668. 
With the general framework for press control 
established in the summer of 1679, the King and Privy 
Council insituted a programme of control in October. l 
. ' 
Sparked by the Wakeman tracts and the successful use 
of printed propaganda by the opposition in gaining an 
overwhelming majority in parliamentary elections, and 
112 
coinciding with the dismissal of the Earl of Shaftesbury 
from the Council, the programme heralded a government 
response to increasingly bitter criticism. Begun in 
the Privy Council and validated by the judges, the 
campaign was directed most intensely against Benjamin 
Harris, Francis Smith, and Henry Care and his publisher 
Langley Curtis, and was aimed at silencing these 
vociferous agents of exclusionist propaganda. The 
government attack commenced with the appearance of 
Langley Gurtis and Henry Care before the Privy Council 
on 15 October (the day after Shaftesbury's dismissal) 
for their role in publishing and writing The Weekly 
Pacquet of Advice from Rome. 2 On ' the same day ' Lord Chief 
Justice North and Attorney General Jones were ordered 
to peruse An Appeal from the Country to the City and the 
1. L'Estrange had received orders from the Privy Council 
on 28 September to search for libels, discover offending 
authors and stationers,and report from time to time 
to the Council; P.C. 2, 68 (212). The Court of Aldermen 
h a d also set up a libel committee on 18 September, 
consisting of nine aldermen with a quorum of two; Reper-
tories of the Court of Alde rmen, 84 (209V- 210 ) . 
2 . P.C. 2, 68 (228), 13 October 1679; order for their 
appearance on 15 October. 
·1 
Political Catechism for treasonous or other punishable 
content. Their report did indicate treasonous matter 
in An Appeal and other tracts. On 17 October the nine 
judges of the Westminster courts were ordered to meet 
to consider 'what Expedients may by law be made use of 
to remedy the great mischiefs that dayly arrise from 
the licenciousness of the Press and the liberty taken 
113 
by Hawkers, & others in dispersing seditious & scandalous 
libells and Pamphlets'. Their decision, presented to 
the Council ten days later, that seditious papers 
could be seized and those responsible apprehended and 
committed to prison pending prosecution, was incorporated 
in a proclamati on prepared by the new Attorney General 
Sir Creswell Levins and issued on 3 November. l The 
proclamation included a reward scheme intended to 
involve~rivate citizens in the suppression of libels. 
Less genero,us than the 1675 reward plan, the proclamation 
promised ~40 to the discoverer of the author or printer 
of any seditious or treasonous libel 'to be payd 
immediately after his conviction' and offered a royal 
pardon to hawkers who identified their supplier and 
to booksellers and printers who disclosed the author 
1. P.C. 2, 68 ( 229 ) . Luttrell learned that North and Jone s 
also found treasonous matter in An Account of the Growth of 
Popery and Great and Weighty Considerations; All Souls Ms. 
171 (76). P.C. 2, 68 (236, 256-7), the charge to the 
judg es and their report. N ~ Thompson, The True Domesticlc 
Intelligence #34, 31 October 1679. Sir William Jones 
resigned as Attorney General on 25 October, but Levins 
had the proclamation ready for Council approval on 31 
October; P.C. 2, 68 (263) . It was printed in the London 
Gazette #1457, 6 November 1679. Steele, Tudor and Stuart 
Proclamations #3699. 
.... . 
114 
of a seditious tract. l Meanwhile the Council's Committee 
for Examinations met with L'Estrange on 23 October to 
review his list of 'seditious & treasonous pamphlets ••• 
printed & published since the expiration of the Printing 
Act' and to consider what 'power & Authority' should 
2 be given to Robert Stephens. 
The fact that the Privy Council was instituting a 
vigorous campaign against the opposition press was a 
matter of fairly common knowledge. Narcissus Luttrell 
received newsletters outlining the Council's delibera-
tions and Henry Muddiman reported in his newsletter of 
16 Ocotber that Mary Thompson (Nathaniel Thompson's 
wife), Anne Brewster (Thomas Brewster's widow), and 
two clerks in the letter office, Murray and Ray, had 
been taken into custody for dispersing An Appeal, while 
. Benjamin Harris noted in his newspaper that 'several 
Persons' had been examined before the 'Council. 3 If there 
were any public doubts ab out the government's intention 
to prosecute libels, they were soon dispelled by the 
1. N. Thompson noted that the reward scheme was 'for 
one year next ensuing'; True Domestick Intelligence #35, 
4 November 1679. The proclamation also included the 
warning that officers and persons failing to assist in 
the suppression of libels would be 'proceeded against 
as Contemners of H~s Majesties Royal Authority, in a 
Matter of so great Concernment to the Publick'. 
2. P.C. 2, 68 (242-3 ). 
3. All Souls College Ms. 171 (73, 74, 76); Muddiman's 
newsletter is cited by J.G. Muddiman, 'Benjamin Harris, 
the First American Journalist', Notes and Queries, 163 
(1932), p. 131; B. Harris, Domestick Intelligence #30, 
17 October 1679. Morrice, P, 211 • 
! . 
... .. 
114 1 
of a seditious tract. l Meanwhile the Council's Committee 
for Examinations met with L'Estrange on 23 October to 
review his list of 'seditious & treasonous pamphlets ••• 
printed & published since the expiration of the Printing 
Act' and to consider what 'power & Authority' should 
2 be given to Robert Stephens. 
The fact that the Privy Council was instituting a 
vigorous campaign against the opposition press was a 
matter of fairly common knowledge. Narcissus Luttrell 
received newsletters outlining the Council's delibera-
tions and Henry Muddiman reported in his newsletter of 
16 Ocotber that Mary Thompson (Nathaniel Thompson's 
wife), Anne Brewster (Thomas Brewster's widow), and 
two clerks in the letter office, Murray and Ray, had 
been taken into custody for dispersing An Appeal, while 
Benjamin Harris noted in his newspaper that 'several 
Persons' had been examined before the Council. 3 If there 
were any public doubts about the government's intention 
to prosecute libels, they were soon dispelled by the 
1. N. Thomp son noted that the reward scheme was 'for 
one year next ensuing'; True Domestick Intelligence #35, 
4 November 1679. The proclamation also included the 
warning that officers and persons failing to assist in 
the suppression of libels would be 'proceeded against 
as Contemners of His Majesties Royal Authority, in a 
Matter of so great Concernment to the Publick'. 
2. P.C . 2, 68 (242- 3). 
3. All Souls College Ms. 171 (73, 74, 76); Muddiman's 
newsletter is cited by J . G. Muddiman , 'Benj amin Ha r r i s, 
the F irst American Journalist', Notes and Queries, 163 
(1932), p . 131; B . Harris, Domestick Intelligence #30, 
17 October 1679. Morrice, P, 211 • 
extraordinary attack on booksellers and 'hireling 
Scriblers ••• who write to Eat, and Lye for Bread' by 
Lord 'Chief Justice Scroggs in his speech at the King's 
115 
Bench on 23 October 1679, the first day of the Michaelmas 
term. l Scroggs never scrupled to engage in the often 
nasty exchanges of Exclusion politics, and he used the 
occasion of two informations of scandalum magnatum 
against one Richard Radley for accusing him of taking 
bribes in the Wakeman trial, to give a speech affirming 
his belief in the Plot and defending the procedure and 
verdict at Wakeman 's trial. 'The people ought to be 
pleased with publick Justice, and not Justice seek to 
please the people', he said, and warned that he 
intended to crush the printers and booksellers who sold . 
'false and braded ware' with aspersions on the judges 
and gov~rnment; 'some will be found, and they shall 
know, that the Law wants not power to punish a Libellous 
and Licentious Press, nor I a resolution to execute it'. 
'In short', he added, 'it is the proper business of 
this Court, and our Duties that fit Judges here, to 
take care to prevent and punish the mischiefs of the 
Press'. 
1. On the same day Scroggs appointed Robert Pawletto 
print his speech; The Lord Chief Justice Scroggs His 
Speech in the Kin~s-Bench The first day of this present 
Michaelmas Term 1 79. Occasion'd by the many Libellous 
Pamphlets which are publisht against the Law, to the 
Scandal of the Government, and Publick Justice, 1679 
(Wing S2122). 
116 
Narcissus Luttrell, who apparently was present in 
the King's Bench to hear Scroggs, noted that 'his speech 
in generall was but ordi.nary, sometimes with hesitations 
& stammerings ••• ,.l If Scroggs showed some hesitation 
in his delivery, he betrayed no doubts in his intent 
to carry out the government programme against the 
opposition press. He promptly ordered Henry Care placed 
in custody and denied him bail. Next day he sent Jane 
Curtis to prison for selling A Satyr upon Injustice 
and Francis Smith to the King's Bench prison for selling 
Some Observations on the Tryal of Sir George Wakeman. 
Later, Benjamin Harris was indicted on a charge of 
publishing and exposing to sale An Appeal from the 
Country to the City. 
Harris was a young Baptist bookseller who had taken 
. up his f~eedom of the Stationers' Company in January 
1670. 2 His trade consisted mostly of primers and 
theological works, and in 1674 he was detected by the 
Stationers' Company having published in league with 
his father primers and almanacs belonging to the 
English Stock of the Company.3 After the expiration 
of the Printing Act, Harris drifted into the political 
1. All Souls Ms. 171 (77v ); Luttrell also recorded a 
very fair summary of Scroggs's speech and the comments 
of the other judges. 
2. D.F. McKenzie, Stationers' Company Apprentices, 1641-
1700, p. 20 (#501) . 
3. Stat. Co. Court Records, Liber D, entries for 6 April 
and 25 June 1674, 3 May and 4 October 1675. Mrs. Maxwell, 
who printed the primers .and almanacs, submitted to the 
Court and was fined ~6 13s. 4d. 
book trade in July 1679 by taking a quarter share in 
the publication of the notorious William Bedloe's A 
Narrative and Impartial Discovery, which accused the 
papists of causing the fires of London. L'Estrange 
pointed out in 1683 that Bedloe's Narrative had been 
prepared by Henry Care for a group of booksellers who 
wished to make money on a venture. Bedloe was paid 
blO by each partner for the use of his name. The 
Narrative was taken 'almost whole, and Verbatim out 
of Trap ad Crucem, and Enformations about the Fires, 
Two Scandalous Pamphlets, Printed for Elephant Smith 
some Ten or Twelve years before,.l Harris became an 
object of the government's wrath for publishing the 
Domestick Intelligence, the first opposition newspape r 
during the Exclusion Crisis. He was not the first man 
2 to publ~sh or sell An Appeal. The i ndictment against 
Harris dates his offence on 22 October, a week after 
117 
the Privy Council first examined persons accused of 
dispersing the tract. 3 Charles Ray, one of those 
questioned by the Council, remained in the King's Bench 
1. R. L'Estrange, The Observator, I, 359, 18 June and 
I, 369, 4 July 1683; L'Estrange, The Narrative of the 
Plot, pp. 17- 8. 
2. The authorship of An Appeal has been attributed to 
Charles Blount. On Harris, see W.C. Ford, 'Benjamin 
Harris, Printer and Bookseller', proceedinrs of the 
Massachusetts Historical Society, 57 (1923 , pp. 34- 68; 
.. J .G. Muddiman, 'Benjamin Harris, the First American 
Journalist' , Notes and Queries, 163 (1932), pp. 19, 
29- 33, 147- 50, 166- 70, 273; Frank Monaghan, 'Benjamin 
Ha rris ••• ', Colophon, XII (1932). . 
3. For the text of the indictment (Mich. 31 Car. 2, #42), 
see W.H. Ha rt, Index Expurgato r ius Anglicanus, p . 207. 
118 
prison for eight months before being discharged without 
paying fees by Charles 11. He became an informer and 
was the government witness to the charge of treason 
brought against Francis Smith in April 1681. 1 Harris 
claimed that Nathaniel Thompson issued the first printing 
and that 2 his folio edition came out later; L'Estrange 
believed Langley Curtis was responsible. 3 Benjamin 
Harris was prosecuted and the others were not, and it 
seems clear that the government indicted Harris for 
An Appeal to punish him for his newspaper. 
Harris's trial for 'maliciously and designedly' 
causing to be printed and selling that seditious libel 
to the scandal of the King and government, took place 
at the Guildhall on Thursday, 5 February 1680. 4 After 
1. C.S.f.D. 1679-80, p. 469. 
2. The quarto edition is Wing B3300A and the folio is 
B3300. Bibliographical evidence is not conclusive, but 
on balance it seems the quarto edition was first; see 
David Knott, 'The Booksellers and the Plot', The Book 
Collector, 23 (1974), pp. 202-4. Harris named Thompson 
in his petition to the House of Commons meeting at Oxford 
in March 1681; To the Honourable House of Commons ••• : 
The Case and Humble Petition of Benoamin Harris Bookseller, 
1 1 Wing H 42 , p. 2. After his trial Harris contented 
himself with this denial, ' ••• the first of the said 
Appeals that he ever saw, was a Printed Book in Quarto, 
of four sheets of Paper, commonly sold about the Town, 
some considerable time before he sold any of them'; 
B. Harris, Domestick Intelligence #65, 17 February 1679/80. 
3. L'Estrange, The Observator, I, 156, 17 June 1682. 
This was categorically denied by Curtis, who repeated 
the charge against Thompson; L. Curtis, True Protestant 
Mercury #154, 28 June 1682. 
4. 'We are credibly informed, that an Information is 
already put in by the Lord Chief Justice against Mr 
Harris the Bookseller, and that he will be tried upon 
the same upon Wednesday or Thursday next'; N. Thompson, 
True Domestick Intelligence #65, 17 February 1680. 
I 
119 
the indictment had been read, Sir George Jeffreys, Recorder 
of London, opened for the government by calling the book 
'as bas e a piece as ever was contrived in Hell, either 
by Papists, or the blackest Rebel that ever was'. 1 
Jeffreys virtually admitted that Harris was not the 
first publisher, and the prosecution tried to prove 
only that Harris had exposed for sale copies of the 
book. 2 Lord Chief Justice Scroggs repeated the passage 
on which the indictment was based, saying 'if it be 
not down-right Treason, I am sure, it is just upon the 
heels of it'. The offending paragraph included the 
sentence, 'If the Plot takes effect, (as in all probability 
it will) our Parliaments are not then to be Condemned, 
for that their not being suffered to Sit occasioned it,.3 
The government called three witnesses; including the -' 
station~r Benjamin Tooke, to prove that Harris sold the 
book, but Harris's counsel, Serjeant Strode and William 
1 ,. A_Short but Just Account of the Tr al of Ben 'amin 
Harris Wing S35 5 , p. 2. Jeffreys complained that 
his words were misrepresented in the published accounts 
(by Benjami n Claypoole) of Harris's and Smith's trials, 
but there was no claim that the reports were false. 
Claypoole ' publicly apologized for 'some mistakes and 
variations from the Words spoken in court to the injury 
and displeasure of the Judges, and especially of the 
Recorder', in Thompson's True Domestick Intelligence 
#65, 17 February 1680. , 
2. A Short but Just Account, p. 2; 'I must confess, I 
would rather have believed that it was only the sake 
of lucre made him do what he did, for that would have 
somewhat extenuated his Crime, if he had not read it 
first; but then to go, and have it Printed, and 
exposed to s~le, &c. this is a great aggravation'. 
3. Ibid., p. 3. 
120 
Williarns (later Speaker of the House of Commons), admitted 
the fact of sale and grounded their defence on the argu-
ment that Harris had not acted with malicious intent. 
In Williarns's words, 'He in his Trade sold this Book, 
and that we admit; but, my Lord, it is a material part 
of the Information, that it was done with a malicious 
design, &c . and we do not take it so ••• ,.l This defence 
carried little weight. At the trial of Thomas Brewster 
in 1664, Lord Chief Justice Hyde had ruled, 'The thing 
itself, in causing a book to be printed that is so full 
of scandals and lies, to inveigle, misguide, and deceive 
the pe ople, this is, in construction of the law, malice; 
2 
and though no malice appear further'. 
Scroggs betrayed his impatience at Williarns's 
attempt to bring f orth character witnesses with the 
comment,~ 'There is scarce any but Smith, that is so 
Factious a Seller of Books, as Harris: All your 
Domestick-Intelligences are so; for which, you know, 
you have forfeited your Recognizance almost in every 
Book,.3 After the testimony of Robert Stephens, Scroggs 
gave his summary.4 He noted that 'all the Judges have 
1. Ibid., p. 4. 
2. State Trials, VI, 547. 
3 . ~ Short but Just Account, p . 5. 
4. Stephens claimed credit for discovering Harris 
selling the book; Cal. Treas. Bks., VI, 434. 
1 21 
declared this Offence, a t Common- Law, to be Punishable 
in the Seller, though in the way of his Trade: The Books 
may be seized, and the Person punished'. He also 
inveighed against the position taken i n An Appeal in 
support of the Duke of Monmouth as heir to the throne. 
Harris was not permitted to make a final statement to 
the jury, which 'after a little while tarrying' returned 
a verdict of 'guilty of selling ~he Book'. Scroggs 
reminded them that 'they were only to determine whither 
barely Guilty, or not Guilty'. Jeffreys threatened 
the jury with a poll, but they returned a unanimous 
guilty verdict. l 
As the first political trial of 1680, Harris's 
case excited considerable popular interest. Jeffreys 
noted the 'great Multitudes' present at the trial, and 
when th~ jury's first verdict was announced, 'there 
2 
was a very g reat and Clamorous Shout'. An account of 
the trial a ppeared in print two days later, and the 
official London Gazette provided a full summary of 
Scroggs's charge to the jury . 3 On 12 February Harris 
1. A Short but Just Account, pp. 6 - 7. 
2. Ibid., pp. 2, 7. 
3. Note of date on Luttrell's copy of A Short but 
Just Account in the Houghton Library, Harvard. London 
Gazette #1484, 9 February 1679/80. An account of the 
trial also appeared in Robert Harford's Mercurius 
Anglicus #23, 7 February 1679/ 80, but Harris's Domestick 
~ntelligence did not repo r t it. Lutt r ell, Br ief Relation , 
I, 33 and All Souls Ms. 171 (114V). Morrice, P, 250. 
appeared before the King's Bench and was sentenced by 
Justice Jones to stand in the pillory for an hour near 
122 
his house in the Royal Exchange, to pay a fine of t500, 
and to give security for his good behaviour for three 
years. An Appeal from the Country to the City was 
ordered burnt by the common hangman while Harris stood 
1 in the pillory on 17 February. A large group of Harris's 
supporters gathered while he was in the pillory and 
did not permit anything (e.g. rotten vegetables) to be 
thrown at him, 'nay one did but speak against him and 
was in danger of being the subject of the multitude's 
2 
rage'. Unable to pay his fine, Harris was returned 
to the King's Bench prison. 3 Though he managed to 
publish his newspaper until 16 April 1680 and to issue 
occasional publications with his imprint, government 
, 
prosecution effectively curtailed the activities of one 
of the most energetic opposition stationers. To add 
1. London Gazette #1486, 16 February 1679/80; All Souls 
College Ms. 171 (115 V). Harris later argued that the 
size of the fine in effect imprisoned him for life, and 
his case provided evidence for an article of impeachment 
against Scroggs. A Lords Committee for Fines met on 
25 November 1680 to consider a petition from Harris 
for reduction of his fine, before which AJustice Jones 
defended the judges by claiming that fines were imposed 
relative to, the defendant's ability to pay; 'I take · it, 
it was proved on oath, t ,b.at this Harris got 30 1., 40 1., 
or 50 1. a week by ,printing tp,e Weekly Intelligence'. 
Historical Manuscripts Commission, 11th Resort, App., 
part 11 (House., of Lord,s . manuscripts, 1678-8), pp. 212-3. 
2. c.s .~.b. t679~80, p. 397. Harford's Mercurius Anglicus 
#26, 18 February 1679780, reported the presence of 'a 
Guard of the Sheriffs Officers about him as well to 
secure the Prisoner as keep the r eace'. 
3. At HenrY "Care's trial, Scroggs commented that 'Harris 
is poor, and his keeping in prison is principally 
occasioned from the manner of the reception of his 
punishment'; State Trials, VII, 1126 . 
insult to injury the Stationers' Company voted to remove 
Harris from the livery, to which he had been admitted 
on 1 December 1679, for having "'undergon the punishment 
of Law for Some offences by him comitted,.l 
Two days after Harris's trial, Francis Smith and 
Jane Curtis answered separate informations before Sir 
Thomas Jones a t Guildhall. Smith was charged with 
publishing and selling "Tom Ticklefoot's" Some Observa-
tions. ,upon the Late Tryals of Sir George Wakeman, Corker 
and Marshal, &c., which put forth claims that one of 
the jurors had been given fifty guineas after Wakeman's 
not guilty verdict and that Scroggs had been bribed. 2 
The pamphlet appeared in August 1679 and, according to 
Smith's account, in due course he received copies to 
sell. The report that the Ticklefoot libel had been 
seen in Smith's :shop was the .basis for the Lord Chief Justice's 
warrant to Robert Stephens on 24 October (the day after 
his speech) to bring Smith for examination. When 
Stephens failed to produce Witnesses, Scroggs angrily 
denounced him, 'Sirah! you have been conniveing and 
tampering', and, turning to Smith, tried to discover 
the author and printer. Smith expressed his ignorance and 
1. Stat. Co. Court Records, Liber E, entries for 1 
December 1679 and 1 March 1679/80. Harris had not yet 
paid his livery fine. 
2. Wing S4540. Another Ticklefoot item is Clod- Fate's 
Ghost, 1679 (Wing S4025), sometimes attributed, falsely, 
to Francis Smith. Among the replies is The Tickler 
Tickled: or the Observator ••• Observed, by 'Margery Mason, 
Spinster', 1679 (Wing Tl159). 
1 24 
asked to provide bail. But Scroggs suspected (perhaps 
rightly) that Smith z new the author, so he refused bail, 
saying, 'he would show him no mercy, he had heard 
enough of him formerly, he should to Goal'. He committed 
him to the King's Bench prison to harass him with the 
costs of prison fees and writ of habeas corpus. There 
is no mention of Smith having published Some Observations 
in Scroggs' s warrant to the marshall of the King's Bench: 
'I herewith send you the body of Francis Smith, who 
you are to keep in safe custody till he be discharged 
by due course of Law, oath being made before me that 
there was a great parcel of that Scandalous Libel seen 
in his House or Shop, c all'd Observations on the Tryal 
of Sir George Wakeman'. Smith appeared before the King's 
Bench with a writ of habeas corpus on Monday, but Scrogg s 
did not have time to consider it. Bail was granted on 
Tuesday, 28 October after Smith had spent four days in 
prison for a pamphlet which the government proved only 
had been seen in his house or shop.l 
Mrs Curtis also appeared before Scroggs on 24 
October. She was charged with publishing and exposing 
to sale a broadside , A Satyr ag ainst In- justice: or, 
Sc--gs upon Sc--gs, with verses highly critical of the 
1. A New- Years- Gift for the Lord Chief in Justice, Wing 
N807, pp . 3- 4; Smith, An Account, pp . 19- 20 . 
Lord Chief Justice: 
Some hungry Priests he once did fell 
With mighty Stroaks, and them to Hell 
Sent furiously away, Sirs. 
Would you know why? The reason's plain; 
They had no English nor French Coyn 
To purchase longer Stay, Sirs. 
* * * 
Our Judge to Mercy's not inclin'd, 
Unless Gold change Conscience and. Mind, 
You are infallibly gone, Sirs. 1 
125 
Under the legal principle of coverture Jane Curtis 
was under the protect i on and authority of her husband 
Langley Curtis and thus could not be sent to prison. 
But Scrogg~ accepted the offer of two witnesses to 
make affidavit that Langley Curtis was dead and imprisoned 
2 Jane Curtis for being a mercury or hawker. Harris, 
Smith, and Mrs Curtis appeared again before Scroggs on 
the last day of Michaelmas term, 28 November; 'Their 
Bail were discharged and they severally entred into 
Recognizance of Forty pound a piece to appear the next 
Term, and answer to the informations drawn against them, 
and then read to them, . 3 
' Initiative to control the press was thus left 
1. Wing C5227, verses 3, 4 and 6. The poem has been 
attributed to Stephen College and was issued again . 
as Justice in Masquerade, Wing J1248 . A Satyr against 
In- Justice is reprinted in Hart, Index , pp . 216 - 7, and 
Justice in Masquerade is included in the Yale edition 
of. ~ Poems on Affairs of State, 11, 284- 8 (edited by 
E .F . Mengel) . 
2. A New- Years- Gift, p. 3. Langley Curtis was then in 
L inc 0 Inshi re; ..;..A..;..n-..;I;.;;.m;..,p...,a:-;.r;;....;.t ..;.;i ... a;.;:;l~A~c;...c;...o.;;.,u=-n;;....;.t-..:-o_f......,t~h.;;..e=-T;;;...;;;.r.14.y ... a;..;;l;......:o~f 
Francis Smith ••• as also Of the Tr al of Jane Curtis, 1680 
Wing S402 ,p. 
3. B. Harris, Domestick Intelligence #43, 2 December 1679. 
Lord Chief Justice: 
Some hungry Priests he once did fell 
With mighty Stroaks, and them to Hell 
Sent furiously away, Sirs. 
Would you know why? The reason's plain; 
They had no English nor French Coyn 
To purchase longer Stay, Sirs. 
* * * 
Our Judge to Mercy's not inclin'd, 
Unless Gold change Conscience an~ Mind, 
You are infallibly gone, Sirs. 
125 
Under the "legal principle of coverture Jane Curtis 
was under the protect i on and authority of her husband 
Langley Curtis and thus could not be sent to prison. 
But Scroggs accepted the offer of two witnesses to 
make affidavit that Langley Curtis was dead and imprisoned 
2 Jane Curtis for being a mercury or hawker . Harris, 
Smith, and Mrs Curtis appeared again before Scroggs on 
the last day of Michaelmas term, 28 November; 'Their 
Bail were discharged and they severally entred into 
Recognizance of Forty pound a piece to appear the next 
Term, and answer to the informations drawn against them, 
and then read to them,.3 
"Initiative to control the press was thus left 
1. Wing C5227, verses 3, 4 and 6. The poem has been 
attributed to Stephen College and was issued again 
as Justice in Masquerade, Wing J1248. A Satyr against 
In- Justice is reprinted in Hart, Index, pp. 216 - 7, and 
Justice in Masquerade is included in the Yale edition 
of"~ Poems on Affairs of State, 11, 284- 8 (edited by 
E .F . Mengel) . 
2. A New- Years- Gift, p. 3. Langley Curtis was then in 
L inc 0 lnshi re; _A_n_I_m_p...,a::--r_t_i",:,:a:"":,l~A:,,,,:c_c_o~u:;;-,-n_t--:;"o_f~t:;-h_e~_T_r .... y",:,:a:-l~o:-:-f 
Francis Smith ••• as also Of the Tryal of Jane Curtis, 1680 
(Wing S4026), p. 6 . 
3. B. Harris, Domestick Intelligence #43, 2 December 1679 . 
1 26 
virtually to Scroggs, who was the only one with 'courage 
enouf' to question the activities of the opposition 
press during a period of voluble public opinion in 
." ' 1 
favour of the Exclusionists. On the day following 
the end of Michaelmas term Scroggs gave Stephens a 
general search warrant for seizing seditious and 
treasonous books 'in' any Booksellers or Printers Shops 
or Warehouses, or elsewhere whatsoever' and for appre-
hending offending authors or s t a tioners for ex amination 
" 2 before a justice of the peace. Stephens produced this 
warrant in the second week of December when he arrived 
with a constable at Francis Smith's shop to conduct a 
search. Smith demanded that the warrant be read first, 
and finding that it expressed neither his name nor his 
crime he refused to obey it, 'for it was against Magna 
Charta'. Stephens replied that besides his warrant 'he 
had particular Instructions to seiz such and such things', 
to which Smith responded with the righteousness of his 
expe'rience as a Baptist preacher and an often imprisoned 
bookseller, 'Gods will be done, I will obey no General 
Warrant; I have long and often known what it is to 
suffer, and now by Gods grace I would know for what I 
suffered'. Stephens's arguments failed to persuade Smith, 
1. E.M. Thompson, ed., Correspondence of the Family of 
Ratton, 1878, I, 211 ( letter of Charles Ratton, 11 December 
1679) • 
2. C.J., IX, 690, warrant dated 29 November 1679. 
1 2 7 
and at length he departed. He returned a few days later, 
on 17 December, with a specific warrant for Smith's 
presence before the Privy Council, to whom Stephens 
recounted his grievances. He charged Smith with refusing 
to obey his general warrant and added, in Smith's account, 
that 'he had more trouble with me than all the Booksellers 
and Printers in Town besides' and that 'it was in vain 
for him to execute his Office, unless some course was 
taken with me,.l Then Stephens produced a copy of 'The 
Protestants Association entred into against Papists in 
Queen Elizabeth's Reign, with Marginal Notes relating 
to our Day' which Smith had published. He also exhibited 
two petitions for the sitting of Parliament for which 
Smith had gotten sigrtatures. 2 After the presentation 
1. Smith, An Account, p. 20. 
2. The title cited is the one recalled by Smith in 1689 
in 'The Case of Francis Smith, Bookseller', appended to 
The Speech of a Noble Peer. In the Privy Council minutes 
it is described as 'Queryes upon the Act of Association 
in the time of Queene Elizabeth'. Two contempora ry 
publications fit the description, though neither one 
has marginal notes. One is The Act of Parliament Of 
the 27th. of Queen Elizabeth •• -.- 'WI th- The Association 
.the Protestants then entred into ••• To ether With some 
Sober and Seasonable Queries, 1 79 Wing El14 The 
pagination is (2) 1-6. In addition to the text of the 
Elizabetha n Act, this tract contains seven queries, but 
the text of the Association is lack i ng. The other candidate 
is The Instrument; or, Writing of Association: That the 
True Protestants of England Entred Into, in the Reign 
", of Queen Elizabeth, 1679 (Wing I256). The pag ination 
is (2) 9~10. This contains the text of the Association 
but l a cks the queries; in surviving copie s . ( e. g . Yale, 
Hunting ton, and Cl,~rk) , pag es 3- 8 are missing . The 
Huntington copy of The Instrument h as a contemporary 
manuscrip t note, unfortunately trimmed, linking the tract 
to Smith and quoting the commitment order by the Privy 
Council ( presumably from B. Harris, Domestick Intelligence 
#48, 19 December 1679). A copy of The Instrument in the 
128 
of Stephens's evidence, members of the Council began 
their examination. The Lord Chancellor warned Smith 
that he would be considered the author of the queries 
on the Association unless ne discovered who wrote them. l 
The Council had condemned the opposition petitions for 
the sitting of Parliament at its meeting a week earlier, 
and with the approval of Chief Justice North the King 
had issued a proclamation against 'tumultuous petitions' 
on 12 December. 2 Thus the charge that Smith had 
Houghton Library, Harvard also bears a contemporary 
attribution, 'Fr Smiths'. (I am indebted to Mr. Hugh 
Amory for this information). The copies in the Trinity 
College, Cambridge library may provide a hint that the 
two publications were intended to be issued together 
or at least to supplement each other. Volume Y.ll.30 
has the title page of The Instrument followed by the 
title page ,and contents of The Act of Parliament, and 
succeeded by pp. 9-10 of The Instrument (text of the 
Association) • 
· 1. The seven queries in The Act of Parliament argued 
that 1) the Popish Plot was a direct parallel to the 
threats of Elizabeth's reign, 2) an Association should 
be entered into during the interval between Parliaments, 
3) the Duke of York should be excluded from the throne, 
4) the violent designs of the papists had been proved, 
5) those who denied the Plot were 'betrayers of King and 
Countrey', 6) loyal subjects should petition the King 
to call Parliament and heed its adVice, and 7) England 
should enter into a league with all 'Protestant Princes 
and Countries'. 
2. Parliament had been prorogued by proclamation on 
11 December from 26 January to 11 November 1680; Steele, 
Tudor and Stuart Proclamations #3702; Havighurst, 
'Judiciary and Politics', pp. 236-7. J.R. Jones, The 
First Whigs, pp. 116-7. ---
129 
circulated and printed petitions was of no little interest 
to the Council. Charles 11 himself asked Smith if he 
had printed and promoted such petitions, to which Smith 
boldly replied; 'Yes, and please Your Majesty , -with, all 
my heart, and ••• I could not do Your Majesty and my 
Country better Service, than to endeavour a Parliament 
at the time Your Majesty appointed, in January next,.l 
Smith narrated the details of this examination in 
his autobiographical An Account of the Injurious Pro-
ceedings late in 1680, but his appearance before the 
Council received immediate notice in the London Gazette 
and Benjamin Harris's Domestick Intelligence. This 
was only the second occasion on which the Gazette had 
broken its silence on Council meetings, the first being 
a week earlier on petitions. It reported that Smith 
had been, committed to Newgate for printing the 'Association, 
with Seditious Queries upon it' and promoting the 
'Tumultuous Petitions that were set on Foot,.2 While 
the Gazette was accurate in its brief summary of the 
examination, Harris was strictly correct in claiming 
that Smith had been committed to safe custody in Newgate 
by the King's 'express command' only for publishing the 
1. Smith's answers before the Council were much commended 
by the Whigs, in particular by Aaron Smith; C.S.P.D. 1683 
July to September, p. 43. 
2. London Gazette #1469, 18 December 1679. Several news 
writers were also examined before the Council on the 17th. 
• '" , .. , ": l. ~ 
130 
Association with queries. Harris printed the full text 
of the Council order, no doubt supplied by Smith, and 
reported that he had been granted his liberty on 19 
1 December upon writ of habeas corpus. The Habeas Corpus 
Act may have been the only important piece of legislation 
p a ssed by the first Ex clusion Parliament in 1679, but 
it made a considerable difference to opposition printers 
and booksellers committed to prison for s editious libel . 2 
Before the passage of the Act, stationers often spent 
several months in prison before learning the nature of 
the information ag ainst them. Though Scroggs sometimes 
refused bail in order to put them to the charge and 
discomfort of a few days in prison, stationers quickly 
won release on writs of habeas corpus and were able to 
continue their trade in the interval before their trial. 
Smi~h suffered from a lingering illness a f ter his 
release from Newgate. Nonetheless he was responsible 
for A New- Years- Gift for the Lord Chief in Justice Scggs, 
a libel for which his son Francis Smith, junior was 
indicted. The tract attacked Scroggs for his role in 
acquitting Wakeman and claimed his remarks in the Coleman 
and Wakeman trials were 'as different and contrary as 
1. B. Harris, Domestick Intelligence #48, 19 Decembe~ 
1679, and #49, 23 December 1679. P.C. 2, 68 (323), 17 
December. lYJor:t;' ice, P, 243. Harris's insistence on the 
striet truth of his account was probably a response to 
s t a tements in the 'London Gazette tha t several of his 
reports were f alse. 
2. Jones, The First Whig s, pp . 54, 67; La cey, Dissent, 
p. 133; Helen A. Nutting , 'The Most Wholesome Law - -
The Habeas Corpus Act of 1679', American Historical Review , 
65 (1960), pp . 527- 543 • 
, ... ,! 
131 
White is to Black,.l Instead of answering his critics, 
Scroggs contented himself with 'inventing his inveterate 
spleen against the poor Printers and Book-sellers and 
Hireling-Scriblers ( as he tells them) who (he says) 
write to eat'. To this commentary on Wakeman's trial 
and Scroggs' s speech, Smith added his personal acc ount 
of the arraignment of Mrs Curtis and himself before 
Scroggs on 24 October. Scroggs acted 'with most severe · 
menaces, and scurrilous threatnings and clinching his 
Fist at them, as many of the standers by observed, with 
such ferocious language that they likned him to a Bear 
r obbed of her whelps'. 'His Lordship seldom shows 
himself so fierce against those many Pamphlets, that 
daily come abroad in favor of Popery and a Popish 
Successor', continued Smith bitterly, 'only we must 
conclude that they ar~ not against his Lordship,.2 Not 
surprisingly Scroggs ·did not let this tract pass 
unnoticed. Luttrell recorded that it came out on 1 
January 1680 and cost 2d., and commented that it was 
'A very satyricall p eice on the Lord Chief Justice, since 
his veering ab out; not without some reason; it was seized,.3 
Francis Smith 11 was arrested for selling the pamphlet 
1. A New-Years- Gift, Wing N807, pp. 1-2. 
2. Ibid., p. 3. 
3. 
by 
Po ish Plot Ca talo ues (intro. 
'Continua tion ' , p. 7 . 
to a coffee house and committed to saf e custody in 
King's Bench prison by a warrant of Scroggs dated 7 
1 January. The information drawn up against him, but 
1 32 
never prosecuted, charged him with publishing and causing 
to be published a seditious libel against the Lord 
Chief Justice and dated his offence 6 January 1680. 
There is no apparent reason why the action was dropped; 
Smith noted only that it cost him ~12 in various fees 
before his son was released on 8 January on a writ of 
2 habeas corpus. 
After months of spirited opposition to the campaign 
against the press, Smith was prevented from contesting 
his case on 7 February because of serious illness, 
though it is doubtful he was then a 'languishing, sick, 
and dying man' as his counsel claimed. 3 After the clerk 
read th~ indictment against Smith for publishing the 
Ticklefoot Observations, Jeffreys opened for the prosecu-
tion by reviewing the state of the political nation 
which could ill afford to tolerate men who 'impudently 
outface all sort of Governours' and affirming that there 
1. B. Harris, Domestick Intelligence #54, 9 January 1679/80. 
Again, it is apparent that Smith provided this information, 
including the text of Scroggs's warrant, for publication 
by Harris. C.J. ,IX, 690. 
2. Hart, Index, pp. 214-6; (Indictment s, London and 
Middlesex, Hilary, 31 and 32 Car. 2, #1 ) . Smith, An 
Account, p. 17 (of t~e second pagination). -
3. An Impartial Account of the Tryal of Francis Smith, p. 4 . 
This account appeared two days after the trial. Smith 
claimed that his counsel's motion to postpone the trial 
until he regained his health was denied by the court; 
An Account, p. 20. The trial was also reported by B. Harris, 
Domestick Intelligence #63, 10 February 1679/80 ; Luttrell, 
Brief Relation, I, 35. 
133 
was 'Law enough' to put down libellers. l Concerning 
Smith's character Jeffreys added, 'if the way of common 
report were evidence to convict a man, he would be 
convicted without any more adoe'. He also discussed 
his evidence that Smith had printed the pamphlet in 
the name of Anne Brewster with the promise to 'save her 
harmless' (from possible legal costs) and that he had 
2 
sold several copies 'in Quires to several people'. 
Like Harris, Smith was ' represented by William Williams, 
the Recorder of Chester, and by one Mr. Feitiplace, but 
on the suggestion of Mrs Smith, Williams presumed to 
admit the record and beg the mercy of the court. Justice 
Jones and Recorder Jeffreys promised, after the guilty 
verdict by the jury, to intercede , with Scroggs if Smith 
..... , 
would make his submission. 3 Apparently what the prosecu-
tion mo@t desired in libel cases was an admission of 
guilt. Harris, who p r otested his innocence to the end, 
was sentenced after Smith's trial and received a 
debilitating ~500 fine; Smith submitted to the court 
1. When Jeffreys said he spoke as 'the Mouth of the City 
of London' to affirm the loyalty of 'the Generality of 
the City' to the King and government 'as it is now 
established by Law', there was a 'general hem through 
the Court' . An Impartial Account, p. 3. 
2. Ibid., pp. 3-4. Anne Brewster, Robert Stephens, and 
Margaret Clark appeared as prosecution witnesses, but 
their testimony was not presented after Smith's counsel 
admitted the record. 
3. An Impartial Account, pp. 2-6. At first Williams tried 
to a dmit only part of the record, while denying that Smith 
had published Some Observations. Edward Berry, stationer 
of Gray's Inn, was committed by Scroggs for p ublishing 
Some Observations, was refused bail, and was forced to 
t ake out a writ of habeas corpus. No information was ever 
exhibited, though Berry attended, with his lawyer, for five 
te~ms~efore be1ng discharged; C.J.~ IX, 990. Mrs Curtis's 
tr1al 1S reported at the end of An .Lmpart1al Account. 
(as did Mrs Curtis) and was fined tlO. 
While the government was keen to prosecute Smith 
and Harris because they printed and distributed Whig 
propaganda, Scroggs and the Privy Council were equally 
concerned to identify the originators of the pamphlets. 
'It is hard to find the author', Scroggs said, 'it is 
not hard to find the printer: But one author found is 
better than twenty printers found,.l This was the 
motivation for the information exhibited against Henry 
Care, the one author during the Exclusion Crisis whose 
name gained notoriety and prominence equal to that of 
the leading Whig stationers. Care wrote The Weekly 
Pacquet of Advice from Rome: or, The History of Popery, 
a popular and widely-distributed work which provided a 
veneer of historicism for the rampant anti-popery of 
the pe~iod. Its one sheet of eight quarto pages, with 
continuous signatures and pagination for each of five 
volumes, appeared weekly from 3 December 1678. 2 What 
134 
offended the g overnment was not the historical record of 
the Roman Catholic Church but the supplement, 'The Popish 
Courant', with contemporary references at the end of each 
1. State Trials, VII, 1118; at Care's trial. 
2. R. NI-. Wiles, Serial Publication in England before 
1750, pp. 78, 270. When Roger L'Estrange described The 
weekly Pacquet as seditious, Langley Curtis recalled that 
L'Estrange had licenced many early issues; 'But I desire 
to know if it were not then the same Seditious Packet, 
when Rog er Lestrange, Licens'd it for many Months together, 
after the Plot was first discovered, having the Conscience 
to take 5s. a time for Licensing it, when but 6p. was his 
due?', L. Curtis, True Protestant Mercury #154, 28 June 
1682. 
135 
issue. After the Wakeman trial, Care whimsically noted 
in 'The Popish Courant ' on 1 August 1679 the development 
of 'an Imcomparable Medicament ••• somewhat of Kin to the 
Jesuites Powder, but more effectual'. 'The Vertues of it 
are strange and various', Care added, 'it will make Justice 
deaf as well as blinde, take out spots of deepest Treasons 
more cleverly than Castle-soap does common Stains,.l This 
paragraph became the basis for the prosecution against 
Care, who with his publisher Curtis was called before ±he 
Privy Council on 15 October 1679. He was apprehended 
on 23 October on warrant from Scroggs and, according to 
Benjamin Harris, confessed his authorship of The Weekly 
Pacquet (a question his lawyers tried to evade at his 
trial) and offered bail, but Scroggs sent him to the 
King's Bench prison to put him to the trouble and charge 
2 
of the writ of habeas corpus. News of Care's arrest 
spread quickly and that evening members of the Green 
Ribboh Club formed a subscription of 12d. weekly per 
person to be given to Care during 'his Confinement & 
Prosecution for his sayd pretended Offence'. The Club 
noted the reason for their support in their minutes: 
And this we the rather doe because this Club 
in a full SOCiety has in a most particular 
manner recommertded the same to such of this 
Society as bear more than an ordinary affection 
to the Protestant Religion which by the said 
1. Vol. 11, no. 4 . 
2. B. Harris, Domestick Intelligence #33, 28 October 
1679. C.J., IX, 688-9. 
136 
Packet the said Author has constantly expressed 
himselfe a bold Assertor. 1 
On Saturday 25 October Care was granted bail but 
was required to attend the King's Bench 'de Die in Diem' 
to answer an information 'if any should be brought'. On 
the last day of term, after daily attendance, Care was 
bound over upon recognizance to the Hilary term when 
the harassment of daily appearance continued until an 
information was exhibited to the Grand Jury of Middlesex 
2 
on 12 February. The trial finally took place before 
the Lord Chief Justice on 2 July. Meanwhile the 
g overnment prepared to prosecute what proved to be a 
rather sticky legal problem. The g overnment interpreted. 
the intent of The Weekly Packet, in recounting the horrors 
of papism, to be, i n North's words, 'All this you are 
to expect from the Duke of York, and ••• the King and the 
Duke are ~ne,.3 On the other hand, Care's supporters, 
including members of the Green Ribbon Club and. most 
Whigs, believed the suppression of pamphlets against 
popery was a blow to the 'Protestant Religion'. As 
1. Pepys Library Ms. 2875 (474) . The minutes, copied 
by Samuel Pepys, are described by J.R. Jones, 'The 
Green Ribbon Club', Durham Univ. Journal, XLIX (1956), pp. 17-20 
2. B. Harris, Domestick Intelligence #43, 2 December 1679, 
and #65, 17 February 1679780. London Gazette #1486,16 
February 1679/80. R. Harford, Mercurius Anflicus #25, 
14 February 1679/80. Harris also reported ~53, 6 January) 
an intruder at Care's house on 31 December calling him 
'Dog , and Rogue' and int,erpreted this as an attempt by 
the papists to assasinate Care. 
3. North, Examen, p. 564. 
I 
137 
the content of The Weekly Pacquet varied, so conviction 
of one issue would not extend to others. While the 
information against Care was postponed nearly four 
months and his trial three terms, the judges s,ought 
legal means of justification for suppressing newspapers 
and serial publications . Their opinion in October had 
led to a proclamati on against seditious publishing but 
there had been no mention of weekly tracts. On 28 
January the King (in Council) again ordered the judges 
'to consider of the most effectuall meane's to restraine 
1 the present e xorbitancy of the Presse'. But the 
judges were divided on the issue to what extent common 
law could support r oyal prerogative in censorship of 
the press and prevention of petitions for the sitting 
of Parliament. Burnet reported to Halifax that accounts 
circulated that 'Three, some say, Four' judges disagreed 
with Scroggs concerning the manner in which 'the Kings 
nece s sities might be supplied in the Intervalls of 
Parliament,.2 Robert Atkins was removed from the King's 
Bench on 6 February and Francis Pemberton lost his 
position ten days later for not supporting the Court 
policy on press control and petitioning. 3 The other 
1. P.C. 2, 68 (369). 
2. H.C. Foxcroft, ed., 'Some Unpublished Letters of 
Gilbert Burnet', Camden Miscellany XI (1907), p. 7; 
letter of 16 February 1679/80. 
3. A. F. Havighurst, 'Judiciary and Politics', p. 237. 
J.S. Cockburn , A History of English Assizes, 1558-1714, 
pp. 250, 286, 290. Grey, Debates, VIII, 60. Morrice, 
P, 250. 
q 
judges made no report to the Privy Council. After two 
months the judges received another order to decide how 
1 38 
. far royal prerogative could be used 'for regulating the 
1 
abuses of the Presse by Pamphlets and news Bookes ••• '. 
Having ignored the abuses in pamphlets, the twelve 
judges of the Westminster courts returned to the Council 
on 3 May 1680 and delivered this opinion: 
We doe most humbly & unanimously certifye 
that yourMajestie may by Law prohibit the 
printing & publishing all newes Bookes & 
Pamphletts of Newes whatsoever not Licensed by 
your Authority as manifestly tending to the 
Breach of the Peace & Disturbance of the Kingdome. 
This became the basis for the proclamation on 12 May 1680 
against all newspapers published without authority.2 
Though Jeffreys cited the proclamation as the ground 
for prosecution against Care's Weekly Pacquet, the judges 
of the King 's Bench also felt constrained to formulate 
a very controversial order on the last day of the term 
preceding Care's trial, which outlawed on their own 
authority the printing or publishing of The Weekly Pacguet 
by any person whatsoever. (Ordinatum est, quod Liber, 
intitulat, 'The Weekly Pacquet of Advice from Rome, or 
1. P.C. 2, 68 (477), 14 April 1680. 
2. P.C. 2, 68 (496, 512), 3 and 12 May 1680; Steele, 
Tudor and Stuart Proclamations #3715. London Gazette 
#1509, 6 May 1680 and #1513, 20 May 1680. Harris had 
discontinued his Domestick Intelligence after 16 April, 
but the proclamation ~ut a stop to John Smith's, The 
Currant Intelligence (4 May), R. Harford's MercuriUS 
Anglicus (15 May), and Nathaniel Thompson's True Domestick 
Intellig ence (14 May). 
1 1 I 
139 
the History of Popery', non ulterius imprimatur vel 
publicetur per aliquam Personam quamcumque. Pero Cur.).l 
-'" 
Chief Justice North, who was not involved in making the 
order, believed that the rule was based on the provisional 
orders of the Star Chamber which became part of the 
jurisdiction of the King's Bench, but he added, 'Without 
Doubt the Point was Controvertible ••• ,.2 North thought 
no printer was ever taken up in contempt of the rule, 
but Jane Curtis reported to the Commons committee 
investigating the judges that she, Care, and the printers 
had been served with the rule by Scroggs in his effort 
to st op publication of The Weekly Pacquet. 3 
Care's trial took place on 2 July at the Guildhall 
and he was convicted, though in Luttrell's view 'the 
evidence against him was very slender,.4 Care was indicted 
for asp~rsions on the administration of justice and the 
g overnment prosecuti on of the Popish Plot in The Weekly 
Pacguet, and more particularly for causing to be printed 
and publishing with malicious intent the last paragraph 
of 'The P opish Courant' on 1 August 1679. 5 Jeffreys 
1. C.J., IX, 688. 
2. North, Examen, p. 565. 
3. C. J ., IX , 6 88 • 
4. All Souls College Ms. 171 (119V); Luttrell, Brief 
Relation, I, 50-1. C.S.P.D. 1679-80, p. 536. Morrice, 
P, 263. 
5. Hart, Index, pp. 213-4, indictments, London and 
Middlesex, Hil. 31 and 32 Car. 2, #10. 
140 
opened the two hour trial by acknowledging the presence 
of the 'great auditory' and citing the decision of the 
judges against newspapers. ( The prosecution classed The 
Weekly Pacque~ as a ' weekly intelligence '. ) He tried 
to answer the political question of indicting a writer 
who had been bold against the papists by saying of 
Care, 'he thinks he can scratch the itch of the age, and 
that he may libel any man concerned in the government, 
if he can but call him a papist, or popishly affected' .1 
Williams Williams served as Care's counsel, as he had 
for Harris and Smith, and he was joined by Sir Francis 
Winnington, the former solicitor general. They argued 
that the ' g overnment could prove neither that he had 
written the passage in question nor that he had acted 
with malicious intent. 2 The proof of malice defence 
was dismissed quickly by Jeffreys with good legal precedent 
that 'the thing itself is a sufficient indication of the 
malice and depravity of it,.3 And Scroggs evaded the 
failure of the prosecution to provide clear evidence 
that Care was indeed the author by instructing the jury, 
'For you do not swear, nor are you bound to swear here, 
that he was the publisher of the book; but if you find 
him guilty, you only swear you believe it so'. Accordingly, 
1. State Trials, VII, 1114-5. 
2. Ibid., 1116, 1121-3. 
3. Ibid., :1124. 
141 
the jury brought in a guilty verdict. l 
The conviction of Care was the last success in the 
g overnment campaign to control the press, and like the 
other trials it achieved a mixed result. The trial 
proved little excep t tha t the g overnment still controlled 
the juries and could obt a in a conviction. But the 
opposition execrated Scroggs and Jeffreys even more as 
p roponents of a rbitrary p ower and the Court interest, 
and both faced inquiries into their conduct by the 
Commons in November and December 1680. If the convictions 
of Harris, Smith, and Care were intended to be warnings 
to other stationers, they failed. Ca re continued to 
write his Weekly Pacquet and to receive the acclaim of 
Whigs for his defence of p rotestantism. Lang ley Curtis 
persisted in publishing The Weekly Pacquet and was the 
most a ctive Wh i g stationer during the summer of 1680 
with seventeen items published from July to September. 2 
Printed matter published by all stationers re a ched 
the highest out put since the Restoration} During the 
1. State Trials, VII, 1128 . The punishment must have 
been s light bec a use it was not an issue for compl a int 
before the Commons committee examining the proceedings 
of the judges. 
2. This figure is b a sed on entries in A Second Continua tion 
of the Compleat Cat a log ue, 1680 ( Wing S2269). 
3. W.G . Mas on, 'The Annual Output of Wing-Listed Titles, 
1649-1684', The Library, 5s., XXIX ( 1974), p. 20. 
I 
~ 
142 
first half of 1680 Smith did not add his imprint to as 
many publications as he would later, but he was busy 
organizing the distribution of opposition tracts. His 
central role was noted in a contemporary satire about 
libellers: 
Away they run to Smith, and he corrects them; 
That's a mistake, he Prints and he Protects them. 
From Friend to Friend they march about the Street, 
And ev'ry Baptiz'd Brother's glad to see't: ••• 3 
The most conspicuous result of the government programme 
to control the press after the expiration of the Printing 
Act, besides ill will, was the temporary respite from 
newspapers after the proclamation of 12 May 1680. 
During the summer months of 1680, there was a flurry 
of pamphlets from both Court and opposition partisans. 
The 'Black Box' agitation concerning Charles's alleged 
marriage to Lucy WaIter, which crucially affected Monmouth's 
claim to the succession, was followed by the intense 
campaigning during the election for sheriffs of London, 
which Slingsby Bethel, an extreme Republican, and Henry 
. Cornish carried for the opposition despite a repeated poll. 
1. The Car-man's Poem: Or, Advice to a Nest Of Scriblers. 
J.W. Ebsworth, The Bagford Ballads, 1878, pp. ix-xiii of 
the second division. The poem was printed separately in 
February 1680, Wing C595, and was included by Nathaniel 
Thompson in his Collection of 86 ~oyal Poems, 1685, pp. 
191-5. 
143 
The controversy about Mrs Cellier and the Meal-Tub plot 
persisted until October, from her acquittal for high 
treason in June to her conviction in September for libel 
in publishing Malice Defeated. In the last half of 
1680 the Exclusionists forced the government into a 
defensive stance, and the area of press control was no 
exception. London juries, packed by the sheriffs with 
their supporters, favoured Whigs in political trials, 
and the Commons attacked Scroggs and Jeffrey~, the two 
main instruments of Court press policy. The government 
continued to work through the officers of the Stationers' 
Company, but until Charles took control of the political 
arena after the dissolution of the Oxford Parliament, 
these efforts had little effect. l 
Packed juries made the prosecution of stationers 
for sed~tious libel impracticable for the government. 
Formerly proof of involvement in publication or distribu-
tion of a libel was all the jury needed to return a 
verdict of guilty. Malicious intent and seditious content 
were assumed in the act of printing a libel. The grand 
juries now returned an 'ignoramus' on bills of presentment 
when they determined that the stationer did not have ill 
1. Langley Curtis was called before the Stationers' Court 
on 25 August for failing to put his imprint on Care's 
Weekly Pacquet, contrary to the Company by-law, but he was 
let off with an admonition. John Playford also appeared 
with Curtis and promised in the future to publish 'the 
Pacquet of Advice' with his imprint, but in fact Curtis 
remained the publisher. State Co. Court Records, Liber E, 
entry for 25 August. 
• 
143 
The controversy about Mrs Cellier and the Meal-Tub plot 
persisted until October, from her acquittal for high 
treason in June to her conviction in September for libel 
in publishing Malice Defeated. In the last half of 
1680 the Exclusionists forced the government into a 
defensive stance, and the area of press control was no 
exception. London juries, packed by the sheriffs with 
their supporters, favoured Whigs in political trials, 
and the Commons attacked Scroggs and Jeffrey~, the two 
main instruments of Court press policy. The government 
continued to work through the officers of the Stationers' 
Company, but until Charles took control of the political 
arena after the dissolution of the Oxford Parliament, 
these efforts had little effect. l 
Packed juries made the prosecution of stationers 
. for sedi~ious libel impracticable for the government. 
Formerly proof of involvement in publication or distribu-
tion of a libel was all the jury needed to return a 
verdict of guilty. Malicious intent and seditious content 
were assumed in the act of printing a libel. The grand 
juries now returned an 'ignoramus' on bills of presentment 
when they determined that the stationer did not have ill 
1. Langley Curtis was called before the Stationers' Court 
on 25 August for failing to put his imprint on Care's 
Weekly Pacquet, contrary to the Company bY-law, but he was 
let off with an admonition. John Playford also appeared 
with Curtis and promised in the future to publish 'the 
Pacquet of Advice' with his imprint, but in fact Curtis 
remained the publisher. State Co. Court Records, Liber E, 
entry for 25 August. 
144 
intentions in publishing the work. 'Ignoramus' juries, 
as they were called, were the most effective response 
to partisan indictments because political trials could 
not occur without a bill for prosecution. It was a 
political manoeuvre to meet a political policy; neither 
party evinced much concern for the conception of courts 
being outside the realm of politics. 
The first test of an ignoramus jury in the matter 
of seditious libel was provoked by the presentation of 
an indict~ent against Francis Smith on 8 September 1680 
at a London Sessions of the Peace. Jeffreys tried several 
approaches, including bringing in the bill three times 
and confronting each juror, to crush ignoramus juries 
from the beginning. His efforts failed, leaving grand 
juries more confident in their power to return bills 
with a~ ignoramus. The grand jury decision was immediately 
recognized as a significant challenge to the government; 
as Morrice noted at the time, 'this business yields much 
discourse in the City,.l On 16 August Smith published 
An Act of Common-Council of the City of London, (made in 
the first and second years of the Reign of Philip and 
Mary, ) for Retrenching of the Expences of the Lord Mayor 
and Sheriffs, with ten reasons why extravagant feasts 
and entertainments should be curtailed. 2 Smith is'sued 
1. Morrice, P, 265. 
2. Wing L2858A. Luttrell dated his copy 16 August, but 
the indictment dated Smith's offence 17 August. 
( 
145 
the tract partly from nonconformist dislike of spending 
excessive sums on wine ('Debauchery is come to that height, 
. that the fifth part of the Charge of a Shrievalty is in 
Wine, the growth of another Country') and partly out of 
support for his friend Sheriff Slingsby Bethel who was 
not a rich man and could ill afford entertainments ('so 
long as the great expence of Shrievalties continue, the 
City must ••• have an Eye to Wealth, more than Parts or 
Vertue, in the Choice of their Sheriffs,).l Smith was 
arrested and bound over to the Sessions of Peace on 8 
September to face an indictment brought by Jeffreys as 
Recorder of London for 'Unlawfully, Wickedly, Malitiously, 
Scandalously, and Seditiously' printing a tract designed 
to bring the past and present Mayors, Aldermen, and Sheriffs 
2 
of London 'in great Odium, Contempt, and base accompt' • 
. The jury, found, however, that Smith, far from being 
labelled a pernicious plotter, should be commended for 
encouraging the virtuous to serve in the government of 
the City.3 
Jeffreys placed the bill of indictment before the 
jury again on 16 September, but the jury unanimously 
voted to write 'ignoramus' on the bill after the prosecution 
1. An Act of Common-Council, pp. 6-7. These excerpts 
were included in the indictment. 
2. Thomas Parkhurst, stationer, and John Clark, barber, 
each provided a ~20 surety .for Smith's ~40 bail. London 
Sessions file for September 1680, recognizance #122. 
3. The three witness were Sidrach Dennam, Thomas West on, 
and John Marshall ( perhaps a stationer). London Sessions 
file for September 1680. The indictment, with offending 
passages, · was printed by Smith in An Account of the Injurious 
Proceedings of Sir George Jeffreys ••• against Francis Smith. 
It includes Smith's narrative of the three presentments . 
I 
I 
146 
witness would not swear that Smith had acted with malicious 
and seditious intent. This verdict so enraged Jeffreys 
that he took the unusual step of presenting the indictment 
for a third time to the same jury ( and the second time 
in the same day). When the jury forthwith returned a 
third ignoramus, Jeffreys cleared the bar and challeng ed 
them one by one, whether Francis Smith was guilty or not. 
Each of the seventeen jurors replied, in succession, 
'ignoramus' ~l The evidence of the original indictment 
is equally dramatic . After each verdict the jury wrote 
'ignoramus' on the bill, but before the second and third 
presentments the word was rubbed out. The third 'ignoramus' 
remained. Jeffreys then called Smith into the courtroom 
and asked him to confess and 'try the Grace and Favour 
of this Court', to which Smith replied, 'I know no Law 
Commands, me to accuse myself; neither shall I, and the 
jury have done like true Englishmen, and worthy Citizens, 
and blessed b~ God for such a just Jury,.2 But Jeffreys 
had not yet finished with Smith. He had him detained 
for three hours by the keeper of Newg ate before accepting 
bail. wi th a bond 'L~ a great Smn' ( ~100 ) for his good 
behaviour and his appearance at the next Sessions of Peace 
to face a new indictment. 3 On his part, Smith pestered 
1. In his ep istle dedicatory i n An Account to the members 
of the grand jury (whom he named), Smith stated, 'I am sure 
I had no Previous Acqua intance, or Interest in anyone of 
You, which might in the least byas your Affections towards me' • 
2. Smith, An Account, p . 5. 
3. Thomas P a rkhurst a g ain expressed his support f6r Smith 
by putting up a ~50 surety . Smith's other surety was pro-
vided by Peter Kidd, a hatband-maker. London Sessions file 
for October 1680, recognizance #66. 
146 
witness would not swear that Smith had acted with malicious 
and seditious intent. This verdict so enraged Jeffreys 
that he took the unusual step of presenting the indictment 
for a third time to the same jury (and the second time 
in the same day). · When the jury forthwith returned a 
third ignoramus, Jeffreys cleared the bar and challeng ed 
them one by one, whether Francis Smith was guilty or not. 
Each of the seventeen jurors replied, in succession, 
'ignoramus' ~l The evidence of the original indictment 
is equally dramatic . After each verdict the jury wrote 
'ignoramus' on the bill, but before the second and third 
presentments the word was rubbed out. The third 'ignoramus' 
remained. Jeffreys then called Smith into the courtroom 
and asked him to confess and 'try the Grace and Favour 
of this Court', to which Smith replied, 'I know no Law 
Command~ me to accuse myself; neither shall I, and the 
jury have done like true Englishmen, and worthy Citizens, 
2 
and blessed b~ God for such a just Jury'. But Jeffreys 
had not yet finished with Smith. He had him detained 
for three hours by the keeper of Newgate befo r e accepting 
bail. wi th a bond ' L1. a great Swn t ( ~100 ) for his go od 
behaviour and his appearance at the next Sessions of Peace 
to face a new indictment. 3 On his part, Smith pestered 
1. In his e p istle dedicatory i n An Account to the members 
of the grand jury (whom he named), Smith stated, 'I am sure 
I had no Previous Acquaintance, or Interest in anyone of 
You, which might in the least byas your Affections towards me' • 
2. Smith, An Account, p. 5. 
3. Thomas Parkhurst a g ain expressed his support for Smith 
by putting up a ~50 surety . Smith's other surety was pro-
vided by Peter Kidd, a hatband-maker. London Sessions file 
for October 1680, recognizance #66. 
! 
r 
r 
Jeffreys on some twenty occasions with requests for a 
copy of his indictment and finally appealed to Scroggs 
.at the next Newgate sessions in the Old Bailey, in the 
presence of Jeffreys. Scroggs granted an order, but 
147 
Jeffrey~ managed still another harassment by having his 
clerk extend the indictment over seventeen sheets at a 
1 
cost to Smith of 8d. a sheet. 
The London jury frustrated the g overnment further 
on 17 Sept.ember by returning ignoramus verdicts on a bill 
against Langley Curtis for publishing an account of Mrs 
Cellier's trial at the Old Bailey on 11 September and on 
separate bills against Curtis and David Mallett for 
printing and selling reports of the sessions at the Old 
2 Bailey from 10 to 13 Sept·ember. All three cases involved 
disregard of the traditional right of the judges to 
licence trial accounts to ensure accuracy and reap profit. 
" 
The original indictments show that Jeffreys presented 
each bill a second time after the ignoramus verdicts. As 
with Smith's indictment, the word was rubbed out before 
the second presentation, but in each case the jury returned 
a new ignoramus. 3 
1. Smith, An Account, pp. 5-6. 
2. The Triall of Elizabeth Cellier, L. Curtis (Wing T2187); 
The Account of several of the most Remarkable Tr als, 
L. Curtis ?Wing A222, for T. Davies ; The True Narrative 
of the Proceedings at the Sessions house, D. Mallett --
this issue of the "series" is not in Wing; it may have 
been suppressed by Robert Stephens, who was the witness 
in all three cases. Curtis and/or Mallett published trial 
narratives after most Sessions. 
3. London Sessions file for September 1680, recognizances 
#148 and #149, and indictments; H. Bowler, London Sessions 
Records, 1605-1685, p. 297n. 
The major thrust of the government programme to 
control the press developed under the leadership of 
Chief Justice Scroggs and Recorder Jeffreys. When the 
Whigs foiled prosecutions through ignoramus juries and 
dominated the political scene after the reconvening of 
Parliament in October, the g overnment press programme 
collapsed and Scroggs and Jeffreys were left to face 
the wrath of the Whigs. At a Common Hall meeting on 
148 
29 September several members produced a petition against 
Jeffreys for 'putting affronts upon Juryes'. When 
Jeffreys tried to reply he was loudly hissed. l The 
London jury lodged a complaint to the Court on 15 October 
about J effreys, apparently on the same oc c_asion that 
Smith appealed to Scroggs. Jeffreys defended himself, 
but the Court, in Luttrell's account, 'thought fitt to 
give them leave if they had matter sufficient to exhibitt 
an indictment against him, It is thought they will not 
lett him alone before they have down'd with him, for he 
is very little cared for in the Citty,.2 The Whigs did 
not let Jeffreys alone, though he terminated the proceedings 
against Smith and had him acquitted by proclamation. 3 A 
petition of 'divers' citizens of London complaining ab out 
Jeffreys' disregard for the 'rights of the Subject' was 
1. Morrice, P, 266. 
2. All Souls College Ms. 171 (1 29 ) ; Luttrell did not 
record this event in his Brief Relation. 
3. Smith, An Account, p. 7 . 
r 
149 
presented to the Commons on 27 October and referred to 
the committee formed that day to question those who had 
spoken against petitioning. l Smith recorded that he and 
the grand jury were among the many witnesses called before 
the committee hearing charges against Jeffreys. To Smith's 
considerable exasperation Jeffreys pleaded in his defence 
that he had not even read the libel which he had prosecuted 
2 in such a determined manner. The Commons voted on 13 
November to make an address to the King requesting him 
to remove Jeffreys from all public offices. Jeffreys 
relieved pressure on the King by resigning as Recorder 
of London on 2 December. 3 
Whigs had been collecting information against 
Scroggs for over a year. In the Commons the evidence 
was presented to the committee formed on 23 November 
to examipe the proceedings of the judges in Westminster 
Hall. 4 When the committee returned to the House with 
articles of impeachment against Scroggs, four of the eight 
articles were based on his treatment of the press and 
opposition stationers. Titus Oates first charged Scroggs 
1. C.J., IX, 641. Printed as My Lord, We the Commons of 
London, in Common-Hall Assembled, 1680 (Wing M3l7l); it 
included the clause, ' ••• he hath maliciously contrived, 
to subvert one of the gre at Foundations of our Engl;i.sh 
Liberties, by menacing and threatning Juries, thereby to 
make them bring in Verdicts, not according to their 
Conscience, but his own Will and Pleasure'. 
2. Smith, An Account, p. 7. 
3. C.J., IX, 653; H.M. Hyde, Judge Jeffreys (1948), pp. 
114-5; G.W. Keet on, Lord . Chancellor Jeffreys and the Stuart 
Cause, pp. 144-5; Grey, Debates, VII, 460-7, 470-1. Morrice, 
P, 270, 274, 275, 277, and 279. 
4. Havighurst, 'Judiciary and Politics', pp. 238-40. 
) 
I 
f 
r 
150 
with accepting a bribe in the Wakeman trial in September 
1679 before the Privy Council, but he failed to produce 
sufficient witnesses. l The following January Oates and 
Bedloe exhibited to the Council thirteen articles against 
Scroggs. lVIost of. the charges related to his treatment 
of them as rIot witnesses, but the fourth and fifth 
arti cles concerned his initial refusal to take bail in 
the cases of Henry Care, Jane Curtis, and Francis Smith. 
To his report of these articles of high misdemeanour, 
Benjamin Harris added in his newspaper, 'if any have been 
oppressed or injured by the said Lord Chief Justice, they 
will be speedilie Heard, if they in time come in; the 
2 
cause will its thought be heard the beginning of February'. 
The case was debated before the Council on 21 January, 
and Oates was very earnest in his presentation. 'Dr Oates 
told the Lords of the Councell', Charles Hatton wrote to 
---
his brother, 'that he wou'd not positively say it, but 
he beleeved he shou'd be able to prove that my Lord Chief 
Justice danced naked,.3 Confident in their evidence, 
Oates and Bedloe had their articles printed and distributed on 
the same day as the Council debate. 4 Scroggs acquitted 
1. All Souls College Ms. 171 (56), 6 September 1679. 
2. B. Harris, Domestick Intelligence #5 7, 20 January 1679/80. 
3. Hatton Correspondence, I, 220, letter of 27 January 1680. 
4. Articles of High Misdemeanour ••• against Sir William, 
Wing 029; 'and it came out that Evening in a half Sheet 
of Pa~er'; note in A Continuation of the Compleat Catalogue, 
1680 ( Wing C5960), p. 8. 
r 
• 
151 
himself easily.l He was g iven leave by the Council to 
prosecute Oates and Bedloe for defama tion of character, 
but he contented himself with bringing an indictment 
against Harris for publishing the call for witnesses. 2 
Harris was bailed on 28 January, and the indictment was 
not prosecuted after his conviction on 5 February for 
publishing An Appeal. 3 
The Exclusionists, angered by what they believed to be 
his subservience to the Court interest, continued to 
gather evidence against Scroggs until the time Parliament 
met. Frustrated by their failure to win approval of 
the exclusion bill in the Lords, the Commons turned to 
consider the behaviour of the judges. 4 Matters before 
the committee to investigate the judges included the 
premature dismissal by Scroggs in July of the Middlesex 
. grand j~y in order to thwart the hearing of a charge 
of recusancy against the Duke of York and the assumption 
of leg islative power in drafting the rule against Henry 
Care's Weekly Pacquet. The committee compared the large 
fines against Harris and other members of the opposition 
with the ~3 6s. 8d. imposed on Nathaniel Thompson for 
1. The Answer of Sir William Scro s ••• to the Articles 
(Wing S2121 appeared the next day without his leave, 
wh ich 'prevented his publishing it with some observations 
of what passed at the tryall'; Hatton Correspondence, I, 
220, let t er of Charles Hatton, 27 January 1679/80. 
2. London Gazette #1479, 22 January 1679/80. 
3. The indictment is printed by Hart, Index, pp. 220-1. 
All Souls Colleg e Ms. 171 ( 113v), newsletter dated 29 
J anuary 1679/80. 
4. Havighurst, 'Judiciary and Politics', pp. 238-40. 
Jones, The First Whigs, chapter V. 
i 
15 2 
publishing his newspaper and the fine of 100 marks judged 
as sufficient penalty for Matthew Turner ( 'the common 
notorious Popish Bookseller of the Town' ) fo r publishing The 
Compendium, one of the first critiques of the Plot .1 
The committee also considered Scroggs's handling of bail 
in the cases of Care, Smith, Mrs Curtis, and Edward Berry, 
and his 'arbitrary and illegal' warrants granted to 
2 Robert Stephens to search for books and newspapers. 
Thus the primary charge was the dismissal of the grand 
jury, but the other allegations were grounded in the 
testimony of Care, Smith, and Mrs. Curtis about the 
treatment of opposition stationers. 
The Commons approved the articles of impeachment 
against Scroggs for high treason on 5 January, but the 
combination of support from several peers, the proroga-
tion of Parliament on 10 January and dissolution ten 
" 
days later, and the brief Oxford session in March prevented 
a formal impeachment. Scroggs's career was ruined, however, 
and he did not appear on the King's Bench in the Hilary 
term. 3 
The second Exclusion Parliament at Westminster did 
not produce new press legislation. In the Lords, a bill 
1. C.J., IX, 688-9. 
2. C.J., IX, 690-1. 
3. C.J., IX, 692, 697-700, 708; L.J., XIII, 736-9, 752; 
Grey, Debates, VIII, 210-1; The Resolutions of the House 
of Commons, for the Impeachment of Sir William Scrogg s, 
John Wright and Richard Chiswell, 1680, #50 in Votes of 
the House of Commons; Articles of Impeachment of High 
Treason ••• against Sir William Scro s, .\~right and Chiswell, 
1 0; 51 . in .Votes of the House of Commons. 
153 
for reviving several expired acts, including the Printing 
Act, did not proceed past the first reading early in the 
session. l The Stationers' Company, presumably with govern-
ment encouragement, lobbied the Commons for leg islation. 
Preparations began on 25 August 1680 when the Master, 
Wardens, and fifteen assistants were named to a committee 
'to attend to the setling & passing of the Act of Parlia-
ment'. The committee, which was directed to meet every 
Wednesday and Friday afternoon, was funded from the English 
Stock. As the parliamentary session neared, the King's 
Printer, Thomas Newcomb, was made manager of the Company's 
representations to the leaders of Parliament. The Stationers 
did not lose hope easily, and on 10 December three members 
(Norton, Mearne, and Tyler) met with Sir William Jones 
to discuss provisions of a printing act. 2 But the Commons 
came no closer to considering regulation of the press than 
to resolve on 30 October to print their votes under 
licence from the Speaker of the House William Williams. 
This was a significant d eparture from tradition. It was 
motivated partly by a determination to prevent the many 
incorrect manuscript copies of votes which appeared in 
coffee- houses and partly to aid the Whig programme to 
maintain public support for Exclusion. At first the 
1. L.J., XIII, 616. Morrice, P, 270. 
2. St at. Co. Court Records, Liber E, entries for 25 August, 
11 October, and 8 November 1680; Warden's Accounts, 1680 - 1, 
entry for 10 December. 
154 
Speaker commissioned the King's Printers Thomas Newcomb 
and Henry Hills ( perhaps to add an additional air of 
authority and to embarrass the Court), but after thirteen 
numbers, he entrusted the daily printing of votes to the 
politically sympathetic John Wright and Richard Chiswell. 
After 12 December, Gabriel Kunholt (aided by Langley 
Curtis) took over the daily votes, and Williams gave 
special reports to Wright and Chi swell or to Francis 
Smith and Benjamin Harris. l Several booksellers, including 
Smith, formed a partnership for distribution of the 
Commons votes. 'The proceedings of the Westminster 
Parliament before that at Oxford', Benjamin Harris later 
reported to the Stationers' Court, 'were printed in 
partnershipp for Mr Heyrick, Mr Bassett, Mr Wright, Mr 
Francis Smith, Mr Ralph Smith, Mr Boulter, himselfe, & 
Mr Chi swell ' .2 
" 
With the failure of the g overnment press programme, 
opposition stationers were able to produce propaganda 
1. C.J., IX, 643. Betty Kemp, Votes and Standing Orders 
of the House of Commons: The Be innin (House of Commons 
Library Document No. ,1971, pp. 19-22. E. Bohun, The 
Third and Last Part of the Address to the Free-men, lb]3, 
p. 49. The Report from the Committee of Commons in Parlia-
ment, Appointed ••• To consider the Petition of Richard 
Thompson of Bristol, printed by George Larkin for Smith 
and Harris (#51 in Votes of the House of Commons). In 
his Protestant (Dome stic~ Intelligence #83, 28 December 
1680, Harris advertised -the Report as 'now in the Press'. 
Thompson had preached a sermon saying that Presbyterians 
were even worse than either priests or Jesuits, and the 
Commons committee had recommended his impeachment. 
2. Stat. Co. Court Records, Liber F, entry for 7 Decmbeer 
1685. Francis Smith had been associated with Heyrick, 
Basset, Wright, and Chi swell in publishing The Narrative 
of Robert Jenison and The Additional Narrative of Mr. Miles 
Prance in 1679. 
155 
virtually without restriction. There was no printing act 
to restrain them. The Whigs in Parliament strongly 
supported them, and indeed the Commons petitioned the 
King to pardon Benjamin Harris and remit his fine. l The 
Whigs also controlled the juries. No judges were willing 
to implement the press programme after the disastrous 
experience of Scroggs. Recorder Jeffreys was also out 
of office. Proclamations against seditious books and 
newspapers had little effect in the first months of 1681, 
and the reward scheme for informers had expired. Not 
lli1til the King regained his grasp on the political 
situation after the dissolution of the Oxford Parliament 
were successful steps taken, through counter-propaganda, 
legal action, and manipulation of the Stationers' Company, 
to control the press. 
1. C.J., IX, 656, 660, 672, 686. Morrice, P, 278. 
'Register qf Committee of Intelligence (of the Privy 
Council)', B.M. Add. Ms. 15,643 (46 V). _ To the ••• commons 
of En land ••• The Humble Petition of Ben oamin Harris citizen 
and stationer of London, Wing H 40. David Knott, 'The 
Booksellers and the Plot', pp. 200-2. The King did not 
grant the pardon. Apparently the Commons also arranged 
for Harris's release from the King's Bench prison, but his 
freedom was short-lived because Charles was determined to 
keep a t least this one stationer in prison. P.C. 2, 69 ( 209 ), 
9 February 1680/1. 
156 
Chapter Four 
Cheap, Brief, and Topical: 
Smith's Publications before the Oxford Parliament 
157 
With unrelenting political pressure, in Parliament 
and through propag anda, the Whigs held the government in 
an awkwardly defensive position during the last weeks of 
the Westminster session. The Lords began their trial of 
Lord Stafford on 30 November and found him guilty of 
treason on 7 December; at the same time the Commons 
proceeded with their investigation of the judges. Though 
the Exclusion Bill had been defeated in the Lords, agitation 
for the removal of the Duke of York from the line of 
succession continued. In the midst of these events, 
Secretary of State Sir Lionel Jenkins wrote on 3 December 
to Edmund Poley, the English envoy in Berlin, 'You are 
not uninfo r m'd of our hurry here, and I will hope that 
you will excuse my not corresponding with you as punctually 
as otherwise I would doe. Those that are (as we are) in 
a Storm have but one thing to intend. All things else 
are indifferent,.l 
Francis Smith took advantage of the government crisis 
to carry out a full programme of publication and propaganda 
1. L. Jenkins to E. Poley, 3 December 1680, Poley Papers, 
Osbo r n Collection, Ya le University Library. 
15 8 
for the Whigs. After the ignoramus by the grand jury in 
September on the bill which Jeffreys had brought against 
him, his confidence in his trade increased during the 
autumn. On 27 October the Commons twice unanimously 
approved resolutions in support of popular petitions for 
the sitting of Parliament. Smith published these resolu-
tions and advertised. his own efforts to circulate petitions 
in Decmber 1679 by adding a sentence of self-justif.ication 
to his imprint: Wednesday, Octob. 27. 1680. Two Unanimous 
Votes ••• , 'London, Printed for Francis Smith, Bookseller; 
at the Elephant and Castle near the Royal-Exchange, in 
Cornhill. Who suffered a Chargeable Imprisonment in the 
Goal of New-Gate, in Decemb. last, for Printing and 
Promoting Petitions for the Sitting of this present 
Parliament,.l Throughout his career Smith kept notes on 
what he considered injustices suffered while fulfilling 
his vocation. In 1672 he de s cribed his imprisonment for 
Mirabilis Annus in the epistle dedicatory to the second 
edition of his Symptomes of Growth and Decay. He had 
endured much since then, and encouraged by the Whig 
ascendancy in the Commons he issued a narrative of the 
harassment, searches, and imprisonments he had suffered 
as a result of his loyal adherence to dissenting political 
and religious principles. Subscribing himself fa servant 
to all true Englishmen', Smith used his own career to 
1. Wing T3542. 
1 59 
illustrate the difficulties which opposition booksellers 
had faced through 'the Malice of ill Men' for publishing 
tracts against arbitrary government. 
Smith's narrative, An Account of the Injurious 
Proceedings of Sir George Jeffreys Knt., which appeared 
soon after Jeffreys resigned as Recorder on 2 December, 
was dedicated to the Earl of Shaftesbury. In his dedica-
tion Smith referred to the 'many cases' in which he had 
experienced Shaftesbury's kindness and aid. It is 
impossible now to e'stimate the extent of direct contact, 
if any, between Shaftesbury and Smith.l It is clear that 
most of Smith's publications assisted the efficient Whig 
propaganda campaign presumably directed by Shaftesbury. 
Further, in 1674 Shaftesbury had intervened to help Smith 
gain restitution of the stolen impression of Danvers' 
A Treat~se of Baptism. After the collapse of the Whigs, 
Tories commonly associated Shaftesbury with the leading 
opposition booksellers. The author of the spurious 
Memoires of the ••• late Earl of Shaftsbury listed 'the 
Anabaptist Booksellers Smith and Harris, Jack Starkey, 
&c. the Libellers of the Government, Care, Ferguson, &c.' 
among those who 'found warm entertainment' at Shaftesbury's 
2 London house. A taunting poem written during Shaftesbury's 
1. See O.W. Furley, 'The Whig Exclusionists: Pamphlet 
Literature in the Exclusion Campaign, 1679- 81', The Cambridge 
Historical Journal, XIII (1957), pp. 20- 1. 
2. Memoires of the Life of Anthon late Earl of Shaftsbur , 
1682 3 Wing Ml 71 , printed for WaIter Davis. 
160 
sojourn in the Tower in July 1681 accused him of teaching 
Smith and Harris 'to Write great Lies' and put this lament 
in his mouth: 
Where's my Companions, 0' th' same Imptutation, 
My Fellow Sharers in the Ruine 0' th' Nation, 
Where's my Cabals, and Mercenary Men, 
Where's Silly Perkin, where's Franck, Dick and Ben?l 
Tory pundits pictured the fallen Shaftesbury as the King 
of Poland (an elective monarchy) and one nominated Smith 
2 
'Bookseller in Chief to His Majesty Elect of Poland'. 
While this satire says more about his public status than 
about his relationship with Shaftesbury, Smith's experience 
of two decades in opposition publishing were in fact 
particularly valuable to the Whigs. He was motivated 
primarily by a strong personal commitment to Whig principles. 
In addition to his publishing activities, he was politically 
involved in campaigning for Whig candidates in parliamentary 
and shrieval elections. Among the Whig liverymen in 
London, Francis Smith g ained a notoriety and importance 
second only, perhaps, to the Protestant Joiner, Stephen 
College. 
Thus it is not surprising that Shaftesbury turned 
to Smith to publish his emphatic speech in the Lords on 
1. ( J.S. Dean] , The Badger In the Fox-Trap, or a Satyr 
upon Satyrs, Wing D492. Perkin is the Duke of Monmouth, 
while Frank, Dick, and Ben are the booksellers Smith, 
Janeway, and Harris. Luttrell's copy, dated 9 July 1681,. 
is now in the Huntington Library . 
2. A modest Vindication of the Earl of S Y: . In a Letter 
to a Friend concernin his bein Elected tin of Poland, 
1 1 Wing M2375. The description of Smith is taken from 
the false colophon. See Ailesbury, Memoires, I, 26. 
161 
23 December 1680 attacking the Duke of York for his 
alleged direction of the Popish Plot and warning the king 
(who was present) that no supply would be voted until he 
learned to trust the people. A Speech Lately made by a 
Noble Peer of the Realm was published soon after with 
Smith's imprint but without attribution to Shaftesbury.l 
When questioned about the printed speech by the Lords) 
Shaftesbury, according to Luttrell, 'did not disown it, 
but said he believ'd he might say some such thing,.2 
However Barillon, the French ambassador, and Rowland 
Tempest, a clerk in the Secretary of State's office, both 
reported that Shaftesbury disowned it, though it was 
hawked in the streets as his. 3 The printed version was 
probably 'more sharply phrased than the speech' as 
Professor Haley suggests, which would account for it 
.being bu~ned by the common hangman by order of the House 
of Lords though they had not interrupted him when he 
delivered it.4 
The indictment drawn up against Smith for publishing 
A Sp eech Lately made by a Noble Peer dated his offence on 
1. Wing S2901 and S2902. It is possible that Shaftesbury 
p ermitted Smith to publish his speech as reward for Smith's 
dedication to him in An Account of the Injurious Proceeding s. 
2. Luttrell, Brief Relation, I, 62. 
3. ' • • • it was publickly cry'd as the Lord Shaftesbury's, 
but t he Lord ' s House thinking fit t to examine it he was 
p l eas'd to di sowne it ••. '; R . Tempest to E . Poley, 4 J anu ary 
16 80/1 , Poley Papers , Os bo r n Collection , Yale Univ . Library. 
Baril lon ' s dispatch of 3/1 3 January i s cit e d by Ha ley, 
Shafte s bury, p. 61 2. 
4. Haley, Sha ftesbur y, p . 612. 
162 
24 December, but in this case Luttrell was nearer the 
1 
mark i n dating his c opy 31 December. Smith published th e 
speech in large numbers and distributed it widely through 
hawkers in London and the penny post to towns throughout 
England. According to Heraclitus Ridens, the speech was 
'celebrated and cherish'd by the Whigs, ••• beyond anything 
2 tha t has come out in tha t way'. Shaftesbury' s spe ech 
put forward the Whig position in very strong terms and 
contained sentiments close to sedition: 'My Lords, 'Ti s 
a very hard thing to say that we cannot trust the King; 
and that we have already been deceived so often, tha t we 
see plainly the apprehensions of Discontent in the People, 
is no Argument a t Court'. Shaftesbury went even further 
in s tating his determination that no supply woul d be 
g ranted until the exclusion of James had been settled: 
'this I --know ,and must boldly say it and plainly, that 
the Nation is Betray'd if upon any Terms we part with our 
Money till we are sure the King is ours; have what Laws 
you will, and what Conditions you will, they will be of 
no use but wast Paper before Easter, if the Court have 
Money to set up for Popery and Arbit rary Designs in the 
mean while,.3 
1. Luttrell' s copy is now in the Houghton Library, Harvard. 
2. Heraclitus Ridens #53, 31 J anuary 1682. 
3. The se sentences are among the passages cited in the 
indictment against Smith. The speech is swnma rized by 
W. D. Christie, A Life ••• of Shaftesbury, 11, 383-4; L.F. 
Brown, The First Earl of Shaftesbury, pp. 274-5; and by 
Haley, Shaftesbury, pp. 612-4. It is printed in full in 
Christie, 11, cii-cvi and Parliamentary History, IV, cxi-cxiv. 
, 
163 
While the House of Lords may h ave tolerate d these 
strong opinions in the course of deb a t e , they were l ittle 
inclined to h ave them read and discussed by persons 
throughout Eng l and. Unlike the Commons , the Lords had 
not voted to publish even their votes. Publ ication of 
this speech was, at the ve r y least, a brea ch of privilege. 
A compl a int was made to the House on Monday, 3 J anu a ry 
concerning A Speech La t e ly made by a Noble Peer. After 
.. ' 
the tract was re a d, the Lords orde red it to be burnt by 
the common hangman a t the Old Pal a ce Yard in Westminster 
tha t morning at 11:00 and again an hour later a t the 
Roy a l Exchange in Cornhill ( near Smith's shop ). Fr.ancis 
Smith was ordered to appe ar before the House the following 
morning a t 10:00. 1 At the bar of the Hous e he engage d in 
this excha n ge with the Lord High Chancellor, mixing 
pride wi~h caution~ 
•• • being asked, Whether he printed the Libel, 
intituled, A Spee ch lately ma de by a Noble Peer 
of the Re a lm, he desired to se e it. 
And it being shown to him, he said, 'he hath 
Three or Four several Impressions of it,.2 
But being asked, 'Whether he s old any of them?' 
he desired to be excused from a ccusing hims elf'. 
And being a sked, ' Whether he had seen the Copy of 
it in Writing?' answered, 'he hath he a rd of it'.3 
1. L.J. XI I I, 729b (3 January 1681). London Gazett e #1579, 
6 January 16 80/1. Morrice, P, 290. The order for Smith to 
appear is printed by him in full in Smith's Protest ant 
Intellig ence #1, 1 February 16 80/1. 
2. There was a n edition of two she e ts, and two editions in 
half-sheet . fo rmat, all of which b ear Smith's imprint. Also, 
there was a n edition in half-sheet wi thout imprint. L' Estrange 
cla imed in October 1681 that Smith 'Publish'd Severall Copies 
of it' to celebrate the i gnoramus on the indictment, but 
Smith's t estimony indi c a tes that the v arious impressions were 
publ ished to meet the demands of distribution; The Observator 
I, 66, 29 Octob er 1681. -
3. L.J .XIII, 734a (4 J anuary 16 81). 
164 
Dissatisfied with Smith's responses, the Lords 
ordered the Attorney General to examine the matter and 
begin legal proceedings against Smith if he found grounds 
for prosecution. The Attorney General located two witne sse s 
and presented an indictment against Smith to the grand 
jury at the Old Bailey two weeks later. Smith was charged 
with maliciously and seditiously writing, printing, and 
'publishing A Speech Lately ma<'!.~ by a Noble Peer, and by 
that publication bringing the King into hatred and infamy 
and stirring up sedition among his subjects. l But the 
Whigs had the jury firmly in their control and again 
'Elephant' Smith escaped with an ignoramus. 2 When the 
Court urged the jury to reconsider their verdict, the 
jury remained defiant in their decision. They admitted 
tha t they had full proof that Smith had published the 
speech, ~ut they had not received evidence that he h ad 
done it seditiously or with a design to disturb the 
peace. Unless the Court removed the clause about intent 
from the indictment or produced new evidence, they saw no 
1. Smith printed the full text of the indictment in trans-
lation in the inaugural issue of his newspaper, Smith's 
Protestant Intelligence, 1 February 1680/1. Hart, Index, 
p p . 221-2, prints the indictment in Latin ( London and 
lVIiddlesex, Hil. 32 and 33 Car. 2, No. 28). The two witne sses 
were Thomas Jenkins and Samuel Booth; H. Bowler, London 
Sessions Records, p. 314n. The charge in the indictment 
tha t Smith wrote the speech was probably the source for 
the claim by J.G. lVIuddiman in the Printing number of The 
Times, 10 September 1912, that Smith 'wrote and published' 
the tract. lVIuddiman's misunderstanding was perpetuated by 
C.R. Gillett, Burned Books, 1932, pp. 494-6. 
2. F. Smith, Smith's Protestant Intelligence #1, lFebruary 
1680/1; B. Ha rris, Protestant (Domestick) Intelligence #90, 
21 Janua ry 1680/1; L. Curtis, The True Protest ant lVI ercur~ #8, 
22 January 1680/1; Luttrell, Brief Relation" I, 64. 
" . ~." 
r 
I 
I 
165 
re a son to change their verdict. Though 'they did (and in 
deff erence to the Court they would ) g o out agai n , ••• their 
op inion would be the S8..me the ir evidence being ,the s ame,.l 
The impl i c a tion was obvious and deeply upset t he g overn-
ment . A booksell e r could publish a tract wi t h sedit i ous 
content and Whig g r and jur ies would s u pport him in 
f · f t t' 2 d e l ance o· he c r own pro secu lon. One disgruntled 
Tory set his i r rit a tion to verse in St a te Cases put t o 
Jack Presbyter: 3 
And Pry thee J a ck, didst never he a r 
The f amous Speach of Noble Pee r , 
Stuft with true Protest ant and bare-
F a c'd Treason? 
Why were so many Thousand s p read, 
Tha t every Po_s t-Town Packet shad 
Without own P enny for 'ern p a id; 
The Re as on ? 
Why did th e P erjur'd Jury s ave, 
' The little Elephantine Knave; 
And on the Bill's back-side Engrave 
Ignoramus ? 
Emboldened b y. the i gnoramus , Smith started a 
n ewspaper -and filled the first i ssue with det a ils of 
hi s c ase , including t h e tex ts of the Lords' order for 
him to app e a r-for e xami nation a n d the indictmen t upon 
1. Morr ice, P, 295. 
2 . Tories who were patient h a d the satisfa ct i on of se e ing 
the g overnment succe ed befor e ,the end of t h e year with a 
new indictmen t agai ns t Smith fo r t he same offence. 
3 . St a te- Ca ses put to J a c k Presbyte r , 16 81 (Wing S529 8 ), 
verses ix-x i. 
which the g r and jury returned its ignoramus verdict. 
Smith's Protestant Intelligence: Domestick & Foreign. 
Published for the Information of all True English-men 
continued twice weekly for twenty-two issues until the 
166 
middle of April. Benjamin Harris founded the first and 
most important of the Whig newspapers on 7 July 1679, but 
he stopped publication in April 1680 due to pressure from 
the government and log istic a l and financial burdens 
impo sed by his imprisonment. After the declaration 
against unlicens ed newspapers in May 1680 only the official 
London Gazette was printed. The political crisis in 
December 1680 encouraged Harris to pick up where he left 
off with issue 83 of the Protestant (Domestick) Intelligence 
on 28 December. The same day Langley Curtis inaugura ted 
his rabidly Whig and anti-Catholic True Protestant Mercury 
which continued for nearly two years and 188 issues. Thus 
Smith's initial competition among newspapers consisted 
of the rather sterile London Gazette, Curtis' s young paper, 
and Harris's more deeply entrenched paper. Nathaniel 
Thompson discontinued his newspaper in obedience to the 
declaration in May 1680 and waited until 9 March 1681 to 
begin his Tory paper The Loyal Protestant, having first 
announced his intention by petitioning the King for a 
1 licence to report news. The satiric Heraclitus Ridens 
1. C.S.P.D. 1680-1, p. 181, petition dated 23 February 1681. 
There is no record of his petition being granted. 
167 
commenced its attacks on the Whigs on 1 February , the same 
da y Smith's first issue app eared, and Roger L'Estrange's 
Observator first appeared on 13 April, the day before Smith 
was 'forced to relinquish his newsp ape r. 
Supplying news was a cormnon activity for a bookseller. 
Though the evidence is not s o extensive for seventeenth 
century s tationers a s for men of the next century such as, 
for example, William Creech in Edinburgh, there a re indica-
tions that men of intelligence -- lawyers, clerics, the 
re a ding public would stop at their bookseller to hear 
the latest news, to glance at recent bo oks and pamphlets, 
or to discuss a n import ant issue. Francis Smith's 
s uperiors ~lOrig the Confederate s, Gi l es Calvert, Livewell 
Chapman, and Thomas Brewster had e a ch been involved in 
the publication of a t least one newspaper during the Civil 
War. l His former publishing partner John Starkey sent 
written newsletters to Sir Willoughby Aston in 1671 and 
Starkey's s hop, loc ated near Temple Bar becffifie a center 
2 
much frequented by lawyers for news. Some persons made 
daily visits to review resolutions of Parliament, speeches 
of the most eminent M.P.'s, and notes of items under 
parl iament ary consideration, which were all avail able in 
Starkey's shop.3 Ironically, Starkey, who wa s a Whig and 
1. J.B. Williams, A History of Epgli sh Journalism, 1908, 
pp. 232, 247, 249. 
2. St a rkey's newsletters are among the Aston papers in 
the British Library; B.M. Add. Mss. 36916. 
3. 'Memorandum about the booksellers, &c.', ca. 1675, printed 
by A. Browning, Danby, Ill, 2-3 . The memorandum a lso 
mentions T. Collins 's shop at the Middle Temple Gate as a 
16 8 
in 1681 became a member of the London Common Council, 
p rovided books for the young George Jeffreys; James 
Vade sent the most recent London broadsides and tracts 
to Anthony Wood in Oxford; and J a cob Tonson ( who restrained 
his whiggish inclinations to maint a in his publishing 
relationship with John Dryden) wrote newsletters to 
Narcissus Luttrell when the l a tter was absent from 
London. l During the Exclusion Crisis most p olitica l 
gatherings took place in coffee-houses and taverns, which 
booksellers supplied with the l a test tracts and newspapers. 
Work ing with a p olicy tha t citizens should know 
only what the state wished them to know, the g overnment 
a ttempted to limit strictly al l s ources of news other 
tha n the c a refully dig ested items in the London Gazette. 
Written newsletters develo ped as an a lterna tive to 
p rinted ~ewspaper s when the l a tter were b anned by the 
2 g overnment. Severa l such newsletters existed and 
we re av a ilable by subscri ption to p ersons in London and 
th e countie s. The sp r ead of the penny p o s t in this peri od 
greatly facilitated distribution of newsletters and tra ct s 
source of parli ament ary n ews. L'Estrang e termed St a rkey 
'the News-Monger a t Temple-Barr '; The Observator, I, 42, 
13 Augu s t 1681. 
1. H. M. Hyde, Judg e Jeffreys, pp . 85-6; L'Estrange, ' The 
Observ a tor, I, 85 , 31 Decemb e r 16 81; Andrew Clark, ed., 
The Life and Time s of Anthony Wood, 11, 46 8 , 478; eight 
Tonson n ewsletters , 1679-80, to Luttrell are in All Souls 
Colleg e Ms. 171. Luttrell also received newsle tters from 
the most successful of the Whig intellig encers, Giles Hancock. 
2. See Pe ter Fraser , The Intellig ence of the Secret aries 
of St a te, chap. VI, 'The Secret aries and the Unlicensed 
Newsmongers ' . 
169 
propaganda by both parties for their positions. l The 
government was correct in charging that biased and false 
news was being widely dispersed to stimulate discussion 
and unrest. News was often presented with a partisan 
flourish, and few pains were taken to corroborate news 
reports before post or publication deadlines. Nevertheless, 
there were many accurate accounts of legal and parliamentary 
affairs and, with intelligent concessions to bias, an 
Englishman could rationally follow more ' of the political 
scene than would have been possible if only the London 
Gazette or H-enry Muddiman's newsletter had existed. 2 
One of the newsletters with a decidedly Whig inter-
pretation of events was that distributed by John Gay. In 
a survey of newsletters in October 1683; Gay was credited 
with 'great intelligence and often what is private', 
which he , supplied to a large list of subscribers in the 
country. 3 Gay had been apprenticed to Francis Smith in 
February 1673 but was transferred at some point to Thomas 
Burrel, from whom he was freed in May 1680. 4 Soon he began 
to write newsletters, and in October he aroused L'Estrange's 
1. L'Estrange reckoned (with usual exaggeration) that there 
were tat least Six Thousand written Papers of Intelligence 
one way, or another, that are weekly, and with Infinite 
Industry Scatter'dup and down the Kingdom', The Observator 
#259, 16 December 1682. 
2. On Henry Muddiman's newsletters see J.G. Muddiman, Th e 
King 's Journalist t 1659- 1689" 1923. 
3 . C. S . P . D. Oct 1683 to Apri684, p . 53. 
4 . McKenzie, State Co. Apprentices, 1641- 1700, #621, #4161. 
170 
anger by kee p ing a live suspic i ons against him of complicity 
in the P op ish Plot. l 1'Estra ng e loc a ted Gay's shop a t the 
Flying Horse in Fleet Street -- an a ddres s strikingly 
similar to the 'Flying-Horse-Court in F leet Street' where 
Smith h a d conducted business from 1654 to 1659. 2 Whether 
Smith was asso cia ted with Gay or ass i s ted him financially 
remains uncle a r. Secret ary Jenkins rec e ive d a rep ort in 
16 8 3 tha t Smith h ad supplied news during the l as t Westmins ter 
P a rli ament and throu ah the first s i x months of 16 81 for 
distribution to Di ssenters (e specially Baptists ) in Devon. 3 
Gay and Smi th both sent 'newsletters to Oxford coffee -
houses and ' a ll over the king dom' in Aug u s t in 16 81. 4 
Wh a tever hi s p reci se role, Smith was familiar wi th the 
circula tion of news by other booksellers and had gathered 
news for distribution in his own and other newsletters. 
It would not h ave been difficult for him to secure s ources 
.... 
of i nformation or corre sponden ts when launching his own 
newspape r devoted to the Whig interest. 
I n l a un ching SiIii'th' s Prot e st ant Int ellig ence, Smith 
was chiefly motivated by the p rosp ect of producing a p ersuasive 
1. Ga y appar ently a roused more anger than L'Estrang e' s. 
He was tried and a cquitted on 6 December 16 80 of assaulting 
one Michael Purefuy on the previous 15 October. John 
Gay was described as a b ookseller of Fleet Street. Sessions 
Minutes Book #52 ( note under 14 J anuary 16 80/1). 
2. L'Estrang e, 1'Estran e's Case in a Civil Dialogue, 1680, 
2nd i mpression Wing 11205 , pp . 7, 12; he cited Gay's 
newsletters of2 and 7 October 1 680 . 
3. C.S.P.D. Jul to Sep 16 8 3, pp. 216-8 , report by one J ames 
Harris who tried on s evera l occ as ions to p rove the existence 
of a politica l plot by Baptists, with Smith as a le ader. 
4. C.S.P.D. 1680-1, p . 422 , re p ort by Archdeacon Thomas 
Hyde, who described the letters as f an a tic a l and full of 
sedition. Both were sent weekly, Gay's to NIrs . Daye' s 
coffee-house i n High Street and Smith's to Fagge ' s coffe e-
house ne a r th e market p l a c e. 
171 
org an to present the 'truth' about the issue s and persons 
involved in the elections for the Oxford Parliament. 
Parliament was prorogued on 10 January 1681. This gave 
the Whigs some hope that they might be able to re-introduce 
the Exclusion Bill in the next session. But the King's 
decision to dissolve Parliament on 18 January and to call 
a new one in Oxford made clear his staunch resolution to 
oppose the Whig campaign to exclude James from the throne. 
The Whigs now realized that they were faced with a test 
of power. Only by forcing the K~ng to capitulate could 
theiachieve Exciusion. Much depended on their majority 
in Parliament and their hold on public opinion. Thus printed 
d d d · t 1 propagan a assume a new urgency an lmpor ance. 
By ordering the new Parliament to meet in Oxford, the 
King planned to deprive the Whigs of valuable and widespread 
support in London. The Whigs immediately tried to make 
" 
the King change his mind. Sixteen Whig peers signed a 
petition against an Oxford sitting and the Earl of Essex 
made a speech to the King at the delivery of the petition 
on 25 J anuary. Francis Smith and Benjamin Harris each 
pro.duced.aeJ;u:rc_at.e half-sheet publications; in fact Smith 
put out two editions with his imprint. 2 Harris then 
included the material, apparently without Smith's leave, 
1. J.R. Jones, The First Whigs, pp. 156-7. 
2. The E~rl of Essex's Speech At the Delivery of the 
Petition To the King, Jan. 25. 1680. Smith's other and 
probably earlter edition is The Earl of Essex his Speech 
At the Delivery of the Petition (Luttrell's copy is dated 
27 January). Smith's two imprints and Harris's publication 
are at present included in Wing E3305 and E3306. 
172 
in his Protestant (Domestick) Intelligence for Friday, 28 
January. This increased public knowledge of the petition 
but curtailed sales of the broadside editions. Smith was 
understandably furious, and he had not forgiven Harris 
by the time the first issue of his own newspa per appeared 
the following Tuesday. 'Whereas both the Publick and 
Booksellers are frequently imposed upon, in buying things 
twice;' Smith wrote in his first issue, 'at first in a 
Sheet or two, and afterwards the same again reprinted in 
B.H. his Domestick', he would follow a diffe.rent policy. 'No 
Clandestine Practices, of invading the Proprieties of 
others, and abusing the Publick' would have place in his 
1 
newspaper. Instead, he would 'endeavour to give a True 
and Impartial Account of the most Remarkable Transactions, 
that shall come to our Knowledge, for the good of the 
Protestant Interest in General'. In his third issue 
Smith again attacked Harris in his report on the London 
poll: 
... the Writ for the Election of four Citizens for 
the nex t Parliament, was proclaimed ( but not with 
a low vOice, neither was it read again, nor did Sir 
Robert Clayton mention the least Word of any 
Pretence to make the Election void, as was falsely 
published last Friday by B.H. ) ... 2 
1. He broke his promise by publishing the text of the 
Middlesex address in his Protestant Intelligence #14, 17 
March 1680/1. He had published it first on 4 March, t 'he 
day after the poll, as The Address of the Freeholders of 
of the County of Middlesex (Wing A548). 
2. Smith's Protestant Intelligence #3, 8 February 1680/1. 
Ha rris found occasion to correct Smith's 'somewhat imperfect' 
a ccount of the Sp eaker's sp'e ech at the opening of the Oxford 
Parliament in his Protestant ( Domestick) Int elligence #100, 
25 March 1681. 
173 
While Smith was to o energetic an entrepreneur to 
have scorned the possibility of profit, it seems clear 
.that his primary intent in publishing a newspaper stemmed 
from an ideological commitment to Whig policies of Exclusion 
and relief for Dissenters. His newspaper was published 
'for the good of the Protestant Interest' and supplemented 
his broadsides and personal efforts on behalf of the Whigs 
in election contests. On the same day t hat · h e · inaugurated 
his newspaper ( 1 February ) , Smith brought out a half - sheet 
of dialog ue which criticized the King's dissolution of 
Parliament and recommended that electors should choose 
only those men for the next P a rliament who had shown them-
selves staunch opponents of those 'cursed twins ••• Popery 
and Arbitrary Power'. Plain Dealing : Or, A Dialogue 
between Humphrey and Ro g er, About Chusing the Next 
Parliament provided a summary of the politic a l situation 
< 
in every-da y l an gua g e for tho s e too impa tient or too 
simple to follow the c a refu l log ic of leng thy essays. In 
its resp onse to the dissolution, the bro a dside wa s bitterly 
anti-government . 'Ay, Is it so! ex claims Rog er, 'By my 
Brown Cow then, Numps, I think our Statesmen now- a - days 
take P arli aments for Nine-Pins, which they Set up, like 
the Boys, onely to Knock down ag ain for sport'. After 
discussing with Humphrey the qualities re quired in a n 
M. P., Rog er ends with a solemn wa rning ; 'Remember one 
bad Choice ma y inslave you for ever ; and on e b a d Vote 
turn the Sc a les, when the question is, " Whether we s h all 
be Freemen or Bondmen"' . This highly cha r g ed and 
174 
apocalyptic language was adopted for the purpose of per-
suading voters to take a decisive stand with the Whigs. 
At least one reader, the normally cautious and judicious 
Luttrell, who had sat in the last Westminster Parliament, 
was convinced. He desc r ibed Plain Dealing as 'A g ood 
sober thing layeing out the designs of our enemies,.l 
Plain Dealing appeared three days before the London 
poll. On 4 February, Smith issued the second number of 
his newspaper containing editorial recommendations for 
s pecific candi dates. Then he prepared a full description 
of the unanimous election of Whigs in London for distri-
bution on 5 February, the day after the poll. He followed 
up with a summary in the third issue of his newspaper 
on Tuesday, 8 February.2 This is representative of the 
thoroughness of Whi g propaganda. Printed reports and 
commentary were cheap, brief and topical. Electors were 
told the importance of the election, then how they should 
vote, and finally congratulated on the wisdom of their 
choice. Each issue of Smith's Protestant Intellig ence 
i n cluded narra tives of elections when available and lists 
of new M.P.'s. Smith also helped to eng ender the 
impression of a vast and vocal public support for Whig 
1. Wing P2353. Luttrell's copy, dated 1 February and priced 
Id., is now in the Houghton Library, Harvard. 
2. A True Narrative of the Proceeding s at Guild-Hall, London, 
The Fourth of this Instant Fepruary, ~n their Unanimous 
Election of their Four Members to serve in Parliament, 1681 
(Wing T2 809). Luttrell's copy, dated 5 February and priced 
Id., is a lso in the Houghton Library. 
175 
policies and politicians by printing addresses of electors 
to their representatives. These addresses purported to 
be demands from constituencies, approved by popular 
ac clamation at the announcement of the results of a 
poll, for parliamentary action on Exclusion, the right 
to petition, preservation of the Protestant religion, and 
relief for Dissenters from ecclesiastical laws. In several 
cases they probably did represent popular sentiment, but 
a similarity of phrase and content in the two dozen or so 
addresses indicates a common origin in London. 'In form 
they were an appeal by the people, but since they were 
in no sense spontaneous they represented an appeal to the 
people,.l A high proportion of the Whig addresses were 
, 
I 
printed with significant promptness in Smith's Protestant I 
Intelligence, two or three in each issue. 2 Some of the I 
. Tory sc~rn for addresses was directed toward Smith. 
Heraclitus Ridens had this to offer: 
Earnest: ••• for my life I cannot understand F. Smith's 
Zeal in publishing so many Adresses • ••• 
Jest: Oh 'tis a damn'd cunning Rogue, he will slur 
you an Address of the Free-holders upon the Nation, 
when if you inquire of the matter, not one of 
1. Jones, The First Whigs, p. 167. For discussions of the 
addresses, see Jones, pp. 167-73, and M. Dorothy George, 
'Elections and Electioneering, 1679-81', English Historical 
Review, xlv (1930), 572-5. 
2. The Whig addresses were collected and published as Vox 
Patriae: . or the Resentments & Indi nation of the Free~rn 
Subjects of England, 1 1 Wing V725. This was printed 
for Francis Peters, a pseudonym, which may represent, as 
Ge orge suggests ('Elections', p. 573 ), Francis Smith, but 
it is unlikely that Smith would resort to a pseudonym when 
he published many of them separately under his real name. 
It was advertised as available from Richa rd Janeway in B. 
Harris, Protestant (Domestick) Intellig ence #113, 13 April 
1681. 
176 
those who were there know or heard of any such 
thing ••• or if such a thing be, their consent was 
never askt till they heard it read, and then 1 
half a score bawling Scismaticks cry Ay, Ay, ••• 
Few persons, apart from the leading Whig peers and 
M.P.'s, had their names more in the public view than 
Francis Smith. His imprint appeared on many of the more 
outspoken broadsides and tracts and his was the only 
publisher's name to comprise part of the title of a 
newspaper. His trials had been widely publicized. He 
was vocal in his own right at parliamentary polls and 
probably in coffee-house discussions as well. Reports 
survive for his activity with Stephen College at Brentford 
before the Middlesex election for the last Westminster 
Parliament, the mayoral election in 1681, and the 
controversial shrieval election in 1682. But most 
evidence exists for his campaigning on behalf of Slingsby 
Bethel in the Southwark poll for the Oxford Parliament. 2 
This was an election bitterly contested by both parties. 
The Tories, who in the end carried the poll, were 
especially anxious to gain a victory after the overwhelming 
Whig margins in London and Westminster. Buckingham and 
Monmouth appeared on behalf of the Whig candida tes 
1. Heraclitus Ridens #7, 15 March 1681. Secretary Jenkins 
desc ribed two addresses to Ormond in a letter of 5 March: 
'Yorkshire and Wiltshire have had the ordinary instructions 
obstructed u p on them as the act of the g entry by a mere 
surprise, that is one man handing a paper to be read in 
a crowd while a ll was in a hurry and nobody heeded what it 
was'; H.M.C. Ormond, N.S., V, 599 . 
2. C.S .P. D. Jul to se~ 1683, p. 7; s.p. 29, 416 (178), 
C.S.P.D. 1680-1, p. 4 2. I 
177 
Slingsby Bethel and Edward Smith during the six day poll.l 
Titus Oates was also there, but in the end the controversy 
centered as much o.n the role of Francis Smith. After 
participating in the election campaign, Smith reported 
on the poll in his newspaper. 2 This account sparked a 
vigorous reply: How and Rich: an Impartial Account of 
Proceedings at the late Election of Burgesses for the 
Borrough of Southwark~ Wherein ar Discovered, The palpable 
Forgeries of Elephant Smith in his pretended Relation of 
the same. 3 The author attacked Smith as 'an utter Abhorrer 
of Truth and Modesty', whose 'Mistris' was t that known 
Jilt, Common Fame'. Smith had been an enthusiastic 
campaigner for his friend Bethel, and the author of How 
and Rich (the title is based on the names of the Tory 
candidates) alleged tha t his loud speech and coarseness 
of manne~ had been due to being 'overcharg'd with abundance 
of Ale and Zeal'. He recorded this extract from Smith's 
speech: 
Ah, Sirs, what d'ye mean? Is the Devil in your 
hearts and the Pope in your bellies? Would ye 
have your houses ' fired about your Ears again? I 
speak to you that are for How and Rich, Is the 
Devil in your hearts and the Pope in your Bellies, 
&c. I speak I say, to you that are for How and Rich. 
Whether Smith actually spoke these words is impossible 
to verify. The ardent anti-Catholicism and emotional 
repetitions are not surprising in the mouth ~f a Whig 
1. George, ' Elections and Electioneering', pp. 565-8. 
2. Smith's Protestant Intelligence #6, 18 February 1680/1. 
3. Wing H2957. 
178 
publisher with decades of experience as a Baptist preacher. 
But the very plausibility is suspect; this is what a Tory 
critic would expect Smith to say. The Whig response, 
Bethel and Smith: or a Sober Answer to a Tantivy Pamphlet 
entitled How and Rich, which came to the defence of the 
'Intelligencer F.S.', accepts the factual report in How 
and Rich while criticizing the effort 'to render the honest 
p a rt obnoxi ous to censure' by exposing 'their slips and 
falls, particularly those of Mr. F.S • ••• '. Significantly, 
there is no explicit comment on Smith's speech, but the 
insinuation tha t he was 'mad or drunk' is firmly contradicted. l 
The elections and addresses all pointed toward Oxford, 
and preparati ons for the parliamentary session began in 
earnest once it became clear that the Whigs could not 
muster enough signatures for petitions to persuade the 
. resolute Charles 11 to hold the sessions in Westminster. 
Since they could not command extensive p opular support 
in Oxford, the Whigs planned to bring as large B. show 
of support . to Oxford as p ossible. On 15 February Rowland 
Tempest wrote from Whitehall to Edmund Poley in Berlin 
concerning the anticipated crowds and expressed his hope 
tha t at least the bothersome newsmong ers would stay 
away. 'Everybody here is preparing for Oxford who can 
make the least pretence of businesse', Tempest reported, 
1. Wing B2080. Later, Smith published The Vindication of 
Slingsby Bethel Esq: ••• Against several Slanders Cast upon 
him U on the occasion of his bein ro os~d for of 
the Burgesse-s to Serve in the late Parliament, 1 Wing 
B2078). Luttrell dated his copy 28 April. 
179 
'though I hope the scarcity of roome & the dearnesse 
together will have one effect, which is, to hinder all 
those loose idle Ne~~ fllio!J.gers who have alwayes been soe 
close hangers on upon the Parliament Lobby & certainly by 
1 their false Reports doe very much hurt'. In Smith's case 
at least, Tempest's wish was a forlorn hope. Smith was 
deeply involved in the Whig propaganda and the competition 
for newspaper reports was too fierce for him to remain . 
in London. He attended the Whig members from London on 
their journey to Oxford. 2 From his accounts in his news-
pa per it is clear that it was a triumphant and festive 
occasion. Some two hundred persons accompanied them all 
the way, and the horsemen wore blue satin r ibbons in their 
hats with the words 'No Popery, No Slavery' 'plainly and 
legibly wrought' upon the ribbons by the London weavers. 3 
Onc~ in Oxford Smith was an active member of what 
Rog er North termed 'the Tongue and Pen Managery ••• the writers, 
Talkers, and Disposers of News and Libels,.4 He took a 
'considerable Cargo' of pamphlets to Oxford, and at his 
own expense 'he presented most of the Lords and Commons 
1. R. Tempest to E. Poley, 15 February 1680/1, Poley Papers, 
Osborn Collection, Yale Univ. Library. For a poetic satire 
on newswriters, see Iter Oxoniense: or, The g oing down 
of the Asses to Oxenford, n.d. ( Wing 11093). 
2. 'The Case of Francis Smith'. 
3. Smith's Protestant Intellig ence #14, 17 March, and #15, 
21 March 1680/1. 
4. North, Examen, p. 100 . 
179 
'though I hope the scarcity of roome & the dearnesse 
together will have one effect, which is, to hinder all 
. those loose idle Nev{~ Motlgers who have alwayes been soe 
close hangers on upon the Parliament Lobby & certainly by 
1 their false Reports doe very much hurt'. In Smith's case 
at least, Tempest's wish was a forlorn hope. Smith was 
deeply involved in the Whig propaganda and the competition 
for newspaper reports was too fierce for him to remain 
in London. He attended the Whig members from London on 
their journey to Oxford. 2 From his accounts in his news-
paper it is clear that it was a triumphant and festive 
occasion. Some two hundred persons accompanied them all 
the way, and the horsemen wore blue satin ribbons in their 
hats with the words 'No Popery, No Slavery' 'plainly and 
legibly wrought' upon the ribbons by the London weavers. 3 
Once in Oxford Smith was an active member of what 
Roger North termed 'the Tongue and Pen Managery ••• the writers, 
Talkers, and Disposers of News and Libels,.4 He took a 
'considerable Cargo' of pamphle ts to Oxford, and at his 
own expense 'he presented most of the Lords and Commons 
1. R. Tempest to E. Poley, 15 February 1680/1, Poley Papers, 
Osborn Collection, Yale Univ. Library. For a poetic satire 
on newswriters, see Iter Oxoniense: or The down 
of the Asses to Oxenford, n.d. Wing I1093 • 
2. 'The Case of Francis Smith'. 
3. Smith's Protestant Intelligence #14, 17 March, and #15, 
21 March 1680/1. 
4. North, Examen, p. 100. 
180 
with a Book called Vox Populi,.l An important and out-
spoken pamphlet, Vox Populi reflected Smith's suspicion 
of the King and his faith in Parliament as 'the Bulwark 
of our Liberty, the boundary which keeps us from the 
Innundation of Tyrannical Power, Arbitrary and unbounded 
Will-Government'. Despite the evident dangers from the 
popish plot, Protestants still had not been secured in 
their 'Religion, Lives and Propertyes'. The 'Vigorous 
Endeavours' of these Parliaments had been frustrated by 
the powerful interest controlled by the Duke of York, 
and bills had been lost through frequent prorogations 
and dissolutions. Starting with the proposition that 
'the King hath no Power but what the Law gives him', and 
that Parliament made new laws and abrogated old ones, 
Smith's author concluded that Parliaments were 'layd in 
the Essence of Government' and must be permitted to have 
'certain stationary times of Session, and continuance, 
for providing Laws,.2 Historical and statutory precedents 
for frequent parliaments were adduced, and Vox Populi 
ended with some emotional rhetoric reminiscent of Smith's 
alleged speech during the Southwark campaign. The 
'important Cryes' of the people and 'their many Humble 
1. N. Thompson~ Loyal Protestant #68, 25 October 1681. 
'The Case of Francis Smith'. Vox Populi: or the Peoples 
Claim to their Parliaments Sittin To Redress Grievances, 
and Provide for the Common Safety, 1 1 Wing V729 • 
2. Vox Populi, pp. 1-3. 
181 
Petitions to their King , Fervent Addresses to their Members' 
were justified in a situation characterized by 'the Knife 
at the Throat'. Cities had been burned and invasions 
threatened. Parliaments which 'with so much care, cost 
and pains are Elected, sent up, and Intrusted for their 
help' had been rendered 'insignificant by those frequent 
Prorogations and Dissolutions,.l 
Vox Populi closed with a benediction, representing 
Smith's sentiments, that 'this present Session may have 
a happy Issue, to answer the great ends of Parliaments, 
and therein our present Exigencies and Necessities,.2 
In that wish the Whigs and Smith were both disappointed. 
Exclusion could not gain a majority in the Lords, and the 
.. 
Commons accomplished little before Charles 11 dissolved 
the Oxford Parliament on 28 March after only one week. 
Smith had helped the Whigs to put up a challenge 
to the King over Exclusion. In addition to his newspaper, 
he published half a dozen broadsides directly related 
to the parliamentary campaign. Never had he been more active 
in his trade than before the Oxford s ession; never again 
would he have the opportunity to express his political 
opinions so vocally and freely. Smith returned to London 
at the end of March. Two weeks later he was arrested on 
a charg e of high treason. 
1. Vox Populi, p. 15. 
2. Vox Populi, p. 16. 
1 82 
Ch apter F ive 
'The P r ess mu s t s et ' urn Ri ght agai n ' 
183 
Following his masterful handling of the Parliament 
a t Oxford, the King initiated a carefully pl anned 
p rog ramme to discredit Whig leaders a nd their propaganda. 
Confident of French subsidies for at leas t three years, 
Charles could dispense with Parliaments. His resolute 
stance encourag ed faltering Tories to join him in working 
for the coll apse of the Whigs. The vig orous Tory back-
lash was evidenced by loyal addresses, trials of Whig 
le aders, and renewed p rosecution of the Di ssenters. By 
contrast, the Whigs were left in temp orary disarray 
after the dissolution and were slow to resp ond to Tory 
a ttacks a t a time when sustained public debate was 
critical. They de pended on public debate in Parliament 
to keep their party to ge ther, but the g overnment denied 
them dominance of the p ress a nd a p olitic a l platform in 
Wes tminster. 
Government exploitation of the p ress after March 
16 81 was a cruci a l factor in the decline of Whig influence. 
The Exclusion Crisis t a ught the g overnment tha t since 
they could no t silence the press they had to use it 
more effectively and pe rsuas ively than the opposition: 
183 
Following his ma sterful handling of the Parliament 
at Oxford, the King initiated a c a refully planned 
pro g ramme to discredit Whig leaders a nd their propaganda. 
Confident of French subsidies for at least three years, 
Cha rles could disp ense with Parliaments. His resolute 
stance encourag ed faltering Tories to join him in working 
for the collaps e of the Whigs . The vig orous Tory b a ck-
l a sh was evidenced by loyal addresses, tri a ls of Whig 
le a ders, and renewed p rosecution of the Dissenters. By 
contrast, the Whigs were left in temp orary disarray 
after the dissolution and were slow to resp ond to Tory 
a tt a cks a t a time when sustained public deb a te was 
critica l. They de p ended on public debate in Parliament 
to keep their party tog ether, but the g overnment denied 
them dominance of the p ress and a political platform in 
Westminster. 
Government exploitation of the p ress af ter March 
16 81 was a cruci a l f a ctor in the decline of Whig influence. 
The Exclusion Crisis t a ught the g overnment tha t since 
they could n ot s ilence the press they had to use it 
more effectively and p ersuas ively than the opposition: 
, 
184 
"'Tis the Press that has made 'um Mad, and the Press 
must set 'um Right again".l Preparations to implement 
a renewed pro g ramme to control the press had begun in 
the weeks before the Oxford Parliament had convened, 
and the pl ans were put into effect immediately after 
the dissolution along with an immense propag anda effort. 
Through pressure on the Stationers' Company and a scheme 
of pro paganda to disg r a ce and humiliate the Whig s, the 
g overnment eventually achieved a secure advantage in the 
use of the p ress and the manipul a tion of public op inion. 
The g overnment's first attack was directed ag ainst Francis 
Smith and Benjamin Harris. The campaign continued with 
criticism of Richard J aneway, Lang ley Curtis, and Richard 
Baldwin, who replaced Smith and Harris later in 1681 as 
the le a ding op position publishers. It concluded by 
purg ing from office any Whig s who retained influence in 
the running of the Stationers' Company. By the time 
of the London shrieva l elections of 1682, the St a tioners 
were among the most loya l of the livery companies in the 
poll, and in 16 84, they were the first company to be 
g r anted a new cha rter by the King . 
The success of the press campaig n de p ended in part 
1. L'Estran g e, The Observator, I, 1, 13 April 1681. 
185 
on the effectiveness of the Stationers' Company in 
obstructing and curtailing the activities of Whig printers 
and booksellers. Since the lapse of the Printing Act 
in June 1679, the Stationers had lacked legal basis for 
frequent searches of printing houses, and their efforts 
in this area had fallen off drastically. They had been 
spurred into action on specific occasions by government 
directives to discover certain seditious tracts, but ori 
the whole Stationers' Company officials had done little 
to limit the rapid increase in publishing in the exploita-
tion of the Popish Plot and Exclusion Crisis. Greater 
numbers of titles published had meant more trade for 
most of them. However, before each session of Parliament 
the Stationers had lobbied for a new Printing Act, and 
the Oxford Parliament was no exception. On 1 February 
1681 the Master and Wardens met in committee with five 
other stationers loyal to the King and resolved to 'attend 
Sir William Jones with the draught of the Act of Parliament'. 
They also agreed to consult Sir Robert Atkins and Sir 
George Treby (the new Recorder of London), but there is 
1 
no further record of their plans. Hopes for a new 
1. State Co. Court Records, Liber E, entry for 1 February 
1680/1. The members of the committee were the Master (John 
Macock), the Wardens (Richard Clark and Francis Tyton) , 
George Sawbridge ( perhaps the wealthiest of the stationers), 
Roger Norton (King's Latin and Greek printer), Samuel Mearne 
(King's bookbinder and stationer), Thomas Newcomb (King's 
printer), and Henry Herringman. 
186 
Printing Act were very s~im. If the session of Parliament had 
lasted long enough to permit discussion of printing, then 
Exclusion, relief for Dissenters and other Whig bills 
would have been passed first, which Charles would not have 
permitted. Instead, the King and Privy Council directed 
the Stationers on 11 March to put in execution their 
by-law concerning imprints, which had been drawn up in 
August 1679 as an early response to the end of the Printing 
Act. l Officials of the Company appeared before the 
Council, apparently before the King left for Oxford, to 
discuss enforcement of the by-law, and Randal Taylor, 
their beadle, was dispatched to warn stationers of the 
new policy.2 This review of the possible effectiveness 
of the imprint by-law was undertaken in anticipation of 
a crack-down on the Whig press after the Oxford Parliament. 
The policy makes sense only in the context of stationers 
operating in a clandestine or surreptitious manner, fearing 
to put their names in the imprints. Except in a very 
few cases, Whig tracts and broadsides, before Oxford, 
appeared with an imprint. Certainly Francis Smith did 
not scruple to add his name and address to his publications. 
Within a day or two of the dissolution of the Oxford 
Parliament, the Master and Wardens conducted a thorough 
search of the printing houses, and on 2 April they 
1. C.S.P.D. 1680-1, p . 208. 
2. State Co. Records, Warden's Accounts for 16 80-1, entries 
for the end of March. 
1 8 7 
delivered the first batch of 'unlicensed' pamphlets to 
a Secretary of State. Before the end of the week the King 
summoned the Company before the Privy Council and gave 
1 them a specific order to prosecute their by-laws. The 
Warden's accounts for April contain several entries for 
exp enses for meetings to discuss by-laws, fees to lawyers 
for legal advi ce, and costs for searches and informers. 
The picture is one of greatly increased vigilance and 
attention to printing offences. This is borne out by 
the annual expenses of the Wardens. For the period July 
1679 to June 1680 (immediately after the lapse of the 
Printing Act) the total expended was ~36l. 13. 08; for 
1680-1681, ~659. 10. 01; and for the year beginning July 
1681, the total reached ~1135. 00. 01., the highest level 
since the indefatigable Samuel Mearne was Warden in 
1672-3 and 1673-4. 
The best efforts of the Stationers, even with close 
adherence to the imprint by-law, would have been unsuccess-
ful without the a ccompanying barrage of Tory propaganda 
(some of which, incidentally, appeared without imprint). 
The g overnment campaign to control the press in the 
autumn of 1679 through by-laws, regulations, and declarations 
had failed in part because Whig propaganda had championed 
1. Stat. Co. Records, Warden's Accounts for 1680-1, entries 
for 2 and 8 April. 
188 
the interests important to a frightened publi c; investiga-
tion of the Popish Plot and preservation of the Protestant 
succession. For the government programme to succeed in 
1681 where it had failed earlier, it had to include a 
persuasive use of propaganda to swing public opinion 
around in favour of the Tories. To control the press Tories 
had to exploit its p owers better than the Whigs; they 
had to beat them at their own game. 
As the two men responsible for the leading Whig 
newspapers, Francis Smith and Benjamin Harris were the 
i.ni tial targ ets of g overnment propaganda. The first 
volley directed by the Tories indulged in character 
assasination, innuendo, and misleading imprints. On 
5 April two broadside ballads appeared; one exposed 
Smi th's alleged amorous ( and unsuccessful) advances 
against 'his maid and bore Harris' s imprint; the other 
chided Harris with the story of his finding his wife in 
bed with a scrivener's apprentice and carried Smith's 
imprint. The Protestant Cuckold, which described Harris 
as the 'Protestant-News-forger', was reinforced eight 
days later by another printed ballad, The Saint turn'd 
Curtezan, which also narrated the infidelity of Ruth 
Harris. It contaihed this mocking refrain: 
Help Care, Vile, Smith, and Curtis, 
Each pious Covenanter, 
Now alas what hope 
Of converting the Pope 1 
When a Sister turns a Ranter~ 
1. The Protestant Cuckold: A New Ballad. Being a full and 
189 
If Harris was a cuckold, Smith hardly came off much 
better as a hypocritical Baptist preacher unable to 
. sparle any sexual response in a young woman. Two verses 
may suffice to illustrate the Tory intention in The 
Leacherous Anabaptist to discredit Smith's newspaper by 
impugning his character: 
o Ye Roundheads and Whiggs, for ever be silent, 
Cease to scandalize Tory, and honest Tantivy; 
I'le tell you st:vang e News that happened nigh Lent, 
Which if you disprove, I swear I'le forgive ye: 
Of Protestant Francis, 
That tells us Romances, 
Of horrible Plots more strange than Miles Prances: 
For Frank twelve Geneva good Bibles did proffer, 
To lie with his Maid, but she slighted his offer. 
* * * 
He writes twice a week News Domestick & Forrain, 
As Seditious as Care, Ben. Harris, or Curtis; 
Great Lyes in abundance from France & from 10rrain 
But never says word of his Maid: what a Cur 'tis? 
He tells us strange Stories, 
Of Papists and Tories; 
But this I'le say for him, that his Maid no Whore is: 
For Frame twelve Geneva good Bibles did proffer, 1 
To lie with his Maid, but spe slighted his offer. 
The Stationers were also informed of the government 
intention to obstruct the publishing activities of Smith 
and Harris. When James Astwood was brought before the 
Stationers' Court on 11 April for printing Stephen Colleg e's 
nerfect Relation how B.H. the Protestant-News-for er cau ht 
his beloved wife Ruth in ill Circumstances, 1 1 Wing P3 29), 
'Printed for Francis Smith'; The Saint turn'd Curtezan: or, 
A New Plot discover'd by a precious Zealot, of an Assault 
and Batter desi n'd upon the Bod of a Sanctif 'd Sister &c., 
1 1, Wing S359. Luttrell's dated copies are in the 
Huntington Library. 
1. The Leacherous Anabaptist: or, The Dipper Dipt. A New 
Protestant Ballad, 1681 (Wing L808), 'Printed for Benjamin 
Harris' • 
190 
A Ra-ree Show, he was spe c ifically qsked if he had printed 
it for either of them. l Since Harris had been sent back 
. to the King's Bench prison in February after his brief 
and illegal release, he was already in government hands. 
Apparently the threat of an additional indictment for 
false news persuaded Harris to cease publishing his 
Protestant ( Domestick ) Intelligence after Friday, 15 April. 
He had no wish to add to his still unpaid fine for publishing 
An Appeal from the Country t o the City in 1679. He 
remained in prison, despite several petitions, until late 
in 1682. 2 
On 13 April Roger L'Estrange continued the attack 
on intelligencers in the first issue of his Observator. 
He condemned Smith as 'an Anabaptist that is a Professed 
Enemy to all Government'. Such propaganda against Smith 
was intended not only to discredit his political 
publications but to create a climate of popular suspicion 
which would permit the government to indict him without 
loud expressions of Whig outrage. Smith was the first 
victim. Indictments against him and other Whigs helped 
to demoralize the Whigs and dismantle their organisation. 
Smith's Protestant Intelligence for Monday, 11 April 
1. State Co. Court Records, Liber E, entry for 11 April 1681. 
2. J.G. Muddiman, 'Benjamin Harris', Notes and Queries, 163 
( 1932 ) , pp. 149-50; N. Thompson, The Loyal Protestant #15, 
26 April and #57, 20 September 1681; C.S.P.D. 1680- 1, pp. 
326, 335, 481. 
191 
included accounts of events in Scotland and Everard's 
testimony before the Privy Council concerning Fitzharris, 
to which the g overnment took exception. On Wednesday the 
Privy Council served Smith with a warrant to face interro-
gation on Friday about publication of false news. l The 
next day the London Gazette cont ained a specific refutation 
of the reports in Smith's newspaper. The purpose of the 
Gazette's attack was not to provide an accurate narrative 
of these events but to publicize goverrunent contelnpt for 
Smith's reports, which it claimed were 'notoriously false' 
and 'maliciously represented', and ' g rossly' abused the 
reading public. 2 Smith had no chance to reply because 
his newspaper appeared for the last time on t he same day 
(Thursday). Smith presented himself to the Privy Council 
on Friday to answer their charges. Re had been questioned 
ih similar circumstances on several occasions in the past, 
and he probably expected a voluble discussion followed by 
commitment to prison and a quick release on a writ of 
habeas corpus. Instead, he was sent to Newgate prison 
in safe custody 'for high Treason in Conspiring to deprive 
the King of his Crown and to set up a free state,.3 
1. N. Thompson, The Loyal Protestant #12, 16 April 1681. 
2. The London Gazette #1607, 14 April 1681. 
3. N. Thompson, The Loyal Protestant #12, 16 April 1681; 
P.C. 2, 69 (271), 15 April 1681; The London Gazette #1608, 
18 April 1681; Luttrell, Brief Relation, I, 75 (Luttrell 
wrongly g ives the da te a s 14 April and reports that he was 
ke p t in close custOdy); F. Gwyn to Ormond, 16 April 1681, 
R.M.C. Ormond, N.S., Vi, 35. 
192 
Smith h a d probably been tricked into appearing 
voluntarily s o t hat the Privy Council could commit him 
without fe a r of his absconding if presented with a warrant 
for treason. When Smith a rrived at Whitehall he was 
recognized by a ' g entleman' ( Thompson's term ) as one 
who had spoken dang erous words against the King. l Thompson's 
g entleman was Cha rles Ray, a postal clerk who had spent 
several months in prison for dispersing An Appeal from the 
Country to the City when it first appeared. 2 His evidence 
concerned a conversation in October 1679, and it would 
seem unlikely tha t he had kept the conversation to himself 
until he happened to be at Whitehall the day Smith happened 
to appear before the Privy Council. 
Ray had been in the King's Bench prison when Smith 
was committed in October 1679 for selling a pamphlet with 
observa tions on Wak eman ' s trial. According to Ray , Smith 
soon made him a confidant and promised to find bail and 
money for his prison costs if he would be silent about his 
role in disp ersing p~aphlets. As a clerk with the Penny 
Post Ra y had access to a rapid and extensive means of 
distribution. The promises of money are not surprising . 
Leading opposition stationers h a d long assured loyalty in 
1. N. Thompson, The Loyal Protestant #12, 16 April 1681. 
2. Ray h a d been discha r g ed without payment of fees af ter 
eight months; C.S.P.D. 1679-80, p. 469 . 
3. Ray refers in his information to Smith's plans to publish 
A New-Years-Gift for the Lord Chief in Justice. This would 
seem to date his conversation with Smith in December 1679, 
but Smith was committed to Newgate on that occasi on. 
193 
the ranks by providing legal counsel and making grants 
of money in cases of need. It was called 'bearing one 
harmless'. The Confederate booksellers followed this 
p olicy after the Restoration and Smith continued it 
during the Exclusion Crisis. There was the danger that 
a stationer might submit under government pressure, but 
this was offset by supplying steady work for printers or 
binders in need of employment and threatening them with 
effective economic sanctions if they did confess. 
L'Estrange h ad found that stationers closed the ranks 
remarkably well and that conspiracies of silence impeded 
investigations and prosecutions. Smith recommended to 
Ray that he deny any charges and express his repentance 
y~~~ for any unintended harm his actions may have caused. Then 
'they would Retrieve me & I should n ever want'. Perhaps 
to encourage Ray with some strong sentiments, Smith added 
that he would never give over printing and writing till 
the government was changed into a free state. It was 
this expression of determined defiance which Ray never 
forgot, especially since he was convinced that his refusal 
to cooperate with Smith had led to his transfer to a 
damp room five feet below ground on the common side of 
the prison. l 
Ray's affidavit that Smith had uttered treasonable 
1. S.P. 29, 417 (209 ). C.S.P.D. 1680-1, p . 667; the 
summary of Ray's deposition. 
193 
the ranks by providing legal counsel and making grants 
of money in cases of need. It was called 'bearing one 
harmless'. The Confederate booksellers followed this 
p olicy after the Restoration and Smith continued it 
during the Exclusion Crisis. There was the dang er that 
a stationer might submit under government pressure, but 
this was offset by supplying steady work for printers or 
binders in need of employment and threatening them with 
effective economic sanctions if they did confess. 
L'Estrange had found that stationers closed the ranks 
remarkably well and that conspiracies of silence impe ded 
investigations and prosecutions. Smith recommended to 
Ray that he deny any charg es and express his repentance 
~V~~ for any unintended harm his actions may have caused. Then 
'they would Retrieve me & I should n ever want'. Perhaps 
to encourage Ray with some strong sentiments, Smith added 
that he would never g ive over printing and writing till 
the g overnment was chang ed into a free state. It was 
this expression of determined defiance which Ray never 
forg ot, especi a lly since he was convinced tha t his refus a l 
to coop erate with Smith had led to his transfer to a 
damp room five feet below ground on the common side of 
the p rison. l 
Ray's affidavit that Smith had uttered treasonable 
1 . S.P. 29, 417 (209). C.S.P.D. 1680- 1, p. 667; the 
summary of Ray's de position. 
194 
words eighteen months previously was enough to land Smith 
in Newgate. But two witnesses were required for conviction 
of treason. One Mr. Wright was believed to have been 
present during the conversation and the Council summoned 
him to provide corroborative evidence. Smith was held 
in safe custody and one of ~is first visitors was Slingsby 
Bethel. l Later he made a request to Sheriffs Bethel and 
Cornish that if he was convicted 'that he might not be 
barbarously used at Execution, nor denied liberty to speak 
while he had freedom, nor to be cut down till dead'. They 
promised him this and, importantly, 2 'an honest Jury'. 
Smith's melancholic turn was probably reinforced by the 
failure of his petition brought by his counsel at the 
King's Bench bar on 25 April for a speedy trial or freedom 
on bail. Refusal of the petition was based ostensibly 
on the grounds that he should have made application for 
habeas corpus by motion, but it also reflected the govern-
ment determination to keep him in prison. 3 
When Smith left London for the Oxford session he 
entrusted his trade and the publication of his newspaper 
to the care of his son, also named Francis Smith, who 
was greeted by Heraclitus Ridens on 29 March with 'Here's 
1. N. Thompson, The Loyal Protestant #13, 19 April 1681. 
2. 'The Case of Francis Smith'. Smith labelled the two 
witnesses against him 'miscreant wretches'. 
3 . N. Thompson, The Loyal Protestant #15, 26 April 1681. 
R. Janeway, The Impartial Protestant Mercury #1, 27 April 1681. 
195 
a young Elephant too, Bless us all! what will become of 
us now?,l Thus when Smith was sent to Newgate, publications 
continued to bear his imprint though his newspaper ceased. 
There was speculation that Smith was not the only author 
of his paper, but no one dared to continue it in his 
absence. In Henry Muddiman's words, 'it seems the Composer, 
now the cat's foot is gone, is loth to put his own into 
the fire.,2 On 18 April the poem The Genius of True 
English-men was reissued with its proud couplets, 'The 
Mighty Genius of this Isle disdains / Ambition, Slavery, 
and Golden Chains,.3 It was followed ten days later by 
another publication looking defensively to past issues, 
The Vindic a tion of Slingsby Bethel. 4 Smith had more to 
worry from 'golden chains' than he susp ected, if we may 
believe Hera clitus Ridens, which noted on 26 April that 
his shop ' was 'being daily guarded and grac'd with a City 
Post and g old Chain,.5 The government clearly intended 
to silence Smith by every means at their disposal. 
Meanwhile Smith ling ered in Newgate unable to have 
1. Heraclitus Ridens #9, 29 March 1681 . 
2. Muddiman's newsletter of 19 April 1681, cited by J.G. 
Muddiman, 'Francis Smith, the Elder', Notes and Queries, 163 
( 1932 ) , p . 60. L'Estrang e alleged in his first issue of the 
Observator tha t 'The Intelligencers, you must know, .that 
be a r their Names, are not of their Comp osing , but the Dictates 
of a Faction, and the Venom of a Club of Common-we a lths-men 
instill'd into those Papers'. While Smith may not have been 
entirely resp onsible for the composition of his newspaper, 
he contribut ed the first issue and sent reports from Oxford. 
3. Wing G519. 
4. Wing B2078. 
5. Heraclitus Ridens #13, 26 April 1681. 
196 
his mo tion for habeas corpus heard. The conditions of 
his imprisonment do not seem to have been too onerous; 
during a visit to Newgate on 15 May, the J.P. Edmund Warcup ' 
noted that one Captain Cresset ' gave Smith the bookeseller 
a bottle of claret in the common roome,.l A few days 
later, on the first day of term, Smith's lawyer again 
failed to persuade the King 's Bench to hear his case for 
habeas corpus. He tried again on 21 May at the sessions 
of Oyer and Terminer at the Old Bailey, but the King's 
2 
counsel pleaded that he was not ready. Finally Smith 
came before the sessions o·r Peace for London on 1 June 
and was admitted to a punitive bail of ~lOOO with three 
sureties of ~500, one of which was provided by John Da rby.3 
It was probably after his release pending trial that Smith 
published A Land-Mark for all true English Loyal Subjects, 
a broadsrde guide 'to divert [Englishmen] in these dark 
times out of Treasonable Ways,.4 Smith had n ot been 
converted to the government position, nor had he compromised 
his ideas in any way; instead, he arranged a guide offering 
advice on how to remain in opposition while avoiding 
actions or words which might be construed as treason. 
1. K. Feiling and F.R.D. Needham, 'The Journals of Edmund 
Warcup, 1676-84', English Historical Review, 40 (1925), p. 254. 
2. R. Janeway, Impartial P~otestant Mercury #8, 19 May and 
#9, 2 3 May 1681. 
3. The other two sureties were put u p by Clement Halsey, 
a brewer, and Will i am Smith, a p lumber. Luttrell, Brief 
Rel a tion, I, 92; T. Benskins, Domestick Intelligence # 4, 
3 June 1681; J. Smith, Currant Intelligence, #12, 4 June 1681. 
Bowler, London Sessions Records, p. 333n. Sessions Minute 
Book #52 (note under 20 May 1681). 
4. Wing L323. 
196 
his motion for habeas corpus heard. The conditions of 
his imprisonment do not seem to have been too onerous; 
during a visit to Newgate on 15 May, the J.P. Edmund Warcup 
noted that one Captain Cresset 'gave Smith the bookeseller 
a bottle of claret in the common roome,.l A few days 
later, on the first day of term, Smith's lawyer again 
failed to persuade the King's Bench to hear his case for 
habeas corpus. He tried again on 21 May at the sessions 
of Oyer and Terminer at the Old Bailey, but the King's 
2 
counsel pleaded that he was not ready. Finally Smith 
came before the sessions or Peace for London on 1 June 
and was admitted to a punitive bail of ~1000 with three 
' sureties of ~500, one of which was provided by John Da rby.3 
It was probably after his release pending trial that Smith 
published A Land-Mark for all true English Loyal Subjects, 
a broadside guide 'to divert [Englishmen] in these dark 
times out of Treasonable Ways'. 4 Smith had n ot been 
converted to the government position, nor had he compromised 
his ideas in any way; instead, he arranged a guide offering 
advice on how to remain in opposition while avoiding 
actions or words which might be construed as treason. 
1. K. Feiling and F.R.D. Needham, 'The Journals of Edmund 
Warcup, 1676-84', English Historical Review, 40 (1925), p. 254. 
2. R. Janeway, Impartial P~otestant Mercury #8, 19 May and 
#9, 23 May 1681. 
3. The other two sureties were put u p by Clement Halsey, 
a b rewer, and William Smith, a plumber. Luttrell, Brief 
Relation, I, 92; T. Benskins, Domestick Intellig ence #4, 
3 June 1681; J. Smith, Currant Intelligence, #12, 4 June 1681. 
Bowler, London Sessions Records, p. 333n. Sessions Minute 
Book #52 (note under 20 May 1681). 
4. Wing L323. 
197 
'Compassing by bare words was not an Overt Act', Smith 
assured his readers, but he added a summary of the 1661 
Treason Act which included provisoes against printing, 
writing, preaching, or malicious or advised speaking 
against the King. The fact that Smith felt the need to 
provide 'a true Epitomy of Treason, which ( readers] may 
with cheapness purchase, without trouble carry about them, 
readily understand, and easily remember' illustrates 
cle arly the critical shift in political atmosphere caused 
by the Tory backlash. Its publi cation coincided with a 
series of indictments agains t leading Whigs. Smith's 
friend Stephen College and Sir Thomas Player's servant 
J ohn House were charged with treason on 29 June, and on 
11 July Edward Whitaker, a Whig solicitor and one of Smith's 
authors, was also accused. But the greatest prize of all 
for the g overnment was Shaftesbury, who was sent to the 
Tower on 2 July. With these other fish to fry, the govern-
ment counsel finally admitted that for lack of evidence 
they could not p rosecute Smith. Thus at the Old Bailey 
sessions on 8 July, Smith was discharg ed; He had been the 
first Whig charg ed with high treason, and for the government 
1. Luttrell, Brief Relation, I, 109; T. Benskins, The 
Domestick Intelligence #14, 11 July 1681; R. Janeway, 
Impartial Protestant Mercury #23, 12 July 1681; J. Smith, 
Currant Intelligen_ce #23, 12 July 1681. 
198 
he had served as the first chink in the opposition armour. 
The case against him was not strong. The government had 
difficulty locating two witnesses to swear that he had 
claimed never to stop publishing until England was a free 
state, and there was some doubt if his alleged statement 
constituted an overt act. 
For the second time in his career, Smith escaped 
the dire penalty for high treason. It is interesting to 
note the v arying reactions to his release. The London 
Gazette and Thompson's Loyal Protestant had given prominent 
coverag e to the reasons for his arrest, but neither 
reported any development in his case after April. 'The 
Elephant I hear is come out of his Castle', wrote Roger 
L'Estrang e after Smith was granted bail, but he said 
1 
nothing when the prosecution was dropped. Langley Curtis's 
True Protestant Mercury ignored Smith's arrest and surprisingly 
remained silent about his release. On the other hand, 
Richard Janeway noted in his Impa rtial Protestant Mercury 
each step of Smith's application for bail and his ultimate 
release for want of persecution. For the Tories, Smith's 
release was a mild setback in a fortni ght of decisive 
legal action against the Whigs; for the Whigs, it provided 
one source of good news during a very bleak period. 
1. L'Estrang e, The Observator # 20, 4 June 1681. 
199 
Heraclitus Ridens wa ited until the end of August (after 
Colleg e's execut ion ) to remind Smith just how close he 
had come to losing his life: 
Earnest: Ay, Frank Smith has g iven them the leng th 
of the Tedder, how f a r they may g o without da ng er 
of h a n g ing , that same is a very pretty Fellow, and 
will not g ive over till he be pay'd off for 'to 
Jest: Nay, I wa rrant you he knows to the thousandth 
part of a h a irs breadth how far a Man may venture 
to defame the Government, talk Sedition, and yet 
not come within the reach of the Law. 
Earne s t: The Fly buzzes long about the Candle, but 
a t l as t she sing es her Wing s; this Tra de will not 
last long : Franck h a s had one fair sc ape, let him 
h ave a care. l 
* * * 
The effective a nd wide- ranging pro paganda s cheme 
a do pted by the Tories helped them ma int a in the politica l 
initia tive fir s t won by the sudden dis s olution of the 
Oxf ord Parli ament. The collapse of the Whig s by no me a ns 
occurred overnight, nor did they fail to put u p a vig orous 
1. He r a clitus Riden s # 31, 30 Augu s t 16 81. 
200 
struggle, but they found themselves suddenly and unexpectedly 
on the defensive. The Whigs had concentrated on pointing 
out the danger to the state from popery and arbitrary 
g overnment, and now they had to answer charges that they 
themselves constituted the danger. Parliament had given 
the Whigs a natural platform for discussion. Without it, 
they retreated to their s tronghold of London, but even 
there the Tories were beginning to chip away at their 
sources of support. On 8 April the King issued a declara-
tion defending his dissoluti ons of the last two Parliaments 
and promising frequent Parliaments when tempers had cooled . 
He ordered the declaration read from every pUlpit of the 
established church, which helped to forge an alliance 
between the Anglicans and the Tories against the Whigs 
whom they identified with the Dissenters. l The London 
Gazette was soon full of loyal addresses from cities and 
bor oughs in the country; by December over 200 had been 
p rinted. By the middle of May, the Whigs could 
muster only a margin of fourteen (91 to 77) in the London 
Common Council on a motion to praise M.P.'s for actions 
in Oxford and to petition for a new Parliament. The Tories 
considered the vote a moral victory for their efforts. 
From Whitehall Robert Yard noted, 'And indeed it is to 
be wondred at, that there should be so many noes in a 
Common Councell that the Brethren had been so industrious 
1. Haley, Shaftesbury, p. 639. 
201 
and s o prevalent too, in the choosing of,.l 
Any note of triumph soon disappeared from Whig 
literature. Confronted with a barrag e of attacks, from 
Heraclitus Ridens and L'Estrange's Observator, from the 
London Gazette and Thompson's Loyal Protestant, the King's 
declaration and loyal addresses, in pamphlets and in 
dozens of ballads, the Whigs hardly knew where to beg in. 
When they did focus on a targ et, they often were slow to 
respond. There was a thirteen day gap, for example, 
between the appearance of the The Loyal Letany on 2 April 
2 
and its reply, The Protestant Dissenters Letany. Before 
the Oxford Parliament, Smith and other Whig stationers 
had been able to produce tracts within a day or two of 
an event because they could plan and anticipate publications. 
" Now the best they could do was to circulate old pamphlets 
in greater numbers while writers and p oets tried their 
hand at effective replies to the Tories. Smith arranged 
for the printing and publication by 9 April of Stephen 
College 's A Ra-ree Show, the notorious ballad which had 
entertained the Whigs at Oxford. He also published The 
Protestation of the Lords Upon rejecting the Impeachment 
of Mr. Fitz-Harris, which publicized the Whig position on 
the highly political issue of whether Fitzharris should 
1. R. Yard to E. Poley, 13 May 1681, Poley Papers, Osborn 
Collection, Yale Univ. Library. Haley, Shaft e sbury , pp. 641-2. 
2. Wing L3348 and Wing P383l; Luttrell's dated copies are 
in the Huntington Library. 
have been tried at King 's Bench ( the Tory p osition) or 
impeached by Parliament ( Whigs ) .l He distributed Vox 
Populi widely ( Thompson noted that it was 'constantly 
202 
cried about the Streets to the Dishonour of the King and 
Government' ) and added 'an Appendix' with speeches by 
James I on 'the Difference betwixt a King Ruling by Law 
and a Tyrant By His Own Will'. He published this 
separately with the title Vox Re g is. 2 
'Where they want Arguments, they call Nrunes, and 
supply the Defect of Truth and Re as on with Rib a ldry and 
Invention,.3 L'Estrang e intended his comment to describe 
the efforts of Whig publishers and pamphleteers, but it 
serves e qually well a s an observa tion on Tory propaganda. 
L'Estrang e and the other Tory writers soon mastered 
the powerful a rts of exagg eration, criticism of 
unin tended me aning , and ad hominem attacks. All these 
techn iques came into play in the multi- faceted resp onse 
to Smith's Vo x Populi. The Tories capit a lized on the 
centra l max im of Vo x Populi, tha t l aws make the King, and 
denounced it as a short cut to a commonwealth and a 
p rinci ple 'tha t t akes the whole Government off the Hing es,.4 
1. Wing E2843. The protestation had been recorded on the 
l as t da y of Parliament, 28 March. On the involved impli-
cations of the Fitzharris case, see Ha ley, Shaftesbury, 
pp. 629-31. 
2. Wing J148. N. Thompson, The 
April 16 81 . 
Loyal Protestant #12, 16 
3. L' Estrange, The Observa tor #12, 11 May 1681. 
4. L'Estrange, The Observa tor #17, 26 May 1681. 
203 
Smith meant 'vox p opuli' to be the expression of English 
voters for their Parliaments to sit to redress g rievances, 
but the Tories treated Smith himself as the 'vox populi'. 
'Here's a s p ick and span Vox Populi, or Elephant Smith 
turn'd Pedag ogue', warned Heraclitus Ridens, ' ••. te a ching 
the People to s p ell the Horn- book of Sedition, Treason, 
and Rebellion'. Thomp son assured his readers tha t the 
g overnment could 'amend what was amiss' without the guidance 
of Vox Po puli or 'these Non- conforming St a te-Tinkers,.l 
John Nalson also considered Smith 'vox po puli', though 
he believed he was closer to an a g itator or firebr and of 
the p eo ple. In his Vox Populi, Fax Po puli. Or, A Discovery 
of an Im~udent Che a t and Forg ery Put u p on the P eo ple of 
En g l and by Ele~hant Smith, and his Author of Vox Populi, 
Nalson' a dvi sed his readers, 'Look here the Author, and the 
Publisher ~ F or compare Vo x Po puli, and Frank Smith the 
Anab aptist s Preacher in Vox Po puli, p. 1. And you sha ll 
see, they a re a p erfect Ta lly, and notch exactly' . To 
Na l s on it ma ttered little whether Smith was the author or 
not, 'it is but a s k ing his Comp anion whether he be a Thief, 
and c a lling his Accomplice to be his Voucher'; his purp os e 
wa s to discredit the Whig s by identifying them with an 
a n ab aptist bookseller with commonwealth links. 2 By isola ting 
Smith and his r a dical ideas, the propagandists hoped to 
1 . He r a clitus Ridens # 10, 4 A~r il 16 81 ; N. Thomps on, The 
Loyal Protest ant # 12, 16 April 1681. 
2 . Wing N1 21, pp . 3, 9. 
204 
draw to the Tories all those who did pot subscribe to the 
principle that laws make the King. Heraclitus Ridens 
defined the concepts of 'Franksmithism' as 'subverting 
the Government; the Kings Authority Deriva tive, and only 
derivative, and inferiour to a Parliament, then God b'w'ye 
1 Sovereignty and Supremacy'. In this way, Smith came to 
represent the dang ers of republican and Dissenting fervour, 
and unless he was firmly rebuffed and put down the nation 
would suffer again the nightmare of 1640. Nalson sounded 
the alarm by branding Smith's Vox Populi 'the Compendium 
of the Assertions, and Positions of the Long Rebel 
Parliament; the Epitome of Bradshaw, and Cooke; an Affront 
to his Majesty, and the Parliament; a Firebrand of Sedition; 
a Trumpet to Rebellion; and a most shameful Abuse of the 
People, of whom he ( i.e. Smith) has made himself the 
Representative,.2 
* * * 
The formidable success of the Tory propaganda 
was due in large part to the effective and unremitting 
1. Heraclitus Ridens #14, 3 May 1681. 
2. Vox Populi, Fax Populi, p. 13. Smith was also persona lly 
a ttacked in Mr. Fitz-Harris .•• His Case truly statedi ••• In 
a Letter to Mr. C. L.C . F.S. and B.H., 1681, p rinted for 
John Smith ( Wing M2265), p. 4. The initials in the title 
refer to Care, Curtis, Smith, and Harris. 
205 
efforts of three periodicals , Heraclitus Ridens, Roger 
L ' Estrange's Observator, and Nathaniel Thompson's The 
Loyal Protestant. The partisan reporting , penetra ting 
argument, and frequently witty satire of these journals 
helped to turn the tide of op inion against the Whigs. 
Their p ower was both individual and collective. Separately 
they replied to Wh i g tra cts or ridiculed Whig leaders; 
collectively they formed an imp osing wedge of Tory 
sentiment 'which the Whigs were unable to withstand. The 
Whigs h ad virtual control of the press after the failure 
of g overnment a ttempts to suppress opposition propaganda 
in 1679 and 1680, and they maintained their pre-eminence 
unt il the dissolution of the second Exclusion Parliament 
a t Wes tminster in J anu a ry 16 81. Their propaganda organi-
sation remained dominant through March, but the Tories 
gained a ~stronghold with the commencement of Heraclitus 
Ridens on 1 February 16 81. 
Combining fresh and engaging dialogue between 'Jest' 
and 'E arnest' wi th satirical queries, mocking advertisements, 
and an occasional political ode, Heraclitus Ridens 
expounded stock Tory themes, the identification of Whigs 
with Dissenters and Tories with the Church of England, 
and the dangerous par a llel between the events of 1640-1 
and 1680-1. Authorship of Heraclitus Ridens was a 
puzzle to contemporaries and remains an enigma today. 
Strongest evidence exists for the proposition that the 
weekly pe riodic a l was comp osed jointly by a 'club' of 
contributors and was 'edited' by a young and reputedly 
) 
206 
dissolute Cambridge graduate, Edward Rawlins. l Henry Care 
often attacked Heraclitus Ridens ( 'the Poison of a whole 
Nest of lurking Serpents' ) in the pages of his 'Courant' 
in The Weekly Pacquet of Advice from Rome. 'Go but any 
Sunday Night to the Sun in Aldersgate-street', Care 
recommended in May 1682, 'and send up Half a dozen Bottles 
of Claret to the Select Cabal, and tell them a Gentleman 
below drillics the Duke's health to 'urn, you shall presently 
be a dmitted, and then hear the whole Manuscript read, 
canvass 'd, 2 debated and corrected'. Several Weighty Quaeries 
Concerning Heraclitus and the Observator also proposed 
joint authorship ( 'there's Lawyers, Divines, Brewers-Clerks, 
and the Devil an all concern'd in the spawning of that 
Pamphlet' ) and suggested as proof 'the variety, and 
incoherency of the Stile, and the Frothiness of it , .3 
From the beg inning, Heraclitus Ridens directed its 
often brilliant and occasionally scurrilous salvoes 
against "all Libellers against the Government'. 4 While 
1. Theodore F.M. Newton, 'The Mask of Heraclitus: A Problem 
in Restoration Journalism', Harvard Studies and Notes in 
Philology and Literature, XVI (1934), pp. 145-60. To the 
evidence presented by Newton one might add ' ••• Would our 
p oor Ro gues would swear half so clever, / As Thompson, 
Rawlins, a nd Le Strang e do write ••• ' from the Whig ballad, 
The Popes Evidence to a Cardinal One of His Privadoes, 
(Wing P2932), which Luttrell dated 6 December 1681. 
2. H. Care, weekl~ P a cguet, Ill, 55 ( 24 June 1681 ) and 
IV, 21 ( 12 May 16 2). 
3. Wing S2816; Luttrell dat e.d his co py 21 September 1681. 
On 3 October 1681 the Stationers' Court of Assistants voted 
to prosecute David Mallett for f a iling to add his imprint 
to this publication; State Co. Court Records, Liber E. 
4. The full title of the first issue was Hera clitus Ridens: 
or, A Discourse between Jest and Earnest, where many a True 
Word is spoken in opposition to all Libellers against the 
Government. 
cla iming tha t the Whigs sowed seeds of sedition, the 
authors were anxious to sow equally fertile seeds of 
suspicion. Since publishers were more significant and 
p rominent than writers of Whig propaganda, Heraclitus 
Ridens heaped the g reater part of its ridicule in the 
early numbers on Whig publishers. Later Titus Oates, 
Stephen Colleg e, and Shaftesbury faced Tory derision, 
207 
but no other Wh i g s achieved equal status with the 
publishers. Henry Care received a g reat deal of scorn for 
his Weekly Pacquet, but he remained a 'nuncio' to 
'C ardinals Ha rris and Smith', and Edmund Hickering ill 
gained stature as an author by climbing on 'Frank Smith's 
Elephant' and being 'rebaptized into a True Protestant'. 
'Oh! the p ower of Frank Smith's Wash', exclaimed Heraclitus 
Ridens, 'he c an scrub a Negro till he's as white as a 
penny ,.l, During the spring of 1681, Heraclitus Ridens 
considered Smith to be the most import ant and thus the 
mo s t dange rous Whig publisher. At the wedding of Mr 
P opular Fears with Mrs Jo a n Jealousy a t 'Sedition-Sellers-
Hall , i n Common-wealth-Lane near Tolera tion Street', 
Smith officia ted while Harris and Langley~ Curtis served 
as 'Bridemen'. Again, he was designated master and 
Ha rris and Curtis h a d to be content as mate and boatswa in 
1. Heraclitus Ridens, #15 , 10 May and #28, 9 August 1681. 
on the barge of the News-Taylors Company imagined by 
Heraclitus Ridens. l Smith was a ttacked in each issue 
of Heraclitus Ridens through the middle of May and was 
often mentioned until the end of 1681. As late as May 
1682, ' Earnest' admitted to 'Jest' tha t he had as much 
208 
compassion for Smith, Harris, College, and others in the 
ruin of their careers as for 'a Rat p inch'd through the 
2 Guts in the Trap '. For Heraclitus Ridens, Smith became 
a fi gure for satire of dissent and r adical politics, 
while Henry Ca re represented anti-popery. In se ttings 
as diverse as gardens, dances, and feasts and in roles 
as various as Anabaptist pre a cher, farrier, and te a cher, 
Hera clitus Ridens p ictured Smith as an extreme pro p onent 
of sectarian relig ion and p opular g overnment whose 
principles would again envelop the nation in civil strife. 
It also i ~ ol ated the malaise of 'Elephantiasis, or the 
Dise ase of the Castle and Eleph ant, in pl a in English the 
Leprosie of Rebellious Reformation' and termed Whig 
emphasis on limited monarchy and a semi-democratic 
Parli ament 'Franksmithism,.3 
In their first issue, the authors of Heraclitus 
Ridens anticipated repl ies from the Wh i gs but warned them 
in a dvance tha t if they g ot too close they might be left 
'spr awl ing in the dirt'. Heraclitus Ridens was a bold 
1. Heraclitus Ridens #5, 1 March and #10, 4 April 1681. 
2. Heraclitus Ridens # 70, 30 May 1682. 
3. Heraclitus Ridens #14 , 3 May and #6 , 8 March 1681. 
209 
and surprisingly effective attack op the Whigs . Though 
the Whigs soon responded, they had no writers capable of 
persuas ive re plies. Benjamin Harris first entered the 
fray in hi s n ewspaper on 15 February by pnotesting that 
priest s in Newgate and other prisons ha d written 
pamphlets, among them Hera clitus Rtdens. Their purp ose 
was 'to Cre a te Jealousies between the King and His People, 
and to Heighten the difference between the Church of 
Engl and and Dissenters,.l The next day he issued a 
new weekly periodic al which ran for six weeks in a sorry 
a ttempt to answe r Hera clitus Ridens. The title, The 
Weekly Disc overer Strip'd Naked, was based on The Weekly 
Discovery of the Mystery of Iniquity, which appeared 
weekly for thirty issues beg inning 5 February with a 
Tory history of the Civil War.2 Francis Smith 
followed Harris into the a rena with Democritus Ridens: 
or, Comus and Momus, A New Jest and Earnest Pratling 
concerning the Times which presented Comus and Momus in 
dialogue in self-conscious burlesque of Jest and Earnest. 
It began with the statement, 'This Heraclitus I perceive 
1. B. Harris, Protest ant ( Domestick) . Intelligence #9 7, 
15 February 1680/1. 
2. H a rr i s ad vert i sed _T_h_e_W~e-:;e_k-;l-"y,--:Dr;--i~s-:;-c-:o_v--;e_r~e..,..r_S_t_r,...l_· "0 ..... ' ..,..' _d_N_a_k_e_d: 
ork Jest and Earnest expos'd to Publick ViBW in issues #9b and 99 of his newspaper, 18 and 22 February 1680/1. 
It l as ted for six issues, until 23 March 1681. 
210 
is grown Triumphant, the Weekly Discoverer has not 
sufficiently Discovered him'. Democritu8 Ridens was a 
reasonable and moderately amusing response to Heraclitus 
Ridens. It contained fewer personal attacks, but it was 
on the defensive and failed to convince readers that its 
rival was a tool of the papists. Smith advertised Democritus 
Ridens in his newspaper in the guise of a news report: 
London, March 30. 
There having been a Popish Libel published for 
some time under the Title of Heraclitus Ridens, 
some ingenious Person doth answer it weekly in a 
Paper intituled Democritus Ridens, which may be 
had of the publisher of this Intelligence. l 
Democritus Ridens continued for thirteen issues ( until 
13 June ) , even after Smith was sent to Newgate for treason, 
when it bore the imprint of Francis Smith, junior. After 
Smith's release on bail, it ceased publication on a 
positive note with Comus exclaiming, 'The Castle that's 
founded on truth and innocency can~t be without difficulty 
undermin'd'. One of the targets of Smith's scorn was 
Benjamin Tooke, the Tory publisher of both Heraclitus 
Ridens and The Weekly Discoverer. He also published the 
few Tory election addresses before Oxford, and Smith had 
criticized him in his newspaper for his account of the 
Tory victory at the Cambridg e poll. Democritus Ridens 
1. Smith's Protestant Intelligenc e #18, 31 March 1681. For 
a list of other periqdical responses to Heraclitus Ridens, 
see the New Cambridg e Bibliog raph of En lish Literature, 
11, (1971 , col. 1339-41. 
I 
I 
,I 
I 
I 
211 
wondered ' Whether B. Took be Flesh, Fish, or g ood red 
Herring' and promised in its fina l issue tha t 'the time 
will come when the Papistical Dogge r -boa t [i. e. Tooke] , 
as lofty as she now bears her head, shall veil her Bonnet, 
or strike sail to her Protestant Castle [i.e. SmithJ'.l 
Though Tooke was a dedic a ted Tory he was never drawn into 
the storm of name-calling to the e x tent many publishers 
2 
were. While he escaped the bitter invective concomit ant 
with notoriety during the Exclusion Crisis, he did f a ce 
s evera l London g rand jury presentments for 'ma licious 
libel' in publishing Heraclitus Ridens. He was presented 
on 2 March 1681 and again on 31 August by the Whig-controlled 
grand jury. The se cond presentment was in resp onse to the 
execution of Stephen College and the banishment of Titus 
Oates from Whitehall, but neither action c aused him to 
strike sail, a t his shop a t the sign of the Ship in St. Paul's 
Churchya rd. 3 He was indicted on 24 October 1681, but 
public a tion of Heraclitus Ridens continued without inter-
ruption. Tooke was cited for strong criticism of the 
Hous e of Commons in the Heraclitus Ridens of 10 May 1681. 
1. Democritus Ridens #3, undated, and # 1 3 , 13 June 16 81. 
2. On Tooke's public a tion of a broadside edition of Samuel 
Butler's Hudibras as propaganda against the Whi g g r and 
juries, see James L. Thors on, ' A Broadside by Samuel Butler', 
Bodl e i an Libra ry Record, IX ( Dec. 1 9 74), pp. 1 78-86. 
3. L. Curtis, True Protestant Mercury #19, 2 March 1681 
( I h ave not loc a ted corrobora tive evidence for Curti s 's 
report). L'Estrange, The Dissenters Sayi ngs. The Se cond 
Part, 16 81 , dedic a tion; Luttrell, Brief Rel a tion, I, 119 . 
212 
His indictment was part of a general a ttack by Whigs in 
London on Tory pe riodic als for subverting the sources of 
Whig s u pport by abusing Dissenters and ridiculing the 
P op ish Plot. l Supported by the g overnment, Tooke was 
a llowed a writ of certiorari to the King ' s Bench, where 
2 presumably his case was dropped. These wri ts protect ed 
Torie s from parti san juries in the London sessions. The 
g overnment could i nfluen c e decisions in the King's Bench, 
and judg emant was r arely brought on a loyal s t a tioner 
once his writ of certiora ri h ad been secured. Nei ther 
printed n or legal response to Hera clitus Ridens forced it 
to desist. Only the complete collapse of the Whigs by 
Aug u s t 1682 and therefore the paucity of targe ts for 
s a tire led the authors to suspend volunt a rily their 
t avern sess ions after comp o s ing the eighty-second is s ue. 3 
More effective than Hera clitus Ridens, because more 
trenchantly a r gued and' stubbornly longe r-lived, was Ro g er 
L'Estrange's Observator. L'Estrange was a s t aunch Anglican 
and Tory who worked to make the two terms synonymous f or 
loya l support of the Stua rt mona rchy. By p olarizing 
pu blic op inion into Tory and Whig c amps , he tried to 
1. The g rand jury a lso found bills against N. Thompson for 
The Loyal Protest ant and Jo anna Brome for The Observator. 
2. H. Bowler, London Sessions Records, p . 345n. N. 
Thomps on, The Loyal Protest ant #69, 27 October 16 81. Luttrell, 
Brief Relation, I, 139. 
3. As early as June, Jest had comp l a i ned , 'Hang their 
Pamphlets, they g row so ab ominably dull, they a ren't worth 
ones while'; # 73, 20 June 1682. Tooke was a g a inst s to pping 
public a tion, but he assured r eaders in the l as t issue tha t 
he h a d never been motivated by ' mercenary i nterest'. 
I I 
I 
I 
213 
p ersuade the country that the greatest threat to internal 
security came not from the papists but from the Exclusionists 
themselves. He popularized those party terms in the 
Observator dialogue. l When the Whig organisation and 
morale collapsed he did not lay down his pen as did the 
a uthors of Heraclitus Ridens. He switched) in 
November 1682, to a ttacks on the moderate Trimmers. 2 
L'Estrange was a n indefatigable p ropagandist for the 
Tories. 3 Supremely confident in his views as only an 
extremist can be, he wrote more than a thousand pages of 
comment a ry, banter, and abuse for the Ob s erva tor over a 
p eriod of six ye a rs (April 1681 to March 1687 ) .4 During 
a crisis he produced as many as six Observators a week. 
He enjoyed g overnment sanction and claimed that the 
Observator was 'constantly sent to the Offices of Both 
the Secre~aries of State before they a re ever Publish'd'. 
Secretary J enkins and other government officia ls 
occ asiona lly supplied information and affidavits for inser-
tion in the Observator and Heraclitus Ridens . 5 L'Estrange 
1. Robert Willman, 'The Orig ins of " Whig" and "Tory" in 
English Political La nguage', The Historic a l Journal, XVII, 
2 (1974), pp . 261-3. 
2. Thomas C. Faulkner, 'Halif ax 's The Character of a Trimmer 
and L'Estrange's Att a ck on Trimmers in The Observator', 
Huntington Library Quarterly, XXXVII (1973), pp . 71-81. 
3. On L'Estrange's s tature as a propagandist, see Ra l ph 
Bernard Long , 'Dryden's Import ance as a Spokesman of the 
Tories', University of Texas Studies In English, 1941, 
pp. 85, 99. 
4. See David J. Littlefield, 'The Polemic Art of Sir Roger 
L'E s trange: A Study of His P olitical Writing s, 1659-1688 ', 
unpublished Ya le Ph.D. thesis, 1961. 
5. L'E s trange, The Ob s erva tor, I, 323 , 20 April 1683; 
C. S .P.D. 16 82 , pp. 141-2. 
214 
rema ined ze a lous long after partisan fervor had died down. 
Even loya l Tories and friends tired of the flow of abuse, 
which they feared mi ght aid the pap ists. 'In which sheets, 
under the p retence to serve the Church of England', wrote 
Evelyn in his di a ry in May 1685, 'he g ave suspicion of 
g r a tif ( y)ing another party, by severall p assages, which 
r a ther ke p t u p animo s ities, tha n appe a sed, especially now 
tha t nobody gave the le a st occasion,.l Not until his 
unrelieved and unstinting criticism of Dissenters contra-
vened James II's new p oli c y of liberty of conscience was 
2 L'Estrang e forced to susp end publication of hi s Observa tor. 
L 'Estra ng e brought long ye a rs of expe rience in pamphlet 
wa rf a re and s u p ervision of the p r e ss to his production 
of the Ob s erva tor. In some ways he wa s the best informe d 
Tory concerning opp o s ition t a ctics and policies. From 
his contac-t with the book tra de, he wa s awa re of the firm 
commitment and c a reful organisa tion which s t a tioners 
brought to their politica l and relig ious dissent. He 
knew a lso the fury of the P op ish Plot bec a use he h a d been 
forced into e x ile in the autmnn and winter of 1680- 16 81 
to avoid inve s tigation by the Lords Plot Committee, he a ded 
by Sh a ftesbury . The Whig s a ttacked L'Estrang e bec au s e h e 
h a d been the most prolific Tory pamphleteer in 1679 and 
1. E.S . de Beer, ed., The Di a r r of John Evelyn , St a nda rd Authors edition, 1959 , p . 807 . 
2. Luttrell, Brief Rela tion, I, 388 , 392. 
( Oxford 
215 
1680 and one of the first to question the Plot in print. 
One modern estima te is that some 64,000 copies of his 
pamphlets, new and reprinted, were in circulation in the 
two years before he started the Observ ator. l Titus Oates 
brought allegations based on the doubtful evidence of 
Simpson Tong e that L'Estra ng e had refused to meddle with 
a Plot de position in his role as a J.P. L'Estrang e was 
a c quitted before the Privy Council on 6 October 1680 and 
c ame away with a warm expression of support from the King. 2 
This first challenge h aving failed, Oates presented him 
as a papist, with Miles Prance as the witness. L'Estrange 
strongly denied the cha r g e in a postscript to his a coount 
of his Privy Council app e a rance. 3 The matter was then 
t aken u p by Parliament. The Lords Committee for Examina-
tions received de p os itions from several p ersons, among 
them J ane Curtis, tha t L'Estrang e had refused to licence 
protestant works and h a d not prosecuted the Popish Plot. 
Weary of the 'noise of the rabble', he did not s t a y in 
London to answer the summons before the Lords Committee. 
In his absence the committee recommended on 30 October 
1. Violet Jordan , Sir Roger L'Estrange , Selections from. 
the Observator, Aug ustan Reprint Society, Clark Library, 
1.970, . p. i. Her fig ures a re probably g enerous. 
2. Kitchin, L'Estrange, pp. 252-5 ; P.C. 2, 69 ( 118 ) ; All 
Souls Colleg e Ms. 171 (129 ) ; Luttrell, Brief Rel a tion, I, 
57. 
3. L'Estrange, L'Estrange's Case In a Civil Dialogue Betwixt 
'Zekiel and Ephraim, 1680 . The p os tscrip t is dated 14 
October 1680. 
216 
that he be removed from the Commission of the Peace and 
1 
not be permitted to licence books. 
As soon as L'Estrange returned to London from his 
exile, the Whigs renewed their campaign to discredit him. 
In his newspaper Benjamin Harris noted a humorous conflict 
between hawkers. One was selling an answer to The Earl of 
Essex's Speech At the Delivery of the Petition ( which had 
been published by both Smith and Harris ) , and each time 
he cried 'Here's the answer to the Peers Petition' another 
man, carrying a copy of Strange's Case, Strangely Altered, 
replied, 'Here's the Old Dog TOWZER come out of his Kennel 
with a BROME at's Tail,.2 Towzer ( as the Whigs called 
L'Estrange) and his publisher H~nry Brome faced further 
attacks, including Mr L'Estrange's Sayings which presented 
isolated quotations from his pamphlets calculated to 
infuriate' public opinion. 3 In February the depositions 
werE 
against L 'Estrang e placed before the House of Lords in October / 
published under the title L'Estrang e a Papist. Just as 
he was completing a respQnse ( L'Estrange no Papist), Francis 
Smith published A Collection Of the Substance of several 
1. L.J., XIII, 629-30; L'Estrange no Papist, 1681; Kitchin, 
L'Estran~e, pp . 257-8; L'Estrange had been made a J.P. in 
March 16 O. 
2. B. Harris, The Protestant ( Domestick ) Intelli ence #96, 
11 February 16 0 1. Strange's Case was a political 
c a ricature first produced for the pope burning procession 
in London on the previous 17 November. It is illustrated 
by Kitchin, L'Estrange, between pp. 258-9. 
3. Kitchin, L'Estrang e, pp. 264-5. 
217 
Speeches And Debates made In the Honourable House of Commons 
to which he prefixed a s p eech in the Lords by Lord Lovelace 
1 highly critical of L'Estrange. 
Thus it is not surprising that L'Estrang e waited 
until the dissolution of the Oxford P a rliament to launch 
his Observator. His dee p p ersonal animosity for individua l 
Whig s and his understanding of the power of the press soon 
ma de his p eriodical a n influential Tory tool. L'Estrang e 
had p redicted tha t 'Confusion, and Ruine' would result 
from the lapse of the Printing Act. He justified his 
own resort to pamphlets by arguing that the failure to 
punish libels made the g overnment a p pe a r 'afraid of the 
Rabble' and failure to answer them gave 'a kind of Credit 
to their Doctrine,.2 'If this Liberty holds', warned 
L'Estra ng e in 1680, 'every man that honestly serves his 
Prince, and his Country becomes a Sacrifice to the Multitude, 
and the Rabble g ives La ws to the Government,.3 L'Estrang e 
insisted during the Po p ish Plot as he had after the 
Restoration that there were direct and inflammatory links 
between the p ress a nd p olitica l opposition; "Tis but one 
1. A Collection of the Subst ance, 1681 ( Wing E2538); 
a dvertised in Smith's Protest ant Intellig ence #12, 10 March 
16 81. L'Estrang e susp ected that the s p eech was contrived; 
'I h ave the Honour to be call'd Rogue, Villein and a 
d a n g erous r ank Papist, which do not look like Parliamentary 
words'; L'Estra n g e no Pap ist, p . 29 of the second p ag ina tion. 
2. L'Estra ng e, The Free-born Subject, 2nd ed., 1680, pp . 
11-2. 
3. L'Estra nge , A Short Answer to a Whole Litter of Libellers, 
16 80, p . 17. 
I 
I ! 
I 
I 
218 
Tugg at the P ress, here in London, and in Eight and Forty 
hours ye shall see the whole King dom in a Flmne,.l He 
advocated restrictive controls on the press, but in the 
absence of leg islation and coopera tion by the Stationers' 
Company he fought fire with fire; "Tis the Press that 
has made 'um Mad, and the Press must set 'um Right again'. 
From this first sentence in the first issue of the 
Observator on 13 April 1681 he commenced his extraordina ry 
one-ma n campai gn to answer every significant libel 
published by the Whigs . Like Heraclitus Ridens, he 
concen tra ted his a tt a cks on publishers, their newspapers, 
and individual libels. As he commented in his index to 
the first volume of the Observator, to refer to the several 
numbers and places of the newspapers 'would make the Index 
as big as the Book'. L'Estrang e's first issue was devoted 
to a re sponse to Smith and Harris, and in succeeding 
numbers he never lost sight of what he called 'the Goose-
Quill-F r a ternity' ( Curtis, Care, Baldwin, J a neway, Smith, 
and Ha rris ) .2 He dedicated himself to a root and branch 
extirpation of a ll Whig publi shers. 'For the want of 
Pluck ing up the Mischief by the Roots', he cl a i med, 'you'l 
have Every da y the same work to do over again'. He used 
the succession of J aneway and Baldwin to Smith and Ha rris 
in the summer of 1681 as an ex ample. 3 To L'Estrange, the 
1. L'Estrange, Citt and Bumpkin , The Se cond Part, 3rd ed., 
16 80 , p . 22. 
2 . L'Estrange, The Observator, I, 161, 28 June 1682. 
3. Ibid. 
219 
stationers were among the most dang erous proponents of 
Whig policies. Thus he re~lied _ not only to political 
argument in a libel but to the character of the publisher. 
The fact tha t the most voc a l Whig stationers were Dissenters 
only help ed to unleash a g reater flow of venom. When he 
answered Smith's Votes of ..• the Commons of England .•• in 
Favour of Protestant Dissenters, he characteristically 
mixed criticism of Smith with a dismissal of the position 
tha t a vote of Commons h a d any leg al force. 'The Government 
1 is at a Fine pass', he wrote, 'if a little Clasp-Merchant 
shall come to declare Law, A Missionary Anabaptist to 
settle Relig ion, and the Vote of a House of Commons, to 
suspend, a t least, if not Over-rule so many solemn Acts 
of his Majesty and the Three Est a tes,.2 Although he 
believed tha t sedition was spawned by the schismatic 
beliefs of such as Smith, L'Estra n g e manag ed a reluct ant 
respect for him and other stationers whom he had battled 
for three dec a des. 3 They were his enemies, but at least 
he knew where they stood. It was partly bec ause he recog-
nized tha t their determina tion was a s g reat as his tha t 
1. This is one of few references which indic a te that Smith 
continued to supplement his publishing and bookselling 
trade with the making and selling of clasps , p resumably 
for bookbinding; he h a d been apprenticed to a claspmaker. 
The Ca r-man's Poem, cited in chapter three, contains the 
line, ' When Smith and's Anvil a re dec ay'd and rotten'. 
2. L'Estrange , The Observator, I, 50, 7 September 1681. 
3. ' F r anci s Smi th and Lang1ey Curtis were the Men tha t 
stood it out to the Last'; L'Estrange, The Observator, 11, 
21, 25 February 1683/4. 
220 
he was concerned not only to answer but to bludgeon them 
with words. He declared that he would continue to write 
his Observator 'till I have written Canting and Libe l ling 
out of the Kings Dominions. that is to say; till there's 
not a Whig left to wag his Tail, but Honest Concupiscence 
Franck (Smith]; Dick Gim-Crack (Janeway]; and the True-
Protestant-Spider-Catcher in the Old-Bayly (Baldwin). And 
there's nothing but ashes to ashes and dust to dust, that 
1 
can ever stop their mouths'. 
Among the many Whig responses to the Observator in 
prose, verse, and p eriodical was Smith's A New Dialogue 
Between Some body and No body, or the Observator Observed, 
which a p peared five times between 25 November and 19 
December 1681 and was issued with the imprint of Eleanor 
Smith. Directed ag ainst L'Estrange with an oc casional 
barb for Keraclitus Ridens, A New Dialogue criticized 
most vehemently his selective attacks on Protestant 
Dissenters. 2 L'Estrang e was a master of the technique 
of lifting quotations out of context to fit his contention 
that the Dissenters of 1681 held the same views and 
intended the same violence to the state as the sectarian 
extremists of the Civil War. 3 The Observator Observ'd ) 
1. L'Estrang e, The Observator, I, 54, 17 Se ptember 1681. 
2. The reference to 'Some body and No body' in the title 
may be to the first issue of Heraclitus Ridens, in which 
the first query is ' Whether Some-body or No-body s p oke the 
Sp eech Printed by Frank Smith the Anabaptist ••• ?' 
3. L'Estra ng e h a d used ' guilt by a ssocia tion' quotations 
after the Restoration to attack the Presbyterians, and 
they had formed the bas is for the two parts of his Dissenters 
Saying s in 16 81. 
221 
which appeared three times, responded ironically in May 
1681 to L'Estrange's insinuation that Smith and Harris 
were ' part of the party that ruin'd the Church and 
Monarchy'; 'How Eagle Eyed he is to see the Mens Hearts; 
because once u p on a Time, there were some wicked Protestant 
Dissenters, therefore all Protestant Dissenters must be 
1 
of the same Stamp'. Apparently Smith planned another 
re ply to L'Etsrange in 1683, but ' the discovery of the 
Rye House Plot may have made public a tion unwise. Eleanor 
Smith ( both his wife and da ughter were named Eleanor) 
entered 'The observator observed by an eminent cavaleer' 
a t Stationers' Hall on 18 May.2 
L'Estra n g e believed tha t the Whig stationers a lso 
organised economic sanctions against the Observator and 
Hera clitus Ridens in a ddition to publishing their r a ther 
futile repl ies. Whig stationers refused not unnaturally 
to stock Tory p ropaganda. Nathaniel Thompson reported 
tha t Mrs. Curtis told a customer tha t 'She thank'd God 
she never published any such Popish Pamphlets; but could 
help (her customer] to the Observator Observed,.3 L'Estrange 
received reports tha t the Whig stationers h a d agreements 
with h awkers to supply them with 'Good Market able Pape rs, 
and Intellig ence', u p on the condition that they in turn 
1. The Obs erva tor Observ'd: or, Protestant Observ a tions 
upon Anti -Protestant P amphlets # 1, 6 May 16 81. The first 
i ssue app e a red with the imprint of T. Davie s , and the l a tt er 
were printed for J. Gifford. 
2. St a tioners' Registers, Ill, 156. 
3. N. Thomps on, The Loyal Protest ant #28, 11 June 16 81. 
222 
would not sell ' any Observa tors, Hera clitus'es, or any 
other books or Pap ers of that -Stamp, any further then to 
serve a Customer in the way of Trade'. Effective prop a-
ganda de p ended on r ap id and wide distribution, and it is 
not surprising to find tha t Whig st a tioners who knew how 
to command loya lty among members of the book tra de tried 
simila rly to organise the hawkers and mercuries. They 
could not limit distribution through the p enny p ost, but 
they could try to obstruc t Tory efforts in London. l 
In con junction with replies in kind to the Ob s ervator 
and tra de sanctions, the Whig s also initia ted leg al a ction. 
When L'Estra n g e wrote his first tent a tive exp osure of the 
P op i s h Plot, severa l s t a tioners h a d Henry Brome a rrested 
for inva ding t heir p ro perty in publishing quotat ions from 
tri a l a ccount s which they h a d published. Brome put u p 
b a il a nd ~he ma tter rested . 2 The London g r and jury 
presen ted Jo anna Brome ( who succeeded her recently deceased 
hus b a nd as L'Estra n g e's publisher ) on 31 Augu s t 16 81. As 
publisher of the Ob s erva tor, she was cited for s owing di s cord 
among Prote s t ants, contributing to the Po p ish Plot, a nd 
1. L ' Estra ng e believed the sanction h a d been discussed a t 
a meeting on 14 July of ' Whig news mong ers' in Pa ter Noster 
Ro w ( where Richa rd J a newa y k e p t s ho p ); The Ob s erva tor, I, 
35, 20 July 16 81. 
2 . L' Estra ng e exposed the log ic a l re s ult of this s ort of 
pro s ecution; 'At this r a te, we s h all h ave all Sermons 
forfeited to the King s Printers, for Desc anting u p on Their 
Bible s ; and all Books wh a t s oever, to the Company of 
St a tioner s , bec a u se they a re made out of the Four and 
Twenty Letters; and the A B C i s Their Co py' ; The F re e-born 
Su b ject, 16 81, pp. 1 2-3. 
223 
reflecting on the House of Commons and the proceedings j.n 
the London Common Council. The grand jury confronted 
L'Est rang e with a reversal of roles. He had supported 
libel actions brought by the government in which malicious 
intent was assumed and only proof of involvement was 
required. The Whig jury now used libel as a political 
reply to the government. L'Estrange could hardly deny 
his responsibility for the Observator or that Joanna Brome 
published it. He was reduced to complaining that the 
action was brought in a partisan manner, which was what 
opposition stationers had noted earlier in the reign. 
L'Estrange argued that 'the Law says 'tis Treason in the 
People to Conspire the Death of the King, but the Phanatiques 
make it Treason in the King to deny the Sovereignty of the 
People'. That was true as far as it went, but the jury 
was p resenting Joanna Brome, not the King for libel. l 
L'Estrang e always assumed that all his writings were in 
the best interest of the King and could indeed be equated 
with the King's policies. At the Guildhall Sessions on 
24 October an indictment was found against Mrs Brome for 
publishing pape rs defaming 'His Ma jesties True Protestant 
Dissenting Subjects'. She succeeded in removing her c a se 
to the King's Bench where she would have received a 
favourable hearing . Publication of the Observator was 
1. L'Estrange, The Dissenters Sayings. The Sec ond Part, 
1681, ff. A3 r - v , a2v. Luttrell, Brief Relation, I, 119-20. 
224 
unaffected. L'Estrange printed the attorney's bill ( bail 
6s. 8d., Certiorari and bail tl; attendance, fees, entering, 
and more fees brought the total charge to t5. 6s. 2d. ) in 
his Observator the following .M_arch. l 
Contemporary critics charged that L'Estrange was also 
involved in the writing and production of Nathaniel 
Thompson's newspap er The Loyal Protestant, and True Domestick 
Intelligence. 2 Their names were linked partly because it 
was easier for Whigs to deliver a double-barrelled attack, 
inflicting the sins of one on the other, and partly to 
summon ' proof' that L'Estrange was a Papist. In the same 
way L'Estrange dismissed the arguments of those he termed 
Dissenters, so the Whigs branded tracts as false ipso facto 
if p enned or printed by Ca tholics. Luttrell almost 
invariably annotated his copies of broadsides or pamphlets 
printed by Thompson, 'A p opish libel'. L'Estrange was 
sympathetic to Thompson's newspaper. But he was far too 
busy with his own Observator to participate in a n other 
periodical. When Lang ley Curtis tried to implicate L'Estrange 
in Thompson's ill-conceived venture to prove that Sir 
Edmund Berry Godfrey had committed suicide, L'Estrange 
emphatically denied any connection with Thompson; 'I have 
1. N. Thompson, The Loyal Protestant #69, 27 October 1681; 
L'Estrange, The ObservatorI:,117, 29 March 1682. W.H. Hart, 
Index, pp . 239-40; the indictment referred to The Observator 
I, 27, 25 June 1681. See also the London Sessions files 
for October, November, and December 1681; she was b a iled 
on 30 October. 
2. The Observator Observ'd #3, unda ted, thought L'Estrange 
h a d 'a finger in writing' Thompson's paper. See Leona 
Rostenberg, 'The Catholic Reaction: Nathaniel Thompson •.• ', 
Literary, Political ... Publishing, pp . 328-9. Thompson 
deserves a more thoroug h study than that provided by Rostenberg . 
r 
) 
I 
r 
~ 
225 
not seen Nat. Thomson above Thrice, these Three year. I 
never had any thing Printed by him; nor did I ever Exchange 
one Syllable with him Directly or Indirectly about the 
Papers for which he is now in question: Not But that I 
would be ready to do him any Honest, and Good Office if 
l
Ot 0 , 1 were ln my way 
In July 1682, when L'Estrang e wrote his defence of 
Thomp son, few other supporters came to his aid. Along 
with William Pain and John Farwell, Thompson had been found 
guilty of impu gning the justice of the nation in question ing 
the nature of Justice Godfrey's death. When he stood ±n 
the pillory he was taunted and had dirt thrown at him. 2 
This was the first time he had experienced public fury 
while in the pillory, but he had been involved in several 
p revious legal actions. In fact he faced almost as many 
indictments ~ as individual Whig stationers did, though 
collectively they endured far more harassment, esp ecia lly 
at the hands of the St a tioners' Company and the g overnment. 
In March 1680 Sir William Waller, a tireless searcher for 
1. L'Estrang e, The Observator, I, 163, 1 July 1682. 
/ , 
2. Thompson's case was a cause celebre from April to July 
1682 and received very extensive coverag e in newspapers 
published by Janeway, Benskin, Vile, Croome, and Curtis. 
Thomas Simmons puhlished the official trial narrative, The 
Tr al of Nathaniel Thorn son William Pain and JohnFar~l, 
16 2 Wing T2207 , under licence from L.~ • Pemberton, but 
Lang ley Curtis, who at this point kept shop at the sign of 
'Sir Edmund-Bury Godfrey, near Fleet-Bride', could not 
resist bringing out his own a ccount, The Most Rema rkable 
Tri a l s of Nathaniel Thompson . William Paine. John Farwell, 
16 82 ( Wing M29l7). Hart, Index, pp . 243-52, prints the 
text of the indictment. 
, 
I 
I 
r 
~ 
225 
not seen Nat. Thomson above Thrice, these Three year. I 
never had any thing Printed by him; nor did I ever Exchange 
one Syllable with him Directly or Indirectly about the 
Pap ers for which he is now in question: Not But that I 
would be ready to do him any Honest, and Good Office if 
1· t . , 1 were 1n my way 
In July 1682, when L'Estrang e wrote his defence of 
Thomp son, few other supporters came to his aid. Along 
with William Pain and John Farwell, Thompson had been found 
guilty of impu gning the justice of the nation in question ing 
the nature of Justice Godfrey's death. When he stood i n 
the pillory he was taunted and had dirt thrown at him. 2 
This was the first time he had experienced public fury 
while in the p illory, but he had been involved in several 
p revious leg al actions. In fact he faced almost as many 
indictments ~ as individual Whi g stationers did, though 
collectively they endured far more harassment, especially 
a t the h ands of the St a tioners' Company and the g overnment. 
In March 1680 Sir William Waller, a tireless searcher for 
1. L'Estrang e, The Observator, I, 163, 1 July 1682. 
f , 
2. Thomp son's case was a cause celebre from April to July 
1682 and received very extensive coverag e in newspapers 
published by Janeway, Benskin, Vile, Croome, and Curtis. 
Thomas Simmons published the official tri a l narrative, The 
Tr al of Na thaniel Thorn son William Pain and John Far~l, 
16 2 Wing T2207 , under licence from L.~ • Pemberton, but 
La ngley Curtis, who at this point kept shop at the sign of 
'Sir Edmund-Bury Godfrey, near Fleet-Bride', could not 
resist bring ing out his own a ccount, The Most Remarkable 
Tri a ls of Na thaniel Thomp son . William Paine. John Farwell, 
1682 (Wing M2917). Hart, Index , pp . 243-52, p rints the 
text of the indictment. 
I 
I 
I. 
I 
~ 
226 
p opish tra cts and vestments, had Thompson committed to 
the Gatehouse for stirring u p the city apprentices. l A 
. year l a ter Thomp son was indicted for printing the blasphe-
mous parody, The Presbyterian Pater Noster, but charg es 
were dropped once the publisher Joseph Hindmarsh a dmitted 
his responsibility.2 Like Tooke and Mrs Brome, he was 
presented on 31 August by the London grand jury. In 
October he was indicted twice for publishing seditious 
pamphlets and false news. 3 He was p ermitted a writ of 
certiorari to the King's Bench on both indictments the 
following May. 4 
'I may say, I printed my News-Papers and divers 
other Pamphlets (that a lways vindicated the King and 
Government )', recalled Thompson in 1685, 'to undeceive the 
People, who were daily impos'd u p on by Curtis, Smith, 
Harris, Care, Vile, Baldwin, Janeway, &c. when no body 
else would or durst,.5 His particular b~te noire was 
Langley Curtis, one of the most aggressive and bitter of 
the opposition stationers, who was publisher of Care's 
1. Thomps on used his newspaper to defend himself against 
WaIler's a ctivities; see his True Domestick Intelligence 
#77, 30 March 1680. J. Smith, The Currant Intelligence #14, 
30 March 1680; B. Harris, Domestick Intellig ence #81, 13 
April 1680; C.S.P.D. 1679-80, pp. 425, 427. 
2. Three Tory stationers, Roger Norton, Samuel Mearne , and 
John Baker , provided sureties for Hindmarsh. Sess ions Minute 
Book #52 ( 11 April 1681, recognizance #60 ) . Bowler, London 
Sessions Rec ords, p . 318n; P.C. 2, 69 ( 265 ) ; C.S.PJ).1680-1, p. 
179; Luttrell, Brief Relation, I, 6 7-8. 
3. N. Th ompson, The Loyal Protestant #67, 22 October, #68, 
25 Oc tober, and #69 , 27 October 1 681; C.S.P.D. 1680-1, p. 517. 
4. Bowler , London Sessions Records, p . 340. 
5. N. Thomp son, A Choi ce Collection of 180 Loyal Songs , 1685, 
p reface. 
I 
~ 
) 
I 
t 
l 
227 
Weekly Pacquet and who issued his own newspaper, The True 
1 Protestant Mercury. Thompson disabused the people not 
so much by correcting false reports as by keeping track of 
the legal entanglements of the Whig stationers. He 
commented on their appearances before the Privy Council 
and their cases in the London Sessions or the King 's Bench, 
though he usually failed to acknowledge their release. He 
printed r vmours concerning their activities in exile and 
g enerally followed the Tory s cheme of answering Whig pamphlets 
by attacking the publishers. 
While the g overnment supported Thompson in his legal 
defence against Whig indictments, official approbation for 
his newspaper faded at the start of 1682 as part of a 
p olicy to phase out all newspapers. The London Gazette 
silently passed over Hindmarsh's and Thompson's involvement 
in The Presbyterian Pater Noster. It also i gnored the 
indictments against Thompson, Tooke, and Mrs Brome in 
October 1681, though it was careful to report the appearances 
of P.aldwin, Janeway, and Vade, before the Privy Council and 
2 their subsequent indictment for false news. Beginning 
in February 1682, however, the London Gazette withdrew its 
protective umbrella by noting that Thompson had been 
ordered to appear before the Council concerning his false 
report about Thomas Thynne's murder. From April to July, 
1. Curtis had ' put Clothes on his Back ' when Thompson h ad 
not been able to support himself, and he was upset that 
Thompson abused his wife when they met in the street; True 
Protestant Mercur~ #118, 21 February and #163, 9 July 1682. 
2. London Gazette #1660, 17 October 16 81 . 
) 
228 
the London Gazette also covered fully the litigation 
against Thompson, Farwell, and Pain. l Government pressure 
on all newspapers increased during 1682 as part of the 
policy forbidding all news except that carefully meted 
out in the London Gazette, and g radually they ceased 
publication. In November warrants were issued against 
the remaining newspape r publishers, Thomas Benskins, 
George Croome, and Mary Thompson, who had continued The 
Loyal Protestant during her husband's imprisonment. All 
2 
ceased. Thompson's newspaper handled the matter delicately 
in the issue for 16 November 1682; ' ... now being informed, 
that Authority is displeased herewith, I am very willing 
to desist .•• '. His cooperation with the government policy 
was not long-lived, but the renewed publication of his 
newspaper, from 20 February to 20 March 1683, was of even 
shorter duration. The Privy Council committed him to 
Gatehouse prison on 14 March 'For Printing and Dispersing 
False, Scandalous, and Seditious News'. Two weeks later 
they instructed the Attorney General to prepare to prosecute 
him at the King's Bench. 3 . Toward the end of Charles II's 
1. London Gazette #1695, 16 February 1681/2; #1709, 6 April, 
#1731, 22 Jill1e, and #1735, 6 July 1682. Since Heraclitus 
Ridens and L'Estrange's Observator were not strictly news-
papers, they were not criticized. 
2. C.S.P.D. 1682, p. 545. Thomps on had been committed to 
prison again on 30 October; Luttrell, Brief Relation, I, 233. 
Benskins' The Domestick Intelligence ceased on 16 November 
with #155; Croome's The Loyal London Mercury stopped on 15 
November. About Croome, L'Estrange remarked, ' •.• he's a 
Journeyman-Printer too; which g ives him a great Insight into 
Affairs of State'; Observator #156, 17 June 1682. 
3. London Gazette #1807, 15 March 1682/3; P.C. 2,69 (660, 
662 , 665); Luttrell, Brief Relation, I, 252. 
229 
reign , Thomps on became increas ingly bold in hi s p rinting 
of Ca tholic books, but he was found guilty on 26 November 
16 84 of publi s hing The Prodigal Returned Home, which 
a sserted the P ope' s authority in civil matters. l He carried 
on a l arge tra de in Ca tholic litera ture during the the 
first two years of J ames II's reign , before his death in 
Novembe r 16 87. 2 
On 5 July 16 82 , while _ Thomps on stood in the p illory, 
Whig propagandist s a cknowledged the occ as ion by distributing 
Trin c a lo Sainted: or the Exalt a tion Of the Jesuits 
I mplement, and Printer--General, The Notorious Nathaniel 
Thomps on. ' This c a t a log ue of errors dwelt on Thompson's 
s corn for the P op ish Plot and his printing 'whole Ca rt-Lo a d s 
of Pop i sh Mass-B ooks ', but it a l s o mentioned hi s re sponsibility 
1 . C. S . P .D. 16 84 May to 16 85 Feb, pp . 1 83 , 224; R. Yard 
to E. Poley, 1 December 16 84, Poley Papers, Osborn Collection, 
Ya le Univ. Libra ry. Luttrell, Brief Relation, I, 320 , 322. 
In the preface to his A Choice Collection of 1 80 Loya l Songs, 
1 685 ( Wi ng TI003 ) , h e cl a i med tha t in a ddition to six 
imprisonments, 'for a bove six years I was never free from 
Trouble, h aving seldom les s than 3 or 4 Indictment s as a 
Sess ions against Me; a t other times Informations in the 
Crown-Office, which .•• cost Me a t least 500 1 • ••. '. 
2. J. B . Willi ams , 'Nathani e l Thomps on and the '!Po p i s h Plot"', 
The Month , CXXXVIII ( July 1921 ) , pp . 30-7; Luttrell, Brief 
Relation , I, 421. 
230 
1 for 'innume r able Scurrilous Songs and Balla ds'. Thompson 
prided himself on his role in printing many of the Tory 
ballads which flooded London af ter the dissolution of the 
Oxford Parli ament. 'Among st the s evera l me ans tha t h ave 
been of l a t e years to reduce the deluded Multitude to 
the ir just Alle g i ance', insisted Thomps on in the preface 
to his collection of Tory songs in 1685, 'thi s of BALLADS 
and LOYAL SONGS has not been of the le ast influence,.2 
The s e b a llads and p oetry boads ides were top ic a l and timed 
to influence public op inion. 3 They were cle a rly intended 
as p ropaganda and were not part of the normal b a llad 
mon op oly i n the St a tioners' Company.4 In the first months 
after Oxford, false i mpri n ts were common; Smith was s h ackled 
with the ballad against Harris, The Protest ant Cuckold, 
on 5 April, and the following month the anti-whig Devonshire 
Ballad was p rinted 'for the Assigns of F.S.,5 Thomps on 
op enly publ i s hed ballads with his imprint from August 1681 
1. Wing T22 82 , p . 2. On 1 July 1678 the Court of Assistants 
'ordered tha t Nathaniell Thomps on Printer be Endi cted the 
n ex t g enerall Qu arter Sessions for p rinting part of a Masse 
Book in french'; St a t. Co. Court Records, Liber D, 1 July 1678. 
2. Thomp son, A Choice Collection, p r eface . 
3. Balla ds and p oems a re most rewa rdingly studied in the 
' p oetry Long Waies' volumes collected by Narcissus Luttrell 
and annot a ted with date, price, and identific a tion of many 
references. The volmne for April 1681 to March 1683 , with 
214 items , i s in the Huntington Library, and the successor 
volume, with 146 public a tions, i s i n the Cl a rk Libra ry, JJ os 
Ang eles. See a lso J. W. Ebs\ orth, The Ro xburghe Ballads, 
iv-v, his Bagford Ballads , and the Ya le Edition of the P oems 
on Affa irs of St a te. 
4. On the separate ballad monopoly, see C. Blagden, ' Note s 
on the Ball a d Mar ke t in the Se cond Half of the Sevent eenth 
Century', Studie s i n Bibliog raphy, VI, p . 1 55; R.S. Thomson, 
'The Development of the Broadside Ballad Trade', unpublished 
Cambridg e Ph. D. the s is, 1 974. 
5. Wing D1235. 
231 
and on 15 September he ventured to acclaim the Duke of 
1 York in Old Jemmy: An Excellent New Ballad. By this time 
balla ds were publicly ridiculing Oates's Plot testimony, 
putting full responsibility on Shaftesbury, and praising 
York. Stationers were often mentioned though the emphasis 
shifted from Smith and Harris to Janeway, Baldwin, Vile, 
Curtis, and Ca re. Less reference was made to booksellers 
in 1683, particularly after the Rye House Plot provided 
the names of several consp irators. Political t ension 
declined in the spring of 1684, and b allads then gleefully 
treated allegations of Oates's sodomy. From June the 
subject matter of ballads centered again on robbers, bad 
women, and a youth who h a d choked to death while eating 
custard. 
Thomp son often printed a melody line for his ballads, 
which he- intended to be sung in coffee-houses and taverns. 2 
They were cheap and effective propaganda supporting the 
Duke of York, L'Estrange, and Hera clitus Ridens, 
and satirizing the Whig opposition. Even the titles of 
the tunes conveyed a political message. The full title 
of one attack on the London juries, circula ted af ter 
Shaftesbury's a cquittal in November 16 81 to neutra lize 
1. Wing 0204. 
2. On the circula tion of p oems and ballads in manuscript 
and print, see G. deF. Lord's introduction to Poems on 
Affairs of St a te, I, xxvii-xlii. 
232 
the Whig triumph, made plain the intent of the ballad; 
I gnoramus: An Excellent New Song. To the Tune of, Lay by 
your Pleading, Law lies a bleeding , for which the refrain 
was: 
They sham us, and fl am us, 
And ram us, and drunn us, 1 
And then, in spight of Law, come off with I gnoramus. 
Ballads were not exclusively a Tory p reserve, but in 
a political situation where it was easier to attack than 
to defend, the Whigs found little to sing about. On the 
whole, the ballads they did produce were in resp onse to 
Tory songs, written in mocking imitation of style and 
content. It is difficult to determine whether ballads 
and songs reflected or moulded public op inion, though it 
is evident that the Tories used them much to their advan-
t age af ter the Oxford Parliament. 2 Thomps on cla imed that 
ballads helpe d to recl a im the 'mis-inform'd Rabble' from 
blind devotion to the Whig ~01icies.3 He believed that 
many Englishmen who i gnored sermons or a judg e's comments 
at a trial .would listen to songs; 'in time (they) found 
their Errours, and were cha rm'd into Obedience,.4 The 
1. Wing 142. 
2. G. deF. Lord, Poems on Affairs of State, I, xlviii-xlix. 
3. The dogge rel, or a t best verse, of the ballads was 
intended to influence the g eneral populace of London; ballads 
were indeed often crude and unso phistic a ted, but so in 
l a r ge part was their audience. C. V. Wedg wood, P oetry 
and Pol itic s under the Stuarts, pp . 195-6. 
4. N. Thomp son, A Choice Collection of 1 80 Songs , preface. 
233 
Whig s took hi s ballads seriously enough to force a 
recognizance on him for several of them and to prosecute 
him for one, A Dialog ue betwixt the Devil and i gnorrunus 
Doctor, which libelled Oates and his conspiracy evidence. l 
The indictment was found by the London jury in October 
1681, but Thomp son escaped to the jurisdiction of the 
King 's Bench by a writ of certiora ri, though he claimed 
2 tha t he sustained a ~40 cha r g e. 
L'Estrange considered the switch in a lleg i ance by 
b allad s inge rs from the Whig s to the Tories an imp ort ant 
indication of the collaps e of the Whig s. Not only h a d 
Curti s ' s True Protestant Me rcury ceased public a tion, he 
wrote early in Novembe r 1682, but 'the very Balla d-Sing ers 
h ave chang 'd their Party, ( which is a Gre a ter Disappointment 
than you a re aware of). They a re a t it now Gap ing out 
---their Last-Wills and Te staments; as if there were no more 
in it than the Old Hue and Cry after Towzer,.3 Two weeks 
l a ter L 'Estrange re p l a c e d ' Whig ' with the modera te 'Trimmer ' 
in the Obs erva tor dialogue. 
1. Wing D13 55; N. Thomp son, The Loyal Protestant #64 , 15 
October 16 81. 
2 . Bowler, London Sessions Records, p . 340; N. Thompson, 
A Collection of 86 Loyal Song s, p reface. Luttrell, Brief 
Relation, I, 135. 
3. L'Estrange , The Observator, I, 234 , 1 Novemb er 1682. 
I I 
I 
234 
Chapter Six 
Collaps e of the Whig Publish i ng Alli ance 
235 
Concur rently with the Tory pro paganda scheme , the 
g overnment d evelo p ed measure s to assure control of the 
admini s tra tion of th e St a tioners ' Gompany and to s u ppress 
individua l Whi g stationers through judici a l p rocess. 
Interferen ce with the g overnance of the St a tioners' Company 
began in June 1681 with the addition by royal mandate of 
s ix loy a l stationers to the Court of Assistants. It 
culmina ted -- in Charles's reign -- with the writ of guo 
warranto against the company charter in April 1684. At 
the sam~ time, the g overnment initi a ted a p ro gramme of 
legal a ction through Privy Council warrant and indictments 
a t Sessions. From April 1681, when Francis Smith was 
imprisoned for high treason, dozens of indictments were 
brought against Whig stationers for public a tion of 
offensive tra cts or unlicensed news. Indictments re a ched 
a p e ak in December 16 82 , when the new Tory sheriffs of 
London were able to select juries to deliver convictions 
against opposition stationers. By the end of the reign 
o ~p o sition publishing again h ad g one underg round and most 
of the radical stationers h ad been silenc ed. At the cost 
of much rancour among liverymen, the St a tioners' Company 
\ 
. I 
236 
h a d become on e of the most loya l companies in Londo n , 
re a dy to a id consult a tions about implementation of p res s 
p olicy, to s upport the g overnment in s hrieval a nd mayora l 
elections, and to follow instructions in suppressing libel s . 
The St a tioners willing ly submitted and coo p era ted during 
the quo warranto a ction to p le a se the King and to s erve 
as a n e xample to othe r livery companies. 
The combined measures of encouraging loya l p ropaganda 
p rotected from prosecution, moulding Tory dominance of 
the St a tioners' Company, a nd undermining the will of 
op p osition st a tioners were the i mport ant comp onents of the 
g overnment prog r amme to wrest the p ower of the p ress from 
the Whig s. The s e step s par a lleled a nd were part of the 
e x tensive proceedings undert aken by the g overnment in 
crushing the Whig stronghold in London. The short - term 
. succe ss uf the p rog r amme to s ilence the p ress was a crucia l 
f a ctor in the collap se of the f irst Whig s, a party which 
h a d de p ended on p opul a r s u pport and much of whose s treng th 
h a d rested in their recognition of the p ersua sive p owers 
of the pre s s and in their ex t ensive u s e of propaganda . 
'In the l a te ferment a tion about the Exclusion~, commented 
one Engli s hman toward the en d of the dec a de, 'the Excluders 
never lost g round till they lost the Press,.l 
On 16 Jun e 16 81 Cha rles 11 manda ted tha t John Pl ay f ord, 
John Belling er, Robert Scott, Robert Horne, Capt. John 
1 . Cited by J . R. Jone s , The Revolution of 16 88 in Eng l and, 
p. 22 7. 
237 
Baker, and Ambrose Isted be added to the Court of Assistants 
for their 'dilig ence' in 'discovering & repressing severall 
exorbitant and licentious practices comitted in the Mistery 
of Printing '. This mandate was read at the next meeting 
of the Stationers' Court, and at the election court on 
2 July the six loyal stationers were added to the Court 
of Assistants. l At a stroke the King dramatic a lly 
strengthened Tory sentiment in the governance of the 
Stationers' Company and made clear to uncommitted stationers 
that energetic support of the government during the 
prevailing political crisis would be recognized and 
rewa rded. 2 The ease with which the King increased the 
norma l composition of the C'ourt of Assistants by forty 
per cent troubled the Whig element in the company. Seven 
Whig stationers responded with a counter-petition for 
admission by seniority to the Assistants. This confrontation 
between the Whig s and Tories over the constitution of 
the Court of Assistants continued for nearly a year, and 
the ramific a tions of this issue c aused controversy for more 
than a decade. 
Recognizing that the political bias of the administrators 
of the Stationers' Company could a dversely affect the 
1. State Co. Court Records, Liber E , 20 June and 2 July 
1681. C.S.P.D. 1680-1, p. 316. 
2. Playford, for example, had been c a lled before the Stationers, 1 
Court on 25 August 16 80 for his role in publishing Care ' s 
Weekly Pac guet of Advice. Apparently he had decided to 
help the g overnment in libel investigations, for which he 
was now rewa rded. State Co. Court Records, Liber E, 25 
August 1680. 
238 
conditions under which they worked, the Whigs protested 
the King's intervention. They presented their petition 
claiming seniority over the King 's nominees to the 
election court on 2 July, a t which the six Tories took 
their oaths as Assistants. From the outset the Stationers' 
Court a do pted stalling t a ctics to let temp ers settle and 
to gain time to cons ult g overnment l awyers. At the election 
court they voted to put off answering the petition for 
two days, and ori the 4th they voted 'that further time 
should be t aken to consider it,.l After several p riva te 
discussions between the Master and Wardens in August, 
the St a tioners resolved on 5 September, without specific 
mention i n the minutes to the Whig petition, tha t no more 
members ' should at this time be called in to be Assistants 
a t the Table'. 2 
The' Whigs correctly interpreted this as a rejection 
of their p etition and took their c as e before the next 
me eting of the Court of Aldermen, who heard and a djudic ated 
livery disputes, on 15 September. By this time one of the 
Whigs, S i mon Mille r , had excused himself from the dispute. 
The rema ining six in orde r of seniority were Thomas 
Parkhur s t, John Starkey , Henry Mortlock , Thomas Basset, 
William Miller, and John Wright. 3 St arkey seems to h ave 
been the p rime i nstigator of the Whi g response because 
1. State Co. Court Re cords, Liber E, 2 and 4 July 16 81. 
2. Ibid., 5 September; Warden ' s Account s. 
3. Repertori e s of th e Court of Aldermen, 86 (1 91 ), 1 5 
September 1681. 
I I 
, 
239 
the references i n the Warden's Accounts to the matter 
mention 'St a r k ey's business'. Francis Smith was not 
i n c l uded in the a ction, thoug h he h a d t aken u p his livery 
in 166 8 , because he h ad avoided t he resp onsibility of 
Renter Ward en in March 1679. Bes ides, he was s till in 
Newgate on suspicion of tre a son when the Whigs were 
p reparing their resp onse to the roy .al mandate. Other 
le ading opposition stationers, including Langley Curtis, 
Richard J a neway , Benjamin Harris, Richard Baldwin, and the 
printer George Larkin h a d less seniority than the six 
Whig p etitioners and had not been involved to the same 
e xtent i n the St a tioners' Company. The King's mandate 
did n ot directly aff ect the most notorious opposition 
bookseller-publishers, but the strengthening of the Tory 
interest worked to i s ol a te them even more on the fringe 
of the Company . They followed the p roceedings with keen 
i n terest and their sympathies were a llied with the Whig 
pe titioners. In his newspaper, Curti s desc r ibed the 
King 's a ction as ' a n Unhing ing of the whole Politi que 
Government of the City' and questioned the use of 
prerogative in dispensing with the tra ditiona l customs of II' 
compani es, a p osition which L'Estrange criticized with 
cha r a cteristic incisivenes s , "Tis not for every Grub-
s treet-Inse ct to sit Judge upon the Prerogative,.l 
1. L ' Est r ange, The Observator, I, 56, 24 September 1681. 
) 
I 
t 
240 
The Whigs took their c a se to the Court of Aldermen 
confident of a fr i endly he a ring before the Whig-domina ted 
body. As the senior stationer, Thomas P a rkhurst led the 
deput a tion. He expl a ined tha t he h a d been c a lled to the 
livery in 1661 and a dded tha t he had underg one 'severall 
Ye a re s sin ce the Cha r g e able office of Renter warden And 
ought by the byla wes of the s a id Comp any to h ave bin 
Chosen into the Court of Assi s tants'. It was norma l for 
a st a tioner to serve a s a Renter Warden before being 
elected, by seniority, to the Court of As sist ants. P a r khurst 
a r gued tha t he and his fellow p etitioners h a d g reater 
sen iority than the King 's nominees. Having he a rd both 
parties and their legal counsel, the Court decided that 
since the St a tioners' Court could not p rove the p etitioners 
unqu a lified the six Whig s should be elected a ssist ants a t 
the n ex t . meeting of the Company, in a ccordance with their 
custom and by-laws. l The St a tioners' Court, however, 
defied the Aldermen on 3 October by reaffirming their 
vote of 5 Se ptember n ot to elect a dditional a s s ist ants. 
Par khurst a nd the others rep orted the n e x t da y to the 
Aldermen, who ordered the St a tioners to show c ause for 
their re f us a l to obey the Court order. 2 At this p oint 
St a tioner s consulted the Solicitor Genera l concerning t he 
1 . Re pertories of the Court of Alderme n , 86 (191), 15 
Se p t meb r 1 681. 
2 . St a te Co. Court Record s , Liber E, 3 Oct obe r 16 81; 
Re pertorie s of the Court of Aldermen, 86 (20 8 ), 4 October. 
241 
defenc e they should present to the Aldermen, but they 
were unable to have their lawyers present at a hearing 
on 11 October and were ordered to pay the costs of both 
1 parties for their appearance that day. Two days later 
the issues received full discussion in a three hour debate. 
For the Stationers, the Solicitor Ge n eral and Mr Holt 
( probably Sir John Holt, later Lord Chief Justice of the 
King's Bench, 1689-1710 ) argued that the decision to elect 
ass ist ants l ay in the discretion of the Stationers' Court; 
for the Whig petitioners, Mr Thompson ( probably Serjeant-
at-law William Thompson) maintained that seniority was the 
basis for choosing assistants. The leng thy debate failed 
to resolve the matter, and the Aldermen deferred a final 
decision until the Recorder of London had searched for 
2 p recedents. The struggle for seats among the assistants 
. develope'd into a confrontation between the Crown and 
whiggish London. L'Estrang e, who interpreted the motive 
of the Whig stationers as an effort 'to lay the Master and 
Wardens of the Company by the Heels', questioned if the 
matter might come to a 'tryall at Law, whether the Crown 
or the Miter shall have the Better on't at last?' ( John 
Starkey worked a t 'the Mitre within Temple-Bar, ) .3 Because 
of the political significance of the dispute, the Stationers, 
1. Warden's Accounts, entry for 8 October 1681; Repertories 
of the Court of Aldermen, 86 ( 218b ) , 11 October 1681. 
2. L. Curtis, True Protestant Mercury #81, 15 October 1681. 
3. L'Estrange, The Observator, I, 63, 19 October 1681. 
242 
b a c k ed by g overnment l awyers , refus ed to elect the Whig 
st a tioners . Buttressed by t he Recorder's review of 
p recedents, the Aldermen stood by t heir initia l decision. 
In an effort to trea t the Master and Wardens ' with tender-
nesse' for their 'non observance', the Aldermen dispatched 
the Recorder on 15 November to expl a in to the St a tioners 
their authority and juri s di c tion in livery di sputes a nd 
1 to deliver the results of hi s study of p recedents. In . 
December the Aldermen threa tened to e x ercise their p ower s 
of compul s ion to force a n election of the Whig stationers. 2 
Again the St a tioners consulted the Solicitor General, and 
on 22 December Ro g er Norton and Samuel Me a rne took the 
c a se before the Privy Council, which pre s umably supported 
them in their resist ance. ( Norton a nd Me a rne went before 
the Council one day after the writ of quo warranto h a d 
been issued against the London Charter ) . 3 The dispute 
remained unresolved for a nother five mon ths. Unfortuna tely, 
there is no record of the content of an a dditiona l rep ort 
by the Court of Alderme n on 6 May 1682. 4 In the f ina l 
result, ho wever, the Whig p etitioners were not g r ant ed 
the ir s e a t s and Tory st a tioners e x ercised increa sing 
1. Re pertories of the Court of Aldermen, 87 ( 13 ) , 15 November 
16 81. 
2 . R. J a neway, I mparti a l P rotest ant Mercury # 66, 9 December 
1 681. 
3. Warden ' s Accounts, en tries f or 17, 1 9 , 20, and 22 
Dec embe r 1681. 
4 . The St a tion ers received the rep ort on 6 May and a ttended 
the Aldermen again on 11 May; Warden's Account s . 
243 
control over the a dministration of the Company.l The 
confront a tion had been one of the first instances of 
g overnment intervention in the intern(3,l affairs of a 
livery company after the Oxford dissolution, and it help ed 
to forg e even closer links between the g overnment and 
officials of the Stationers' Company. 
The imposition of the six loyal stationers on the 
Court of Assi s tants consolidated Tory sentiment in the 
Company , although at no time since the Restoration had the 
officials of the Stationers' Company openly defied the 
King in support of the opposition. Some Masters a nd 
Wardens were less inclined than others to se a rch for 
seditious pamphlets or supernumerary presses, but the 
King could a lways depend on the p owerful influence of 
the small g roup of stationers who held royal appointments. 
Thomas New comb, the King 's Printer, managed the Company's 
efforts to h ave the Printing Act renewed by Parliament 
in October 1680, and he consulted the Lord Chancellor 
when the Company reviewed its by-laws in the summe r of 
16 81.:2 The by-law committee, like e arlier Printing Act 
co~nittees, consisted of the Master and Wardens, George 
1. On 20 May 1682 John Starkey wrote tha t he was 'very 
desirous to be quiet' and would n ot publicly refute 'any 
a tt a cks on him in Hera clitus Ridens or Ifhe Observator; 
T. Vile, The London Mercury # 14, 22 May 16 82. 
2. Newcomb died on 26 December 1681, mid-way through hi s 
year as Warden of the Company. There was a l arge proce ssion 
a t hi s funeral, which was reported in respectful terms by 
R. J aneway , Impartial Protestant Mercury #73, 3 J anu a ry 
16 81/2 and by N. Thomps on, The Loyal Protestant #98 , 3 
J anuary 1681/2 . 
244 
Sawbridge, Roger Norton (King's La tin and Greek printer), 
Samuel Mearne (King 's bookbinder and stationer) , and 
Thomas Ne wcomb and Henry Hills ( both King ' s printers ) . 
After the review, the committee prop o s ed t wo by-laws. 
One i mposed a h20 fine on st a tioners who failed to add 
an i mprint to a public a tion; th e other reaff irmed the 
Company 's p ower to search any s t a tioner 's shop to view 
work i n prog ress and to impose a h lO fine for obstructing 
a search. The Court of Assistants confirmed b oth by-laws 
on 17 August 16 81. 1 In p r a ctic e , the se cond by-l aw 
provided the justifica tion for general searches which h ad 
been p ermitted i n the Printing Act of 1662 and h a d con-
tinued throug h general warrant s is s ued by Lord Chief Justice 
Scroggs and Re corder Jeffreys. 
The Ki ng ' s appointees con trolled not only the import ant 
committee s ' but the most senior offices as well. Ro g er 
Norton was Master in 1678-9 and again a t the end of Charle s ' s 
reign , 1683-5. Henry Hills was a Warden from 16 82 to 1685, 
and he served J ames 11 as Printer to hi s Household after 
his conversion to Ca tholici sm. But the mo s t energ etic of 
the Ki ng 's serv ant s in the administration of the St a tioners' 
Company was Samuel Mearne, his bool{binder and st a tioner. 
Mearne consulted with Lords Chief Justice P emb erton and 
1. On 7 Octob er the by-laws were pre sented to and approved 
by the Lord Chancellor and t he Lords Chief, Justice of the 
King ' s Bench and Common Ple a s. They were pu bli shed as The 
Orders Rules and Ord i nances ••• of the Mrster and Art or--
St a tioners , 1 6 2 not in Wing , but a copy in Guildhall, 
Libra ry, London); thi s s u pplemented the 1678 printing of 
the Orders, Wi ng 0403. Stationers' Co. Court Records, Liber E , 
20 J une and 17 Augus t 1681. 
( 
245 
North about Fitzharris's seditious libel before tha t 
celebrated trial. In October 1681 he acted as security 
for the bail of Joanna Brome a nd Benjamin Tooke after 
their indictments for publishing The Observator and 
Heraclitus Hidens. l Mearne had an abrasive personality 
and his aggressive activities on behalf of the g overnment 
did not command unanimous support among stationers. He 
was p resented to the London g r a nd jury in October 1681 
for publishing a Tory ballad against the retiring Lord 
Mayor and Sheriffs. Four est ablished Whig stationers, 
Samuel Roycroft, Richa rd Chiswell, Ben jamin Mott, a nd 
Thomas Sawbridge, were among the witnesses who appeared 
against him, but he was released on a surprising i gnoramus 
verdict by the jury.2 Because controversy did not bother 
him, Mearne was useful to the King. The g overnment turned to 
. him and 'to John Balcer, one of the roya l nominees to the 
Court of Assistants, to print the official account of 
Shaftesbury's trial in November 1681. 3 They also coopera ted 
in the g overnment campaign to discredit Shaftesbury by 
publishing The Two Associ a tions, which compared an associ a tion 
1. Warden 's Accounts, entry for May 16 81; London Sessions 
file for November and December 1681. 
2. Bowler, London Sessions Records, p . 340; London Sessions 
file for October 1681. 
3. The Proceedin s u n on the Bill of Indictment 
Tre as on agains the arl 0 Shaftesbury, 1 1 
The Priv;r Council ' Qrde.r~, d, 'on 14 'December" the 
Company to prevent publication or distribut ion of any other 
a ccounts 'either by their own ByLaws, or any other legall 
way'; P. C. 2 , 69 ( 426). 
I ) 
246 
found in Shaftesbury's closet with one subscribed by 
Parliamentarian members of the Commons in 1643. 1 As 
stationer to the King , Mearne helped to distribute Tory 
propaganda. The Bishop of Exeter wrote to Secretary 
Jenkins on 14 January 1682 to thank him for the 50 copies 
of a pamphlet sent by Mearne, 'which came very seasonably 
2 
and gave great satisfaction to the gentry here'. At the 
death of Thomas Vere early in 1682, Mearne became Master 
of the Stationers' Company, a position he held until his 
de a th on 11 May 1683. 3 Mearne died of 'a violent Fever', 
but as one newsletter put it, 'He was very loath to leave 
at this Season because the Whigs, he said, would impute 
it a Judg ement a s being a Zealous persecutor of them,.4 
Ro g er Morrice summed up the Whig opinion about Mearne in 
a brief obituary; ' Mr Maharne, a very considerable man 
among the~ St a tioners dyed yesterday. hee was a man of 
g reat Interest in our end of the Town, and one of the most 
a ctive unwe a ried and hottest prosecutors of the Protestant 
Dissenters in the City,.5 
Municipal politics aroused passionate emotions in 
1681 and 1682. The election for the sheriffs and Lord Mayor 
1. Wing T3428; Haley, Shaftesbury, p. 687, who notes tha t 
it was a dvertised in the official London Gazette. . 
2. C.S.P.D. 1682, p . 26. 
3. State Co. Court Records, Liber E, 21 Febru ary 1681/2. 
4. Lady Newdi gate-Newdegate, Cavalier and Puritan in the 
Days of the Stuarts, p. 247. 
5. Morrice, P , 367, 12 May 1683. 
) 
247 
of London in 1682 showed how deeply divided political 
opinion was in the City. At a Common Hall meeting on 24 
June c a lled by the Lord Mayor to confirm his nomination 
of the Tory Dudley North for sheriff and to elect one 
other, the Whigs voiced loud objections to the proceedings. 
By popular demand, the retiring Whig sheriffs conducted a 
poll in which the Whigs voted for two Huguenot merchants, 
Thomas Papillon and John Dubois. The Lord Mayor tried to 
obstruct the poll before its completion by a djourning the 
meeting. Cl a iming tha t the meeting had become a riot, 
the Tories presented several liverymen for riotous behaviour. 
Among the a lleg ed rioters were Simon Miller, who had been 
involved in the early stages of the petition of Whig 
stationers, and two Presbyterian booksellers, Dorman 
1 Newman and Benjamin Also p . Francis Smith was in exile 
during these proceedings, but his family issued under the 
imprint of 'E. Smith' several of the Whig papers and 
pe titions demanding tha t Papillon and Dubois be admitted 
to their rightful place as sheriffs. 2 In the end, the 
g overnment managed to flout the wishes of the majority of 
City liverymen, expressed in several meetings from July to 
September, and two Tories, Dudley North and Peter Rich, 
1. Guildhall Library Ms. 507 ( 21), list of rioters, among 
the papers of Sir John Moore, then Lord Mayor. 
2. A PaSer Subscribed and Delivered ••• July the 20th 1682, 
Wing P2 8. A Paper Presented by divers Citizens •.• , Sept. 
5. 16 82 , Wing P285. A Fourth Paper Presented by dlvers 
Citizens .•• Sept. 12. 1682, Wing F1688. 
I . 
248 
1 
were installed as sheriffs on 28 September. Two days 
l a ter they travelled from the City to Westminster, 'accom-
panyed by the Stationers Company, and in their Barge' to 
receive the accounts from the former sheriffs. 2 The Court 
of Assist ants p ermitted the use of the Stationers' barg e 
as a gesture of support to the new sheriffs, but the 
g esture was probably not well received by many of the 
liverymen, who tended to be more whiggish. At the poll 
for the Lord Mayor, the Stationers c a st a tot a l of 111 votes 
for the Tories Sir Willi am Pritchard and Henry Tulse and 
82 votes for the Whigs Sir Thomas Gold and Henry Cornish. 3 
A bl a t ant move to a dd Robert Stephens to the livery on 
2 October to make him elig ible for the poll u pset many 
Whigs, in and out of the company, though there is no basis 
for Luttrell's re port tha t Stephens was one 'among st many 
others ' ca lled to the livery by the Stationers. 4 Nonethe-
less, the results of the poll demonstrated that the Stationers 
were among the most loya l of the livery companies. The 
company became increasingly loya l as judicial p re ssure 
pe rsua ded some of the Whig stationers to mend their ways. 
1. Ha ley, Shaft e sbury , pp . 700-3; R.R. Sharpe, London and 
the King dom, 11, 479-90. 
2. T. Benskin, Domestick Intellig ence # 142, 2 October 1682. 
3. A List of the Poll Of the severa l Companies of London 
for a Lord Mayor, for Wal t er Davis, 1 6 82 ( Wing L2485). 
4. Luttrell, Brief Rel a tion, I, 226; Stat. Co. Court Records, 
Liber E , 2 October 1682. Stephens resigned hi s livery and 
retrieved his ~20 fine on 7 March 1683. 
249 
To the disma y of those officials of the Stationers' 
Com-pany who worked diligently to serve the g overnment, 
opposition pamphlets continued to appear with troublesome 
regularity through 1682. The election of Tory sheriffs 
promised a chang e in juries and thus more convictions 
of Whig booksellers" but the Stationers' supplemented 
the g overnment's legal plans by appointing a libel 
committee in November 1682. Among the nine members of 
this commi ttee were the Master ( Samuel Mearne ) and 
Wardens (Francis Tyton and Henry Hills ) , Roger Norton, 
and four , of th~ six royal nominees in 1681. The g roup 
was directed 'to inspe ct & make inquiry into and about 
all Scandalous Phamletts (sic) p rinted & published against 
the Govern~ent Established & to consider of the best 
Orders and Me thods for suppressing thereof & for c a lling 
to ac comP:t & punishing Offending members of this Company,.l 
The corrunittee opted for still another by-law as the most 
effective 'me anes to p revent ••• Treasonable Seditious and 
Sc andal ous Bookes'. Before printing or reprinting any 
book, pamphlet, ballad, or pape r, the printer or publisher 
was required to enter in pe rson the title of each work in 
the register of co p ies a t Stationers' Hall. Failure to 
com~ly brought a mandatory fine of twenty p ounds. Whether 
or n ot he en tered the book, the stationer was still ~espon­
s i ble to law for the content of what he printed or published. 
1. St a t. Co. Court Records, Liber E , 6 Novembe r 1682. 
250 
The purp ose of the by-law was to ease the task of locating 
culpable st a tioners and to enforce the reg istering of 
cop ies, a p r a ctice vvhich had f a llen into disuse during 
the Exclusion Crisis. Ironically, the by-l aw reflected 
the p rop os als for re quired i mprints which Cha rles Bloun:l::. h ad 
made i n his tra ct against the renewal of the Printing Act 
in 1679. 1 A Common Hall meeting of the Company enacted 
the by-law on 6 December 16 82 , but it took another ten 
weeks to g o through the legal channels to a dd it to the 
Charter. F ive hundred co p ies of the new by-l aw were 
p rinted for distribution among all membe r s of the Company 
in March 16 83 . 2 
Be c aus e of their a l mo s t obse quious loyalty to the 
Crown, the St a tioners were selected to exemplify proper 
compliance with royal will in the a ctions of quo warr anto 
agai nst the London livery companies in 1684. The programme 
to rec all company charters complemented the extensive and 
similar measures t aken to assure Tory support in the 
municipal corpora tions of Engl and by removing Whi gs from 
p ositions of authority and influence. The thoroughnes s 
of g overnment interv ention in local affairs is reflected 
in the a ctions against the livery companies. The writs 
of quo warranto were intended to bring 'in a very short 
1. C. Blount, A Just Vindic ation of Learning , 1679. 
2. St a t. Co. Court Records, Liber E, 4 and 6 December 16 82 . 
Warden's Accounts, Decemb er 16 82 to March 16 8 3. 
251 
time all the Companies of LOndon ill~der a very g ood regulation, 
and r to remove) the Wi ggs out of all authority even in 
those -inferior stations,.l 
Rumours of the quo warranto reached L'Estrang e in 
October 1683. He responded by nominating himself to 
Secret a ry Jenkins to 'superintend' the Stationers' Company, 
a n office which only he anticipated. 2 On 29 February 1 6 84 
the King tested the submissiveness of the Stationers' 
Company by manda ting an additional six st a tioners for 
a dmission to the Court of Assist ants in recognition of 
their zeal in di~covering and s uppre s s i ng ' e xho r bi t ant &: Lic ent .ious 
p r actices'. These were the first assist ants chosen since 
the King 's previous mandate in 1681. The we akened hig 
element made no protest, even though three of the nominees 
had not yet served as Renter Wardens. 3 Within the fortni ght 
senior officers travelled to Whitehall for frequent 
meeting s with the Secretary of State, and on 20 March 
they beg an drawing u p a petition to the King concerning 
the quo warranto, upon which Fra ncis Pemberton wa s asked 
to g ive his legal op inion. Thereafter the Masters and 
1. R. Ya rd to E~ Poley, letter of 14 April 1684, Poley 
Papers, Osborn Collection, Yale Univ. Libra ry. 
2 . C. S .P.D. Oct 16 8 3 to Apr 16 84, p. 24; Kitchin, L'Estrange, 
p . 325. 
3. Stat. Co. Court Records, Liber F, 3 March 1683/4. The 
six were Simon Miller, John Simms, Robert Clavell, William 
Coo p er, Christopher Wilkinson, and William Shrewsbury; the 
l a tter three h a d to fi n e a s Renter Wardens before t aking 
up their pl a ces on the Court of Assist ants. Simon Miller 
h a d been part of the orig inal Whig p etition in 1681. 
11 
252 
Wardens consulted a lmost daily with the Secretary until 
26 March, when the subp oena to answer the writ of quo 
warranto wa s delivered by the royal messenger. l All 
a ssist ants and the clerk of the comp any surrendered their 
places to the Master (Rog er Norton) and Wardens ( J ohn 
Towse and Henry Hills ) , and a Common Hall meeting of all 
freemen was summoned for the next day to approve a petition 
for a new charter and withdra wa l of the writ. The p etition 
suggested the fr amework for a new cha rter: a ll involved 
in the g overnance of the company, including the clerk, 
would be admitted to their pla ces only after roya l nomina tion 
and approva l; p rovisions would be ma de for 'the preventing 
of the P rinting of Sedicious and Sc anda lous Bookes & 
P amphletts'; and the right to or pro p erty in co p ies would 
be confirmed. 2 After the meeting , the Master and Wardens 
presented the p etition of submission to the King a t 
Whitehall. At the King 's command , J enkins referred the 
p etition to the Attorney Genera l on 4 Apr i l . He emph a sized 
that Cha rles de p ended 'very much on your re port, in regard 
tha t it will very prob ably be communicated to other 
companies and will influence the delibera tions about 
1. Warden's Accounts for 168 3-4, entries for March 1684. 
Morrice, P , 426, 29 March 16 84; 'It is s a id 4. Quo Warrantos 
a re issued out against 4. Companies in London •.. '. 
2. St a te Co. Court Record s , Liber F, ent ries for 26 and 
27 March 16 8 4. C. S . P .D. Dct 16 8 3 to Apr 1684, p . 334. 
253 
surrendering '. 1 Norton, Towse, . and Hills spent both the 
morning and afternoon of 4 April waiting on the Attorney 
General to interpret their plans. His report was delivered 
to the King by 10 April, but already a draft of a new 
charter was ready ( 2 April ) for perusal by lawyers. At 
the same time, v arious stationers prepared lists of loyal 
members for the Secretary of State. From these lists, 
the g overnment decided which stationers would comprise 
the new Court of Assistants. Five former assistants were 
removed and nine new men proposed, including Thomas Basset 
and Samuel Heyrick, erstwhile associates of Francis Smith, 
and four younger members, among them Benjamin Tooke, who 
h ad to fine as Renter Warden after the grant of the new 
2 
charter. The King signed the warrant t o the Attorney 
General on 17 April to confirm the Stationers' Charter with 
several a~ditions. The g overnment gained the power to 
remove any officers or clerks a t any time by order in 
Council and to require the oaths of a lleg iance and supremacy 
of all officers. Not only should all officers be Anglican, 
but the livery should not be conferred on any Dissenters. 
The St a tioners' Company a lso benefited from the proposed 
charter. No person could deal in books unless a member 
of the company. The register of co pies was also confirmed, 
1. Warden's Accounts, 1683-4 , entry for 27 March. C.S. P.D. 
Oct 1683 to Apr 1684, p. 359. 
2. Warden's Accounts, 1683-4, entries for 2, 4, 8, and 10 
April. Stat. Co. Court Records, Liber F, entry for 7 April 
16 84. C.S.P.D. Oc t 1683 to Apr 1684, p. 363. 
as were the powers of conducting se a rches a nd making 
1 by-laws. The draft charter was read, deba ted, and 
254 
approved by the acting Court of Assistants on 24 April, 
and after unavoidable legal and bureaucratic delays, 
Secretary Sunderland had 'the Kings hand Fower times to 
the new Charter' on 16 May.2 The charter still had to 
pass the Privy Seal, be examined by Francis Pemberton, and 
be engrossed. Finally, the charter was read at a general 
meeting of the company on 27 May, at which an address to 
the King almost dripping with loyal sentiments was also 
approved. 3 The Master and Wardens, with several assistants, 
hired two four-horse coaches for the journey to Windsor, 
where they presented their address of thanks to the King . 4 
Despite their expeditious cooperation at every stage 
of the guo warranto process, the Stationers incurred heavy 
exp enses' for the privilege of receiving the first new 
charter for a London livery company. There were costs for 
meeting with the Attorney General, for procuring legal 
opinions from the Recorder, Commons Serjeant, and other 
l awyers, and for attending the Se cret aries of State. 
Transportation costs mounted. The assistants of the 
various officia ls waited upon a lso received handsome 
1. C.S.P.D. Oct 1683 to Apr 1684, p. 388. 
2. State Co. Court Records, Liber F, entry for 24 April 
16 84; Warden's Accounts, 1683-4, en t ry for 16 May 1684. 
3. State Co. Court Records, Liber F, entry for 27 May 16 8 4 . 
4. C.S.P.D. May 1684 to Feb 1685, p . 35; Warden's Accounts, 
16 83-4, entries for 27 to 30 May. 
i 
255 
payments. One Mr Johnson was paid five guineas for 
'drawing ' the charter, and it cost another shilling 'for 
a Tin Box for the Seale of the new Charter'. Total fees 
exceeded ~235.l The price of loyalty was high, but no 
doubt the p rice of disloyalty ( in terms of fighting the 
quo warranto ) would have been much gr§ater . 
A few months l a ter Nathaniel Thompson ( who did not 
g a in noticeably from the new cha rter ) published a ballad 
praising the loyalty of the Stationers' Comp any and mocking 
the opposition stationers whose p osition was further 
weakened by the charter. Several of the Whig stationers 
h ad n ot yet accepted the livery, and the new. charter stipu-
l a ted tha t those who were Dissenters should never receive 
it . A New Song, In Praise of the Loyal Company of Stationers, 
Who (after the g enera l forfeit, ) for their singul a r Loyalty, 
obt a in'd' the first Charter of London, Anno 1684 cont a ins 
2 
six twelve-line. starrzas, one of which is worth citing here. 
In the fourth stanza Thompson's author described the 
i gnominious retre a t of the Whigs from Stationers' Hall. 
It is doubtful that this scene took place, since some of 
the p ersons mentioned were in prison or in exile, but it 
does illustra te the terms in which contemporaries interprete d 
1. Warden's Accounts, 1683-4, entries for March to June. 
The St a tioners recoup ed some of their expenses by receiving 
into the livery men who de alt in books, but who were free 
of other companies. St ate Co. Court Records, Liber F , 
entries for 10 and 16 June 1684. 
2. Wing N76lA. 
the cha rter a ction: 
With limp ing Dick, th e Zealous, 
Went do a ting yea, and nay, 
And squinting J a ck s o Je a lous , 
Lest Loyalty g ot the day. 
With the se J a ck Thumb was reckon'd; 
And hung ry Will of the wood ; 
And F r ank the f irs t, and the se cond , 
And Georg e tha t will never be g ood. 
And thus they did trip it along, 
Whil s t Willi am led u p the Br awl, 
But Jonny d id s torm ab ove a ny, 
To be t urn 'd out of the Hall. 
256 
Th e r eference s to i ndivi dual stationers are difficult 
to disentangle, but some clues are provided by Narcis s u s 
Luttrell's annotations. Also, the stationers mentioned 
were p rob ably part of the 'R abble' r a th e r than the 
handful of ass ist ant s excluded from the t able ( stanza 
three ends with 'The Table is purg 'd, and the Rabble / 
With the Memb ers excluded withdraw ,).l Luttrell suggests, 
and he seems correct, tha t 'Dick , the Zeal ous ' was Richard 
J a newa y, 'Ja ck Thumb' was John Starkey, ' Will of the wood' 
was Will i am Miller (one of th e Whig pe titioners i n 16 81), 
and ' Frank the first, and the se cond ' a re th e t wo Francis 
Smiths. And it would appear reas onable to name the 
2 p rin t er Georg e Larkin as 'Georg e tha t will nev er be good '. 
1. By t ry i ng to key in t he names of the exc luded assist ants, 
Cypri a n Blagden made s ome misleadi ng i nterpre t a tions i n 
an a rticle i n which he cites t his song, ' Charter Trouble ', 
The Boo{~ C oll ector, VI ( 195 7), pp . 371-4. He quote s verses 
t hree to s i x from the version published by Nathaniel 
Thomp son i n his A Choic e Collection of 180 Loyal Songs , 
pp. 134-6. 
2. Luttrell ' s co py , dat ed 13 August 1 684, i s i n the Cl a r k 
Libra ry, Los Ang eles. He cons idered it 'A v ery foolish co py'. 
the charter a ction: 
With limp ing Dick , th e Ze a lous , 
Went do a ting yea, and nay, 
And squinting J a ck so Je alou s , 
Les t Loyal t y g ot the day. 
With the se J a ck Thumb was reckon'd; 
And hung ry Will of the wood; 
And Frank the f irs t, and the second , 
And Georg e tha t will never be g ood. 
And thus they did trip it a long , 
Whilst Willi am led u p the Brawl, 
But Jonny did s torm above any, 
To be t urn 'd out of the Hall. 
256 
The referen ces to i ndivi dual s t a tione rs are difficult 
to disent angle, but some clues a re provided by Narcis s u s 
Luttrell's annotations. Also , the s t a tioners mentioned 
we re p rob ably part of the 'R abble' r a ther tha n the 
h andful of ass ist ants exclude d fr om the t able ( stanza 
thre e ends with 'The Table is purg 'd, a nd the Rabble / 
With the Members e x cluded withdraw ,).l Luttrell suggests, 
and he seems correct, tha t 'Dick , th e Zeal ous ' was Richa rd 
J ane way, 'J a ck Thumb' was John St a rkey, ' Will of the wood' 
was William Miller ( one of the Whig petitioners i n 16 81), 
and ' F r ank the first, and the se cond' a re the t wo Franci s 
Smiths. And it would appear re as onable to name the 
2 printer Ge orge La rkin as 'G eorge tha t will nev er be g ood'. 
1. By t rying to key in t he names of the excluded ass ist ant s , 
Cypri a n Blag den ma de s ome misleading inter~retations in 
an a rticle in which he cit es this song , 'Chart er Trouble', 
The Bookl Collector, VI ( 195 7), pp. 371-4. He quotes verse s 
t hree to s i x from the version published by Nathaniel 
Thomp s on in his A Choic e Collection of 1 80 Loya l Songs, 
p p. 134-6. 
2. Luttrell ' s co py , dated 13 August 1684 , is i n the Cl a rk 
Library, Los Ang eles. He cons i de r ed it ' A very f ooli sh co py '. 
25 7 
* * * 
A final aspect of the g overnment programme to control 
the p ress rema ins to be examined: judicial restraints on 
opposition stationers. Like the scheme of propaganda and 
the manipul a tion of the St a tioner s ' Company , the prog r amm e 
of renewed l egal inve s t igat i on and p r ose cution was 
initiated i mmedi a t ely after the dissolution of the Oxford 
Parliament. The treason cha r g e against Francis Smith wa s 
intended as a cle a r warning to all Whig st a tioners to 
restrict their tra de, but its effect was g re a tly dimini s hed 
by his rele a se for l a ck of evidence. Only af ter the execu-
tion of Stephen College did the Whig bookselling a lliance 
begin to ~isintegrate. Much of the p ersuas ive evidence 
against College concerned his involvement in the public a tion 
a nd distribution of libels, especi a lly the ballad Ra-ree 
Show. Though he was soon lionized as a ' P rote s tant Martyr', 
the cha r a ct er of the g overnment c as e against Him., frightened 
many London liverymen who had been similarly keen fo r 
radic a l Whig policies. Aided by growing defections among 
booksellers and printer s , g overnment haras sment and 
prosecution of oppo s ition stationers slowly increased and 
re a ched a climax in December 1682. This was the first 
London Sessions of the Peace wi th a jury p icked by the 
258 
new Tory sheriffs, and a number of '~rue bills' were 
found on indictments for seditious libel and printing 
without authority. Lacking the protection of ignoramus 
juries, Whig stationers served a s g overnment witnesses 
against a uthors and even fellow stationers in order to 
avoid p rosecution themselves. The splintering of the 
alliance of coo peration and silence among the now demoralized 
opposition stationers matched the collapse of the Whigs 
in London and signified the short-term success of the 
g overnment p ress policy. 
Libel investigations followed two forms. In some 
cases, such as Ra-ree Show or The Second Part of the Growth 
of Popery, g overnment concern centered on the publication 
itself, and the author, publisher, and printer were 
questioned or indicted for their role in producing the 
particular tract. In other cases, the g overnment isolated 
specific stationers for harassment and found, conveniently, 
libellous passag es in pamphlets published by that stationer. 
Inevitably the two approaches became intertwined because 
the most troublesome stationers a chieved tha t status by 
putting out the most nettlesome propaganda . These 
investigations helped to isolate stationers from the 
political and financial support of their friends and to 
increa se the pressure on them to submit to p ress control. 
Francis Smith was forced into exile a s a result of 
the investigation into the public a tion of A Ra-ree Show, 
a scurrilous bit of Whig propaganda put to verse. The 
259 
government acted swiftly after its publication to prevent 
distribution. Though they suspected Smith from the beginning , 
they did not receive pro of p ositive until several months 
later. Sung by Whigs at Oxford, the ballad anticipated 
confidently the King 's inability to defy Parl i ament. The 
eighteen verses of the ballad recounted 'the foreshadowing , 
the enactment, and the aftermath of rebellion', but as a 
1 piece of political prognosis it was spectacularly inept. 
Charles 11 did not follow his father to the scaffold, and 
the least accurate a ccount of his a ctions after Oxford 
would be that he had 'gone to take a Nap': 
Ha-loo the Hunts begun, with a hey, with a hey, 
Like Father, Like Son, with a ho, 
Ra-ree Show in French-Lap, 
Is gone to take a Nap, 
And Successor has the Clap, 
With a hey, Trany nony nony no. 
Steppen College and Francis Smith returned from Oxford 
disappointed of their strong expectation of parliamentary 
legislation on Exclusion and relief for Dissenters. As 
an a ct of rash defiance, they decided to publish A Ra-ree 
Show. To the Tune of I am a Senceless Thing . 2 Colleg e, 
it seems, wrote out a fair co py of the ballad and Smith 
took the manuscript to James Astwood who printed a ream 
1. B.J. Rahn, 'A Ra-ree Show -- A Rare Cartoon: Revolutionary 
Propaganda in the Treason Trial of Stephen College', in 
Studies in Chang e and Revolution, ed., P.J. Korshin, pp. 82-3. 
2. Wing C5226A. Colleg e had sung the ballad in Oxford; 
State Tri a ls, VIII, 595-6. N. Thompson tells a somewhat 
contrived story about Smith singing the balla d on his return 
from Oxford; The Loyal Protestant #68, 25 October 1681. 
260 
(or 1000 copies in half-sheet). Smith and Astwood 
selected a false imprint implic a ting Benjamin Tooke, 
p rinter of Heraclitus Ridens; ' London, Printed for B.T. 
and Sold a t his Shop in Pauls Church-yard: For the g ood 
of the Publick, 1681~. Astwood later admitted that Smith 
c a lled Ra-ree Show a ' Merry Jocose thing ' and explained 
to him the meaning of the political a llusions when he 
first delivered the manuscript. Smith believed that 
there was no tre a son in the b a llad, but he was discreet 
enough to direct Astwood to testify, if questioned, that 
'he had the Copy from a Gentleman , to him unknown,.l To 
ensure Astwood's loyalty Smith probably promised to pay 
his legal expenses if he incurred any . Astwood's fidelity 
was soon tested and he bore the p ressure a dmirably. On 
9 April 16 81 he was e xamined by Warden Cl a rke in the presence 
of four witnesses. He admitted printing the ballad but 
disclaimed knowledge of the person who delivered the 
manuscript to the press. The seized copy of A Ra-ree Show, 
signed and dated by Warden Clarke with a sentence summary 
of the examination, is now in the Houghton Library, Harvard: 
Mr Ricn Clarke W~Eden 
April ye 9. 1683 
James Astwoo d in ye Parish of s t Christp 
did a cknowledge yt he P rin ted a Rem of thi s 
and delivered them to ye person yt brought it 
to Print 
The s i gnatures of the four witne sses fo llow: Sam: St a i n e s, 
1. L ' Estrange , Note s u p on Ste phen College, 16 81, 2nd. ed., 
pp. 12-3. 
Walter Davis ( a bookseller ), R: Taylor (be adle of the 
Stationers' Company), and Stephens (Robert Stephens, 
Messeng er of the Press ).l 
Two days later Astwood was summoned before the 
meeting of the Stat ioners' Court of Assistants. He 
maintained that he knew very little about the printing 
261 
of A Ra-ree Show; 'there was a Gentleman came to his wife 
& she sett his son to compose them which he did'. Astwood 
a dded that the man who brought the manuscript 'was wholly 
a St r ang er to him' and that he had taken both the manuscript 
and printed copies away. Told that there were 'ill 
reflections' against the King , Astwood averred that 'he 
knew of none, there was noe p erson named in it'; besides 
if there were any offence he was sorry for it and it could 
not novv be undone. Then the Stationers scored a very close 
hit by a SK ing if he h a d printed the ball ad 'for Francis 
Smith Benj amin Harris or any of them', but Astwood adhered 
to his dising enuous deni a l. Nonetheless, the Court 
demanded p ayment of a ~20 fine for disobeying the Company's 
imprint by-law. When Astwood persisted in refusing to 
pay the fine, t he Stationers ordered that 'due course 
should be Sp edily t aken a t Law ag ainst him to recover it,.2 
1. I h ave retained the orig inal spelling. This copy of 
A Ra-ree Show is reproduced between pp. 426 and 427 of 
Poems on Affairs of State, 11, ed., E.F. Meng el. Neither 
IVI eng el nor Ra hn, p . g8, n. 43, recognized the significance 
of this note on the Ha rva rd co py. 
2 . St a te Co. Court Records, Liber E, entry for 11 April 1681. 
262 
Later in the same month, the be a dle Randal Taylor arrested 
Astwood, and in July the Company received a judg ement of 
~35 (the fine plus legal expenses).l 
Here the matter might well have rested if Stephen 
Dugdale h a d not insisted at Stephen College's trial at 
Oxford in August that College had confessed : to authorship 
of both the balla d and an engraved c artoon which had been 
issued separately. Dugdale's evidence aided the government 
case tha t Colleg e had imagined the King ' s death and over-
throw of the g overnment, but it is not persuasive because 
it was unsubstanti a ted and he was later discredited. 
Robert Stephens and another messenger, Thomas Atterbury, 
testified that they had found the orig inal bl"ack lead 
drawing on Dutch paper for the c artoon, but inexplicably 
they were unable to produce the drawing in court. Since 
Colleg e had drawn cartoons for other engraving s, it is 
not unlikely that he could have drawn the one for A Ra-
ree Show. 2 But he was adamant tha t he was not the author 
of the ball a d itself; 'I was not the author of the Ra-ree 
Show nor do I know who was, nor the printer or ever owned 
myself to be the author of either of these papers,.3 This 
1. Stat. Co. Warden's Ac c ounts, 1680-1, entries for 23 
April, 27 May , and 14 July. JJegal fees were paid to · 
Edmund Satmders, John Lilly, Sir Georg e Jeffreys, the 
Recorder, Mr . Williams, and Mr. Trinder. John Lilly's 
bill indicates that Warden Clarke and Samuel Mearne attended 
the trial; bill in the 'searching ' file of docwnents at 
Stationers' Hall. 
2. Rahn, 'A Ra-ree Show -- A Rare Cartoon', pp . 89-93; 
two v ari ants of the cartoon a re reproduced between pp. 
78 & 79. State Trials, VIII, 598, 603. 
3. C.S.P.D. 16 80- 1, p. 416. 
263 
was a c a refully worded denial. He made no mention of the 
publisher ( as opposed to the printer) and he i gnored the 
. question of distribution. The interpretation that College 
and Smith planned the publication of the ballad they had 
sung in Oxford, and that Smith a lone handled the dealings 
with Astwood, fits the denial. 
College was a figure well-known a round Stationers' 
Hall. He had been g iven a t300 contract in November 1674 
to panel the Hall ' with well seasoned & well matched 
1 Wainscot', a t ask which took over three ye a rs to complete. 
Thomas Parkhurst and Nevill Simmons spoke on his behalf 
a t his tri a l, and Robert Stephens p ref a ce d his testimony, 
'I h ave known you three or four years, y ou were joiner 
2 to our h all'. F r ancis Smith and Stephen Colleg e seem to 
have been clo s e friends. They bre akf asted tog ether a t 
Smith's house before the Middlesex election a t Brentford 
for the second Exclusion Parliament a t Westminster. 3 
Smith publi s hed A Letter from Mr. Stephen Colledge to A 
P erson of Qu ality, u p on his Remova l to Oxford, a l as t 
propaganda a ttempt before College ' s tri a l ( which Luttrell 
terme d ' a perf ect sham , for 'ti s da te d af ter he was sent 
1. Stat. Co. Court Re cords , Liber D, entrie§ for 6 Novembe r 
1674 and 8 April 1678; Warden' s Accounts, 1677-8, entry 
f or 1 6 May 1 6 78 , the f ina l payment. College ' s wa inscotting 
s urvived the bombs of World Wa r 11. S. Hodg son, ' Pape r s 
and Documents Re cently found at Stationers' Hall', The 
Library, 4s., XXV (1945 ) , p . 24. ---
2 . St a te Tri a ls, VI II , 603 , 661-2. 
3 . C.S.P.D. 1683 Jul to Sep , p . 7. 
264 
from the Tower to Oxford,).l Several years l a ter, Colleg e's 
daughter was, in effect, adopted by Smi th when he took her 
in as an apprenti ce in May 1686. 2 
Soon after College's execution at the end of August, 
the g overnment put increasing pressure on Astwood to 
testify against Smith. Astwood must have been frightened 
by the a ttention given to A Ra-ree Show at College's tri al; 
unless he implicated Smith he would stand resp onsible 
before the law for a seditious, if not tre asonou s libel. 
In accordance with an order of the St ationers' Court on 
5 September Warden Towse called on Astwood to demand 
payment of his fine and the Company's legal costs. 3 On 
10 September, Nathanie l Thompson reported in his newspaper 
tha t Astwood had told Robert Stephens that he had printed 
A Ra-ree Show for Smith; on the 17th, he added that 
"-
Astwood and his wife h a d g iven an information 'that 
Fran cis Smith brought the Copy of it to Print'; on the 
27th, he noted that the previous day the Astwoods had 
repeated their informa tion on oa th to Sir William Turner, 
which would be the basis for an indictment against Smith 
next term at the King 's Bench. 4 Roger L'Estrang e expounded 
1. Wing C5224; Luttre11's copy is in the Huntington Library. 
N. Thompson inferred that the scaffold speech of College 
published on 5 September was written ,by Henry Care, 'with 
the Elephant ' s essay which seconded it'; Loyal Protestant 
#53, 6 Sept,embr 1681. A True CoPy of the Dying Words of 
Mr. Stephen Co11edge, Printed for Edith Colledge, Wing C5231. 
2. McKenzie, State Co. Apprentices, 1641-1700, p. 153 ( #4158 ). 
Edith College may have been apprent iced to the younger 
Francis Smith, who took u p his freedom of the Company by 
patrimony on 3 May 1686, three days before she was bound. 
The elder Francis Smith was then in prison. 
3. State Co. Court Recor ds, Liber E, entry for 5 September 1681. 
N. Thompson, Loyal Protestant #54, 56, & 59, 10, 17, & 
September 1681. 
265 
on this evidence in his Notes upon Stephen College , and 
added that he had in his possesion a manuscript of A Ra-ree 
Show which he believed to be in the same handwriting as 
Colleg e's scaffold speech printed for Edith Colleg e. l At 
this point, 1'Estrange realized that this was only tenden-
tious evidence that College had g iven Smith that particular 
manuscript for publication. A year later he casua lly 
confirmed the link without adducing more evidence, 'I h ave 
yet the very Manuscript by me of his own Hand-Writing, 
from whence it was Printed,.2 
Smith found himself in a vulnerable position in 
September and October. Tory propaganda strongly attacked 
him and Astwood's testimony implicated him. The g overnment 
considered it an added g rievance that he had been 'very 
busy' campa i gning against Sir J ohn Moore in the election 
for Lord Mayor. 3 And if we may believe Thompson, Smith's 
creditors were beg inning to demand payment on a number 
of debts incurred at the Southwark election in February 
on behalf of Slingsby Bethel. 4 Astwood seems also to h ave 
a dmitted tha t he printed for Smith A Speech Lately Made 
by a Noble Peer, which had been burnt by the common hang-
man by order of the House of Lords in J anuary. Smith had 
1. L'Estrange, Notes upon Stephen Colleg e, pp. 12-3; Kitchin, 
L'Estrange, p. 290. 
2. L'Estrange, The Observator, I, 254, 7 December 1682. 
3. S.P . 29, 416 (178 ), Justice Wa rcup to Secret ary Jenkins. 
4. N. Thompson, The Loyal Protestant #57, 20 September 1681. 
266 
escaped prosecution then through the g ood g races of an 
ignoramus jury. Now the g overnment tried again. Apparently 
the arrest of a hawker at Cha ring Cross on 19 September 
for s elling A Spee ch was the excuse f or the new i n dictment. l 
Smi t h ' s t ri a l c a me u p on 8 November a t t he Guil dh all. A 
contemp orary list of the jurors, drawn from Cordwa iners 
ward, indicates that of the two dozen men at least sixteen 
were Whig s. 2 Astwood was the prime witness, but he was 
'somewha t indisposed' and did not appear in court. 3 The 
trial was put off until the 12th, when Astwood, the compositor, 
and the dispersers testified that Smith had published A 
Speech Lately Made by a Noble Peer. Astwood also made 
deposition in open court that Smith h a d 'caused to be 
printed' A Ra-ree Show. For his testimony, the Stationers' III 
Company allowed Astwood a t5 discount on his fine and 
considered t30 full payment. 4 
Desp ite the preponderance of Whigs on the jury, Smith 
was found guilty. The jury had no alternative to returning 
a guilty verdict, particularly since Smith f a iled to 
1. Henry IVIuddiman's newsletter of 20 September 1681, cited 
by J.G. Muddiman, ~rancis Smith', p. 60. Concerning this 
speech L'Estrange wrote; 'the Utmost Venome of the True-
Protestant Raree Show is but the spirit of this Pamphlet 
turn'd into Meeter'; The Observator, I, 98, 11 February 
1681/2. 
2. S. P. 29, 41 7 ( 83 ) . 
3. N. Thompson, The Loyal Protestant # 76, 12 November 1681. 
4. J. Smith, Currant Intellig ence #59, 15 November 1681; 
London Gazette # 166 8 , 14 November 1681; N. Thompson, Loyal 
Protestant #77, 15 November 1681; Luttrell, Brief Relation, 
I, 143; C.S.P.D. 1680-1, p . 564. Warden's Accounts, 1681-2, 
receipts • . 
26 7 
app e a r a t the trial. l Re ports of his de parture from 
London were common in October and one rumour sugg ested 
that he h a d g one to. Amsterdam. 2 Since he was not 
p resent a t Guildhall, sentencing was deferred until the 
first da y of the next term, when his bail would be 
p rosecuted. To prevent seizure of his pro perty, Smith 
was forced, in his words, 'to sell his Shop and Warehouse 
••• for 125 1. which would, by Common Retail, have yielded 
many Hundreds of P ounds,.3 To add to his financial 
difficulties, the St a tioners' Company informed his sureties 
i n Februa ry tha t his ~50 loan would fall due on 15 May, 
and that in the meanwhile another surety was required in 
his p l a ce, 'he being de parted from this Citty & Subburbs 
to dwell,.4 
There is little evidence for Smith's a ctivities in 
e x ile, though it is clear that his wife and children 
remained in London. With others in opposition, Smith 
considered emi g r a tion to South Ca rolina , where Sh aftesbury's 
influence ( he wa s one of the pro prietors ) was strong and 
liberty of conscience existed under a g overnment b a sed on 
1. The author of Reflections on the City-Charter, published 
by Ele anor Smith in 1682, used this verdict to vindicate 
the i gnoramus juries, ' ••• they h ave never f a iled to g ive 
Verdicts ag ainst those of their own Principles, and their 
Friends, if the -Evidence before them app e a red any ways 
cle a r a nd full ..• ; Witness the Ca se some time ag o against 
Francis Smith ••. ' ( pp . 29-30 ) . 
2 . Hera clitus Ridens #38 and 39 , 1 8 and 25 October 16 81 ; 
N. Thomp son, Loy a l Protest ant #57 and 6 8 , 20 Se ptember 
25 October 16 81. 
3. 'Th e Case of F ~ancis Smith'. 
4. St a te Co . Court Record s , Liber E , 21 F ebrua ry 16 81/2. 
Smith re paid the loa n i n two inst a llments during the next 
t wo ye a r s ; Wa rden' s Accounts, 1681-2 a nd 16 8 2-3 , receipts. 
268 
Locke's Fundamental Constitutions. To inaugurate a new 
drive for emig ration to the colony in 1682, Samuel Wilson, 
secretary to the p ro prietors, wrote An Account of the 
Province of Carolina in America, which Georg e La rkin 
printed for publication under the imprint of Francis Smith. 
The first edition of the tra ct appeared on sale for 4d. 
in the middle of March and two weeks later 'a Map of the 
whole P rovince of Carolina' was added to copies to encourag e 
interest. The proprietors met for several weeks on 
Tuesdays a t the Carolina coffee-house in Birching Lane 
to answer queries. Curtis provided publicity ' in his 
paper, and Smith put adverti sements for the pamphlet in 
both Janeway's and Curtis's newspapers. Demand for An 
Account of the Province of Carolina was such tha t a second 
edition was required, again under Smith's imprint. Desp ite 
the p romotion, few English Whigs ac tually sailed to 
Ca rolina, though one shipload of emig rants did embark at 
the end of the summer. l In September 1682 Thompson 
implic a ted Smith in a g roup of exiled Whigs meeting daily 
a t a Rotterdam coffee-house, but part of the re p ort was 
2 denied by one of the others named. After some time in 
1. Haley, Shaftesbury, pp. 705 - 7. R. Janeway, I mpartial 
Protestant Mercury #93, 14 March 1682; L. Curtis, True 
Protestant Mercury # 125 and 129, 18 March and 1 April 1682. 
Thompson ~ublished a satire of the emig r a tion ~l ans in his 
Loyal Protestant #188, 2 August 1682. Among ~he Undert ake rs' 
he listed we re t he ' Elephant ' ( Smith), 'John Thumb' ( St arkey), 
'the Protest ant Sollicitor' ( Aaron Smith), and ' Mr Mayor 
of Gotham ' (Curt is). 
2 . N. Thompson, Loyal Protestant, #190 and 212, 5 Augus t 
and 26 September-16ef2;~ G. Croom,- The L oyal London Mercury . 
#22 , 4 November 1682. 
269 
Holla nd, Smith returned to Eng l and and 'wandered about the 
country ••. under several disguises'. At length h e made 
his way to London but there his luck ran out. At midnight 
on 2 Ma rch or in the early hours of 3 March 1684, the City 
Marshal a rrested him. Bundles of papers were talcen up, 
and L'Estrang e wrote to Secretary Jenkins to recommend 
that he be closely examined. l On 11 June Smith was tried 
at the Guildhall before his old antag onist, Sir George 
Jeffreys, now Lord Chief Justice, 'for Printing and 
Publishing a very Sc a ndalous and Seditious Libel called 
the Ra ree Show, of vllhich he was upon a very pl a in Evidence 
found guilty,.2 A week later Smith returned to the King's 
Bench b a r to receive his stiff sentence. He was fined 
1;,500 and pilloried three times, at the Palace yard, 
Westminster; at the Temple; and at the Royal Exchange, 
with a paper above him expl a ining his crime. The libel 
was also burnt by the common hangman. In Smi th' s cohdi tion 
a 1;,500 fine virtually meant life imprisonment. Even 
if he h a d possessed an estate l a r g e enough to meet the 
fine he still would have had to find sureties for g ood 
behaviour for life before gaining release from prison. 3 
1. Muddiman's newsletter of 4 Ma rch 1684, cited by J.G. 
Muddiman, 'Francis Smith', p. 61. C.S.P.D. Oct 1683 ' to 
Apr 1684, p . 304. 
2. London Ga zette #1937, 12 June 1684; Luttrell, Brief 
Relat ion, I, 309. 
3. Luttrell, Brief Relation, I, - 311; London Gazette #1939, 
19 June 1684; Morrice, P, 440 ( Smith in the pillory on 19 
June); C.S. P .D. May 1684 to Peb 1685, p. 80 ( Smith in the 
..... 
270 
There is n o d oub t tha t the guilty verdict was correct. 
Smith did a rra ng e for the printing of A Ra-ree Show, and 
he a dmitted a s much in 16 89 when recounting wh a t he con-
sidered the 'illegal and severe Fine' for 'handing to the 
Pre s s another Half- sheet for priva te Use, . l 
* * * 
I n ma r s h alling legal pre ssure . against . s t a t i oners 
the g overnment wa s especia lly successful in the c a se of 
Richard J ane way. He was one of the st a tioners se lected by 
the g overnment f or h a r assment. In the space of eight months 
h e was e xami n e d s evera l time s be f ore the P rivy Council 
and indicted t wice; he qua rrelled t wice with the Stationers' 
Company ; he was c a lled before the Lord Mayor and Aldermen; 
a n d Lord Chief Jus tice Pemberton issued a warrant to s top 
his planne d public a tion of a tri a l rep ort. At length his 
b a i l was pro s ecuted for his f a ilure to ob s erve the 
s tipul a tion f or g ood behaviour. Faced with financi a l 
p illory on 26 June a t the Roy a l Ex cha ng e ) . When received, 
Smith' s fi n e was to be ke p t in a distinct a ccount, a long 
with other fines levied a t thi s time agains t Samuel Barna rd-
i s ton, John Hampden, Lang ley Curt is, and others . Ca l. Tre as . 
Books, VII, 16815, ~ii, - 1459.' \ ~ 
1. 'The Cas e of F r anci s Smith'. 
271 
hardship and lacking political support from the now 
weakened Whigs, his defiance wilted and he became a 
government witness. 
After April 1681 Richard Janeway and Richard Baldwin 
assumed the mantle of leadership among opposition stationers 
from Francis Smith and Benjamin Harris. John Starkey and 
Langley Curtis also intensified their activities in the 
absence of Smith and Harris. l They were by no means the 
only Whig stationers, but they were runong the most out-
spoken. Each faced unrelenting pressure from legal 
authorities to submit. J aneway, Baldwin, and Starkey 
yielded in the SWillfier of 1682. 2 Curtis lasted a year or 
two longer with the vigorous support of his wife Jane 
Curtis, but he paid a heavy price in the ruin of his trade. 
By 1687 he was grateful for ±,l out of theStation"ers' . poor 
box. 3 Janeway, like Curtis and Baldwin, was a bookbinder 
who had developed an imposing trade by publishing Whig 
broadsides and pamphlets. 4 Unlike Starkey, all three were 
inactive in the Stationers' Compa.ny; Baldwin was admitted 
to the livery in 1692, J aneway waited until l ate in his 
career (1700 ), and Curtis never achieved the livery. 
1. This is graphically illustrated in the chronological 
listing of broadsides formerly at Haigh Hall; J.P. Edmond, 
Catalogue of En§lish Broadsides, 1505-1897, Bibliotheca 
Lindesiana, 189 , pp. 43-59. 
2. On Baldwin, see Leona Rostenberg, 'English "Rights & 
Liberties": Richard & Anne Baldwin, Whig Patriot Publishers', 
Literary, Politcal ••• Publishing, pp. 369-415. Aga~in , 
Rostenberg is not always reliable in her account of events. 
3. State Co. Court Records, Liber F, entry for 20 Dcember 1687. 
4. E11ic Howe, A List of London Bookbinders, 1648-1815, 
pp. 6, 28, 50-1. 
11 
F 
272 
Again, all three came to g overnment notice most prominently 
for publ ishing opp osition newspapers, though each was 
marked out for individual publications. 
After the demise of Smith's Protestant Intelligence 
on 14 April 16 81 and Harris's Protestant ( Domestick) 
Intellig ence on 15 April, J aneway helped to fill the gap 
by publishing The Impartial Protestant Me rcury from 27 
April. When the London g rand jury presented publishers 
of Tory periodicals in October 1681, the g overnment 
responded by issuing a summons to Janeway on 7 October 
requiring him to appear before the Privy Council five 
days l ater 'to give an ac count of a Passage published in 
the Impartiall Protest ant Mercury Tuesday l ast, touching 
some extravagant Disorders not long since committed in the 
East erne part of the City of London'. 1 On the same d ay 
he receivetl the summons, Janeway published a rumour that 
a new Parl i ament would be called. 2 The government con-
sidered speculation in print on the possibility of a new 
Parliamen t t .o be an encroachment on the King's 'Prerogative to 
decide such ma tters for himself. The reported rumour 
provided the basis for the examination of J aneway before 
1. P.C. 2, 69 ( 366 ) , 7 October 1681; R. Janeway, Impartial 
Protestant Me rcury #47, 4 October 1681. . 
2. 'There h as- been a fresh'·Rumeur of a Parl iament like to 
be Called to mee t on the Twenty eighth of the next Moneth, 
but we c annot find any Foundation for tha t Report, more 
than tha t a Person of Quality lately arriv ' d from France , 
Relates , That he was told such a thing a t Paris'; R. Janeway, 
Impartial Protestant Me rcury #48 , 7 October 1681. 
273 
the Council on 12 and 14 October. J aneway and hi s a uthor, 
Thomas Vile, expl a ined tha t they h a d received the informa-
tion from the newsletter writer Giles Hancock, who was 
a lso questioned and g iven three days to recollect hi s 
1 
source. J aneway was required to g ive security to appear 
before the King 's Be nch on the first day of Micha elmas 
term to face indictments brought in the King ' s name by the 
Attorney General. J aneway appeared and p roduced bail, as 
did Baldwin, who was i nd icted for publishing Robert Ferg u son 's 
No Protest ant Plot. Both appeared again on 23 J anua ry 16 82 
and entered pleas of not guilty. 2 J aneway 's trial came up 
op 16 May, and the government~ produced a wi tness who said that 
he h ad bought the Imparti a l Protest ant Mercury of 7 October 
1681 from J a neway , and Hancock confes sed to p roviding the 
story ab out the c a lling of Parliament. J aneway's rather 
lame excuse tha t it was then a common re p ort about town 
did not p ers u ade observers, but the Whi g jury frustrated 
the p rosecution by returning a v erdict of not guilty af t e r 
a thi r ty-minute deliberation. The Chief Justice angrily 
told the jury tha t they mus t h ave cons idered the evidence 
pe rjured, but he received the c a lm reply tha t they had 
1. P.C. 2 , 69 (366, · 370), 12 and 14 October 16 81; London 
Ga zett e # 1660, 17 October 1681; N. Thomp son, The Loya l 
Protest ant #6 4, 1 5 October 16 81; R. Baldwin, Mercurius 
Anglicus #3 , 17 October 16 81; R. J aneway , Impartial Prote s t ant 
Mercury #51, 1 8 October 1681; Luttrell, Brief Relation, I, 135. 
2. Luttrell, Brief Relation, I, 1 38; N. Thompson, The Loyal 
Protestant #68 , 69 , and 170, 25 and 27 October 16 81 and 24 
J anuary 1681/2. 
.... 
274 
done ac cording to their conscience. l The day before 
J an8way's trial, Baldwin h ad been committed to King's Bench 
Prison for printing false news in his Protestant Courant; 
thus he too had no escape from legal -problems , though he seems 
to have avoided trial for No Protestant Plot. 2 
Soon after their appearance before the King's Bench 
on 25 October 16 81 , Janevvay and Baldwin became involved 
in a bitter quarrel with the Stationers' Company. On 2 
November, the Wardens and Beadle , with a const able , conducted 
a search for illegally printed almanacs in Baldwin's and 
Janeway's shops. The search was justified by the by-law, 
confirmed on 17 August, permitting officials of the Company 
to inspe ct work in progress at any stationers' s ho p or 
residence. When the searchers failed to produce a specific 
warrant (unnecessary according to their by-law), they were 
refused admission by Baldwin. At Janeway's house, which 
'they Ransacked from Top to Bottom', they found 'some Gross 
of Almanacks'. The by-law stipulated a hlO penalty against 
those who refused to permit searches , and as a matter of 
course the fines were imposed ag ainst J aneway and Baldwin. 
They in turn refused to pay fines ' grounded upon a pretended 
By-Law, never Publ ished' and started an ac tion of assault 
and trespass in the Court of Common Pleas agains t 'so 
1. Hart, Index, pp. 277-8. N. Thompson, The Loyal Protest ant 
#156, 18 May 1682; Luttrell , Brief Relation, I , 186; L. 
Curtis, True Protestant Mercury #143 , 17 lVIay 1682. 
2. N. Thomp son, The Loya l Pro test ant #155, 16 May 1682. 
Hart, Index, pp. 274-6. 
275 
notorious Violators of Magna Charta,.l . They freely admitted 
tha t, contrary to the regulations of the Company's English 
Stock, they had published alamanacs 'whose Crime lay in 
their being far better P rinted than the Companies,.2 The 
search took place while the Court of Aldermen debated the 
issue of sitting the six Whig stationers on the Court of 
Assistants. The defiant resp onse of Janeway and Baldwin 
appears to have been part of a general challenge by Whig 
stationers to the authority of the Stationers' Company. 
The g overnment next exerted p ressure on Janeway 
throug h the Tory Lord Mayor of London, Sir John Moore. 
On 13 January 16 82 he summoned Janeway, Curtis, and Thomas 
Benskins before the Court of Aldermen to answer charg es 
tha t their newspapers were 'stuff'd with Sedition' and 
disturbed the p eace. 3 Benskins had been Curtis's apprentice, 
but he published a moderate newspaper. Janeway grouped 
him with Thomps on and L'Estrange as 'those three Monopolizers 
of Lyes,.4 The Lord Mayor released them on their promise 
1. The defendants were the two Wardens, Thomas Newcomb 
and John Towse, the beadle, Randall Taylor, and the constable, 
Michael Foster. Plomer, Dictionary .•• 1668-1725, pp. 16, 
170. J aneway and Baldwin dropp ed the suit 'for Quietness 
sake'; R. Baldwin, The Protestant Courant if3, 1 May 1682. 
2. R. Janeway, Im artial Protestant Mercur #56, 4 November 
1681; R. Baldwin, The Protestant Courant 3, 1 May 1682; 
N. Thomps on, The Loyal Protestant #72, 3 November 1681/2. 
3. N. Thompson, The Loyal Protestant #103, 14 Janua ry 1681/2. 
L'Estrange rep orted that the three summoned were Janeway, 
Curtis, and Care, who wanted Benjamin Tooke and Joanna Brome 
a lso summoned for their periodicals; The Observator t, - 90~ -
18 January 1681/2. Care denied that he had been summoned 
or that Janeway had implicated Joanna Brome; Weekly Pacguet 
of Advice, IV, 5, 20 Janua ry 1681/2. 
4. McKenz ie, Stat. Co. Apprentices, 1641- 1700, p . 42, # 1118 . 
276 
'never to Reflect on the Government more'. Undeterred, 
Janeway published three days later A Letter from an old 
Common-Council-man to one of the New Common-Colli'1.cil for 
this present year 1682, which concerned the selection of 
a judg e to sit on the Sheriffs Court. l Compl a int wa s ma de 
to the Court of Aldermen, which ordered Janeway to a ppear 
for examina tion on 26 January for publishing the tract, 
'tending in some parte thereof to raise disorder and promote 
Jealousies among e the Citizens of this City and making 
scurrilous reflections u p on persons of worth ,.2 The Court 
did not accep t his explanation and bound him in a recog-
nizance to face an indictment at the next Sessions of the 
Peace. J a neway appe a red for trial on 24 February, but the 
jury returned an ignoramus verdict desp ite the evidence 
p resented by Robert Stephens a nd one William Bennett. 3 
~ 
On 21 Februa ry, the Court of Aldermen formed a libel 
committee to consider measures to suppress the ' mischievous 
A Friendl Dialogue between two London-A rentices The One 
a whigg , The Other a Tory, 1 
1. Wing N9, printed for W. Inghall ( a false imprint). 
C.S. P .D. 1682, p. 31, letter of L'Estrang e to Jenkins. John 
Starkey was amo ng the new members of the Common Council; 
Luttrell, Brief Rel a tion, I, 155; L' Estrang e, The Observator, 
I, 85, 31 December 1681. 
2. Re p ertories of the Court of Aldermen, 8 7 ( 68 ), 24 January 
16 81/2. 
3. The recognizance was set at h50, and his two sureties 
were Tobias Collier, a haberdasher involved in the distribution 
of Whig books, and John Kidg ell, a Whig stationer. London 
Sessions file f or February 1681/2; session minute book # 52 
for Februa ry. N. Thomp son, The Loyal Protestant # 121, 25 
Februa ry 16 81/2. 
277 
and unsufferable p r a ctice' of publishing and disp ers ing 
newspapers 'we ekely'. Thi s action by the Aldermen reflected 
g overnment intention to put into effect the long-s t anding 
p olicy against the distribution and discussion of domestic 
news. The standard compl a ints against newspapers we re 
voic ed agai n wi th reference to the si tua tion i n London; 
' ... the Government i s frequently reflect e d upon~ Magistra tes 
and others libelled, false rep ort s spread abroad , and 
tending generally to promote and heighten Je a lous ies and 
differences i n the Citizens and Inhabitants of this City , .l 
The forma tion of a libel committee by the Al de r men spurred 
L ' Estrange to review the s t a te of t he press for their 
benef i t. In A Word Concerning Libels and Libellers , Humbly 
Presented To ..• Sir John Moor, he offe red a dvice concerning 
which libel s and stationers to 1001<: for in order to break 
~ 
u p t he 'form'd Conspirac y agai ns t b oth Church and St a te, 
for the destruction of the Whol e , and every Part of it, Root 
and Branch ,. 2 F irs t on his list was Right s of the Kingdom, 
or Customs of our Anc estors , a reprint of the 1649 edition 
with ' seve r all sly Va riations, a nd Additions ', p rinte d for 
J ohn Kidg ell and published by Richa rd Baldwin. The statione r s 
1. Repert ori es of the Court of Aldermen, 8 7 (102b ), 21 
February 16 81/2. 
2. L' Estrange , A Wo rd Concerning Libels, p . 1. Kitchin , 
L ' Estrange , p. 415 , da tes t hi s tra ct i n December 16 81, but 
it i s apparent from his reference to an issue (#82 ) of 
J aneway ' s news~aper published on 3 February 1681/2 tha t he 
wrot e the tra ct l a t e in Febru a ry, when the Aldermen formed 
their libel commi tt ee. 
278 
he isolated as most dangerous were Baldwin, Janeway, 
Starkey, and Curtis, to whom he added his old foe He n ry 
. 1 Care. He also used the pamphle t as another platform 
from which to complain tha t Mrs Brome had been presented 
for The Observator, while the Whi g stationers went free. 
In repeating his criticism, L'Estrang e conveniently i gnored 
the indictments agains t J aneway and Ba ldwin and the appear-
a nce by Curtis before the King 's Bench on 8 February for 
2 f a lse news. The Aldermen did not follow L'Estrang e's 
advice, but they did resp ond on two occasions in a non-
partisan manne r to libels. On 17 March, they ordered the 
city marshal to a rrest Nathani el Thompson ' for his dayly 
printing and publishing Seditious and Scandalous Pamphlets'. 
Three months l a ter four Whi gs , Br abazon Aylmer, Tobi as 
Collier, Samuel Sprint, and Sarah Storey ( alias Pope) 
were apprehended for selling A Modest Enquiry Concerning 
The Election Of The She riffs of London. 3 
1. L'Estrang e, A Word Concerning Libels, pp . 2-7. 
2. Ibid., pp . 11-12. C.S. P .D. 1682, p . 68; N. Thomp son, 
The Loyal Protest ant #113 and 114, 7 and 9 February 16 81/2. 
About thi s time L ' Estrange offered privately a b50 reward 
'for the Swear ing any man Guilty' of involvement in a 
tre asonous or seditious libel. The Whigs naturally cha r g ed 
him with trying to suborn witnesses , but he re plied tha t 
he ac ted out of resp ect to the King 's proclama tion offering 
money to informers , wh ich h a d exp ired late in 1681. L'Estrange , 
The Observa tor, I, 141, 22 May 1681/2. 
3. Repertories of the Court of Aldermen , 87 (126 , 196 ), 
17 March 1681/2 and 22 June 16 82 . Aylmer and Sprint we re 
st a tioners, and Tobias Collier was a h aberdasher who twice 
stood as a surety for Janevvay. Wing M2 365 , printed f or 
Henry Mead ( a false imp rint). 
279 
Hardly a fortnight passed without J aneway confronting 
a nother challenge from a legal authority. On 1 March 1682, 
with i n the week a fter his i gnoramus :on the indictment for 
publishing A Letter from an old Common-Council-man, J aneway 
was c a lled before the Stationers ' Court of Assistants for 
infring ing the imprint by-law. He was questioned about 
selling A Letter from a Person of Quality to his Friend, 
about Abhorrers and Addressors, which did not have a p roper 
imprint. He a dmitted selling copies of the tract, but he 
refused to divulge informa tion about the printer and 
indeed denied the jurisdiction of the Stationers' Comp any 
in conducting the investigation. When asked who Frith was, 
whose name appeared in the imprint, he replied tha t 'there 
was such a man in being upon occasion but he was not bound 
to answer further to them'. ' The matter did not concerne 
the Company ', insisted Janeway , ' but a higher place'. This 
a ttitude was not well received by the Stationers' Court, 
which ordered the clerk to read to him the oa th of a 
freeman. They also imp osed the h20 fine stipulated in the 
1 by-law. Two weeks later Lord Chief Justice Pemberton 
issued a bench warrant to prevent J aneway from publishing 
an account of the trial between the Bishop of London and 
Edmund Hickeringill. J aneway had announced in his newspaper 
his intention to publish the ac count and Pemberton i nter-
1. Stat. Co. Court Records, Liber E , 1 March 1681/2. Wi ng 
L1427, 'Printed for John Frith'. 
280 
vened to protect his tradi t ional prerogative in assigning 
publication rights. Nonetheless, the account, Scandalwn 
Magnatwn: Or the Great Trial at Chelmnesford Assizes, was 
published early;. in April, but by Eleanor Smith. Janeway 
offered cop ies for sale and indeed a variant issue 
appeared with his carefully vag ue imprint: 'Printed, &c. 
1 to be sold by Richard Janeway, and most Booksellers, 1682'. 
The unceasing judicial p ressure on Janevvay began to 
have an effect. In April and May he bec81Ile less reckless 
and in June he started cooperating with the g overnment 
investigations. Thoug h his political views remained 
basically unchang ed, he became less strident in his expression 
of them. On 29 March he was swnmoned to appear before 
the Privy Council on 5 April, and on 3 April he submitted 
to the Stationers' Court concerning the search for almanacs 
and agreed to pay the Company's legal costs and a reduced 
fine of b5 to the English Stock. 2 At his examination on 
5 April, J aneway was questioned ab out his sources for 
re ports on the trial of three Catholics in York ( for which 
he produced a letter) and the celebration of Mass at Wild-
house in London. 3 In his own newspaper, Janeway proudly 
1. Wing H1 825 . A co py of the variant issue with Janeway's 
imprint is in Trinity Colleg e Library, Cambridg e. N. ' Thompson, 
The Loyal Protestant #128, 14 March 1681/2. The account 
was advertised for s a le by b. Smith and 'by most Book-sellers' 
in L. Curtis, The True Protestant Mercury #129, 1 April 1682. 
2. St at. Co. Court Records, Liber E , 3 April 1682. 
3. P.C. 2, 69 ( 482 , 485), 29 March and 5 April 16 82; London 
Gazette #1 709 , 6 April 1682; N. Thompson, The Loyal Protestant 
#1 38 , 6 A~ril 1682; L. Curtis, True Protestant Mercury #129, 
1 April and #131, 8 April 1682. The two repo rts app e a red in 
Impartial Protest ant Mercury #97, 28 March 1682. 
I ~ 
I 
jiiiiiiiP 
281 
no ted that he refused to answer on oath whatever questions 
might be put to him. The Council rema ined unimpres sed 
and made him supply sureties for g ood behaviour and his 
appearance a t the King's Bench the following term to 
1 
answer prosecution brought by the Attorney General. 
Desp ite the number of examinations he underwent and 
appearances with which he complied, J ane way had not been 
financially crippled. He did have to pay the Stationers' 
fine and t o meet legal costs relating to the two i gnoramus 
indictments, but it was not until the g overnment put i n 
execution his security for failing to observe the condition 
2 
of g ood behaviour tha t he relented to g overnment pressure. 
On 29 May Janeway, with his two sureties, Tobi as Collier 
and He n ry Care's uncle ( both of whom were responsible for 
1100, to match his 1200 ) , was sent to the Compter prison 
f or payment. 3 Unable to make payment, J aneway ceased 
publ ic a tion of his I mpartial Protes t ant Mercury with issue 
#115 for 30 May. He etitioned Secretary Jenkins for a 
stay of p rosecution of his bail in return for his promise 
1. R. J aneway , Impartial Protest ant Me rcury #100, 7 April 
1682. Thomas Vile noted in The London Mercury #9 , 4 May 
1682, that J aneway appeared at the King's Bench a ccording 
to his bond on 3 May . 
2. Prosecution of bail became an important weapon in the 
g overnment armory. Langley Curtis's bond for good behaviour, 
which he entered into on 30 July 1679, was put in suit by 
order of the Privy Council on 10 June 1682; P.C. 2, 69 ( 520); 
C.S.P.D. Oct 16 83 to Apr 1684, p. 182. Richard Baldwin 
submitted a week l a ter as part of his p le a to have his bail 
discharged; N. Thomps on, The Loyal Prote stant # 169, ~7 June 
1682; G. Croom, The Loyal London Mercury #2 , 17 June 16 82. 
3. N. Thompson, The Loyal Protestant # 161, 30 May 1682. 
282 
1 
not to publ ish any mo re tra cts against the government. 
In an examination before Jenkins on 7 June he revealed 
tha t Henry Care and Thomas Vile wrote his newspaper. 
They employed him, as publisher, to receive news and 
distribute printed reports. George Larkin, the paper's 
printer since the first issue, a lso wrote some of the 
a ccounts. Giles Hancock . supplied much of the domestic 
n ews. 
News' , 
F oreign news was extracted from the Latin 'Cologne 
2 
'Haarlem Courant', and 'Brussels Ga zette'. 
J aneway 's coop era tion apparently satisfied Jenkins. 
There is no further record of p ro se cution of his indictment 
for false news in March or of his bail for g ood behaviour. 
The level of his opposition publi s hing declined markedly 
in a ccordance with hi s submission. Only a h andful of 
pamphlets c a rried his i mprint i n 1683 and 1684, and he was 
inactive from 1685 to 1687. On 2 October 16 82 he pe titioned 
the St a tioners ' Court to be excused the h20 fine for selling 
A Letter from a Person of Qu a lity to his Friend, ab out 
Abhorrers and Addressors without a proper imprint. In his 
p etition, he stated that he ' was Deeply sensible he had 
Offended the Ki ng & this Company i n Publishing severall 
P8mphletts', but he unde r played his v ery a ctive role by 
1. C.S.P.D. 1682, p . 200; N. Thompson , The Loyal Protest ant 
#163, 3 June 1682. 
2. C.S.P.D. 16 82 , p. 199, a confession date d (incorrectly) 
8 May; N. Thompson, Th e Loyal Protestant #16 7, 13 June 1682 . 
Thompson re p orted tha t J aneway i ndic a t ed that ' a certain 
bookseller near the Royal Exchange ' also provided news. 
This may be 8, reference to Francis Smith. 
I 
I I 
283 
a dding tha t he had worked by the 'inst~gat ion of severall I 
p ersons that p romised to beare him harmlesse'. These 
p ersons, by no t coming to his a id, had left him shackled 
with b60 leg a l costs. He submitted himself to the Court 
and p romised tha t he would always obey the imprint by-law . 
Somewhat dising enuously, he revealed to the St ationers 
the pe rsons responsible f or six of the opposition tra cts 
which he sold. The list is very interesting for its 
revel a tion of the i nterrelationships in the opposition 
tra de. It confirms the act ive participation by th e Smiths 
af ter Francis Smith h a d g on e into exile. But it is 
imp ort ant to notice that J a neway did not d i sclose the 
a uthor s or other pe rsons resp onsible for tho se pamphlets 
which h ad app e a red und e r his o~m i mprint: 
The Letter about Abhorrer & Addressors for 
Mr Edward P owell of little Brittaine. l 
lVIe rlin Revive~ &c for Mr Francis Smiths Younger 
son Samuel. 
1 
'I 
, 
I' 
I gnoramus Jus tices for lVI r Francis Smiths wife. 3 1 I 
Strange News from Hick's-Hall for R. Ha rbottle. 4 
A Letter to his Royall Hignesse the D: Y: for 
Hen ry Care. 5 
And A Le tter from the Old Common Counsill to 
t he new for Henry Care. 6 
1. Wing L1427, ' Printed for John F rith, 16 82 '. 
2. Wi ng M1 8 28 , 'for S.S., 16 81'. 
3 . Wing W1 702, I gnoramus Justices, by Edward Whit ake r, was 
prin te d for Ab. Green, 16 81. Green h a d been one of Smith' s 
appr entic es . The Second Part of the I gnoramu s Jus tic es , 
Wi ng W1705 , appeared in 1 682 with E . Smith ' s imprint. 
4. Wi ng S5891, ' Print ed for R. Ha rbottle, 1 681 '. 
5. Wing Ll 707, ' for Williarn __ Inghall', a false' imprint. 
6. Wing N9 , ' for W. I nghal l ' , a fal se i mrp int. 
11 
;1 
11 
284 
Samuel Me a rne led the examina tion for the St a tioners 
by asking J aneway who h a d printed the six pamphlets. He 
answered tha t he did not know because they h a d been brought 
to him re a dy for s a le. Mearne then inquired about his 
receip t book, which Janewa y p romised to bring to the next 
court. Questioned about which p ersons h a d pledged 'to 
save him harmlesse', he n amed a fell ow bookbinder Edward 
P owell, who then appeared to face Mearne's interrogation. 1 
P owell, who h a d been a member of the London jury which had 
returned the i gnoramus on Stephen Colleg e ' s indictment, 
was not a s coo perative as J aneway. He denied making the 
'harmless ' pledg e for A Letter ... About Abhorrers and he 
refused to say ' any more ma teriall to the matter' except 
that he had been engaged by a Welshman whose name he could 
not recollect. Two days later Janeway appeared again 
before the Court with his receipt book and signed his 
t · t· 2 p e 1 lone In return for his testimony Janeway seems to 
have been excused from his fine. For the g overnment and 
the St a tioners' Company, it was s ufficient tha t he h a d 
ce a sed public a tion of his newspap er and divulg ed information 
v a luable for prosecution of others persons involved in the 
writing and distribution of seditious libels. 
1. St a te Co. Court Records, Liber E, entry for 2 October 
1682. E. Howe, A List of London Bookbinders, p . 78. 
2. State Co. Court Records, Liber E, 4 October 1682. The 
ramif ic a tions of J aneway' s peti tion were discus sed a t meeting s 
of the Master and Wardens with leg al couns el on 5 and 6 
October; Warden's Accounts, 1682-3. 
I ' 
285 
Tory victories in the London shrieva l election 
during the summer of 16 82 provided new opportunities 
for succes s ful p rosecution . Whig i gnoramus juries 
h a d fru s tra ted s everal indictments, including those 
agains t J aneway in the London Sessions in Februa ry and 
May 1682 . There were no London Sessions of the Peace 
in November, but in December a dozen indic t ments for 
seditious libel and printing without authority were 
p re s ented to the new Tory jury. Each was returned 'billa 
vera '. In anticipation of this chang e in juries, the 
g overnmen t moved to end public a tion of a ll news pap ers 
e xce pt the London Ga zette. l Ca ses were p re pared a g ainst 
five perio dic a l s. All five ce a sed public a tion exce pt 
Th e We ekly Pac quet, and a ll ex cep t The True Protest ant 
Me rcury ( a seditious libel ) were cited for public a tion 
without legal authority. Nathaniel Thompson wa s not 
p rosecuted, but he wa s forced to susp end public a tion 
of The Loy a l Protest ant. J ane Curtis, a st a lwart 
of oppo s ition publishing , received much the l a r g e s t 
fine. I n ea ch informa tion Robert Ste phens was 
the principal witness. The results of the 
1 . The g overnment silenced Benj amin Cl ay p oole, a 
news l e tter writer and coff ee- hous e k eeper, by forcing 
him into a r e cognizanc e for g ood behaviour for 'inhabiteing 
tog ether as man & wife' with Anne Ha r d i ng , ' a n idle 
lewd woeman ' . Lon don Se s s ions file for Octobe r 1682 , 
rec ognizance s. He appeared before the Court on 18 Oc t ober. 
286 
p rosecutions, with title of the periodical and the is sue 
cited, were as follows: l 
The Domestick Intell i gence, 2 October 1682 
Witnesses: Robert Stephens and Jo anna Jackson 
Defendant: Thomas Benskins 
Indictment : pr i nting without authority and exp osing 
for sale a report on Lord Berkeley ' s d a ughter 
BILLA VERA: On 15 J anuary 1683, Benskins pleaded 
guilty and was fined 40s. 
The True Prote s t ant Me rcury, 4 Oc tobe r 1682 
Witne sses: Robert Stephens and Ali c e Grover 
Defendants: David Mallet t and J ane Curtis2 
Indictment: seditiously and mal iciously printing 
and publishing a scandalous report about severity 
against nonconformists in Scotland. 
BILLA VERA: There is no record of p roceedings against 
Ma11ett, the printer. J ane Curti s p l eaded guilty 
on 11 December and was fined b20; a bond for g ood 
behaviour was required before her rele ase . 3 
The Conventicle Courant, 16 October 1682 
Witnesses: Robert Stephens , Robert Heyhurst, and 
Jo anna J aclcson ~efendants: Gabriel Shadd and John Shadd4 
Indictment: writ i ng , printing, and selling thi s 
issue without legal authority 
BILLA VERA: Both p leaded not guilty on 22 January 
1683, but after a jury trial they were fOl,md 
guilty on 21 February. Each was fined 6s. 8d. 
1. The indictments are found in the London Sessions file 
for December 1682. 
2. J ane Curtis, with her printer Thomas Snowden, had been 
indicted a t the Micha elmas session of the King ' s Bench for 
#149 of The True Protestant Mercury. Langley Curtis had 
left London to prevent p rosecution of his bail. The last 
issue (#188 ) of their newspaper appeared on 25 October 1682, 
before J ane Curtis ' s appearance at the King ' s Bench on 27 
October. Af t er a week in p rison she was released on bail. 
N. Thompson, The Loyal Protestant #226, 228, & 230 , 28 October, 
2 and 7 Novembe r 1682. G. Croom, The Loyal London Mercury 
#20 & 21, 1 and 4 November 1682. 
3. She was released from her bond on 15 J anuary 1683. C.S.P.D. 
Oct 16 83 t o Apr 1684, p . 214 , re port by Stephens mi sdated 1684. 
4. Both Shadds were described as yeomen in the indictment, 
a lthough John Shadd had been admit t ed to t he freedom of the 
Stationers ' Company on 3 May 1680. McKenz ie, p. 29 ( # 750 ) . 
287 
The Weekly pacguet of Advice frQm Rome, 'The Courant', 
20 October 16 2 
Witnesses: Robert Stephens, Jo anna Jackson, and 
Robert Roberts 
Defendant: Henry Care 
Indictment: writing and causing to be printed 
without authority this issue 
BILLA VERA: There is no record of further proceeding s. 
The Loyal London Mercury, 28 October 1682 
Witnesses: Robert Stephens and Jo anna J a ckson 
Defendant: Georg e Croom 
Indictment: printing without authority and offering 
for sale this issue 
BILLA VERA: On December 11 he p leaded guilty and 
was fined 3s. 4d. 
The i ndictments against newspap er publishers a t the 
December Sessions were supplemented by several informations 
brought against Whig authors and publishers. In these 
l a tter c a ses, the witnesses were the Whig stationers 
thems elves. Fo r the first time during the Exclusion Crisis 
"-
the a lli ance of coo p eration and evasive testimony crumbled 
under the we i ght of thre a tened prosecution. Stationers 
who h a d boldly prin t ed a nd published for the oppo s ition 
consented to t estify against their employers in order to 
avoid indictment and punishment for their om~ a ctivities. 
The end of the i gnoramus juries after the election of the 
Tory sheriffs mad e ple a b a r gaining p ossible. In return 
for information and testimony, the g overnment dropped 
p rosecutions and waived penalties agains t now coo p era tive 
opposition stationers. Held to his submission, Richard 
J aneway was p roduced as a witne ss , with Robert Everingham 
( anothe r s t a tioner) and Robert Stephens, against Radnor 
... 
288 
Ha rbottle on an indictment for writing and publishing 
Strang e News from Hicks' s-Hall, in which he obj ect ed to 
an order kee ping Dissenters off Middlesex juries. Janeway 
h a d named Ha rbottle ( whose name had been in the i mprint 
as re quired) a t his a ppearance before the Stationers' 
Court on 2 Oc tober. At tha t time he a lso implica ted 
Thomas Braddyll and Edward Powell in the public ation of 
A Letter ... About Abhorrers; they now avoided prosecution 
by st anding as witnesses against Thomas String er, Shaf t esbury's 
a ide, for writing A Se cond Letter from a Pe rson of Quality 
to his fri end about Abhorrers and Addressors. l Richard 
Baldwi n h ad f a ced nearly as much pressure as Janeway to 
ce ase his publi shing a ctivities. When he commenced a 
n ewspape r, The Protest ant Courant, in April 16 82 , Samuel 
Mearne put in execution the judg ement for the tlO fine 
2 for resistIng the search of his shop t he previous November. 
Fo r false re ports in his newspaper he had been committed 
to King ' s Bench prison on 16 May after a vig orous a ttack 
on his cha racter by Jef f reys i n a speech to the Court. 3 
1. Wing S2283 , 'for John Frith, 1682' ( again a false i mprint). 
Ap~arently P owell made an affidavit, which Mearne and the 
Warden delivered to Whitehall on 9 and 10 November 1682; 
Warden's Accounts for 1682-3 . Stringer could be indicted 
as the author even if he only brought the manuscript to 
the press. 
2. R. Baldwin, The Protest ant Courant #3 , 1 May 16 82 . 
Warden's Accounts for 1 681-2 , receipts. 
3. T. Vile, The London Mercury # 1 3, 1 8 May 1682; N. Thompson, 
The Loya l Pro test ant #158, 23 May 1682; C.S.P.D. 1682, 
~ . 209. 
289 
The following month L'Estrang e noted tha t he h a d 'Dropt off,.l 
No w Baldwin appeared as a g overnment witness, with 
another Whig statione~Robert Roberts, agains t Robert 
Ferguson ( 'the Plotter' ) on an indictment for writing 
and publishing a seditious libel, The Addresses importing 
importing an Abhorrence of An Association ... laid open and 
Detected, which defended Shaftesbury and charg ed the Tories 
with making the King, ' who ought to reign in the hearts 
2 
of a ll his pe ople', the he ad of their party only. Likewise, 
the printer Freeman Collins joined Robert Stephens in 
bring ing an indictment agains t John St arkey for planning 
the re printing of Ni cholas Bacon's ~he Continuation of 
the Historicall and Politicall Discourse of the Laws of 
England. Collins h a d first provided his information in 
June, and now the g overnment used h i m to punish Starkey's 
opp osition p ro paganda. 3 
All four of these indictments were returned ' billa 
vera'. Harbottle pleaded guilty on 21 February 1683 and 
was fined 120; the other three removed their cases to the 
King 's Bench by writs of certiorari.4 More import ant than 
1. L'Estrang e, The Observator, I, 156, 17 June 1682. 
Baldwin made his submission to the King ' s Bench in a n attempt 
to have h i s bail discharged; N. Thompson, The Loyal Protestant 
# 1 69 , 17 June 1682; G. Croom, The Loyal London Mercury #2, 
17 June 16 82 . 
2. Wing A569, for ' R. Baldwin, 1682'. L ' Estrange felt 
Baldwin g ot off too lightly; 'he should ei ther have delivered 
u p some persons more considerable than himself or not have 
been in a condition a t this day to do more mischief'. 
C.S.P.D. 1683 , p . 12, letter to Sec. Jenkins , 15 J anuary 1683. 
3. C.S.P.D. 1682, p . 236 . The matter was discussed by the 
Privy Council on 10 June; N. Thomp son, The Loyal Protest ant 
# 167, 13 June 1682. Starkey h a d ' absconded' in June 1682· 
Luttrell, Brief Relation, I, 193. 
4. London Sessions file for December 1682 for a ll four 
, I 
I 
290 
the punishments in these cases was the fact that the 
g overnment again controlled the courts and could enforce 
its policies through legal a ction. Few a dditiona l 
indictments for seditious libel were needed during the 
reign of Charles 11, and these tended to be for Dissenting 
tracts or mildly salacious pamphlets. But when indictments 
were required, as against F r ancis Smith's son and daughter, 
they were p ossible. The p olicy of allowing only authorized 
prin ted news was a chi eved, except for the te~porary and 
quickly crushed return by Nathaniel Thomps on . The Whig 
stationers were left deeply splintered and suspicious of 
each other, now tha t the protective bonds between author 
and publisher and bet we en publisher and printer had been 
broken. The opposition press was not completely silenced, 
but only small and weak voic es rema ined. 
indictments. Hart,Index, pp . 256-9. Hart notes tha t 
Starkey was outl awe d on this indictment, though he received 
a r everse in judg ement after a writ of error during the 
first year of the reig n of Willi am and NIary. 
11 ! 
291 
Chapter Seven 
Attempts to Persevere 
292 
The surprising f a ct about opp osition publishing 
after the collap se of the Whig s is not that few tracts 
were published . but tha t a ny a pp eared a t all. Through 
a combina tion of enforced by-l a ws, intensive p ro p a g anda , 
a nd tory-dominated juries, the g overnment put enormous 
p ressure on opposition stationers to desist. Those 
stationers who had published p rimarily for profit by 
capit a lizing on the market created by the Exclusion Crisis 
soon faded a way, leaving only dedicated a nd committed 
Whig s to continue publishing. Informants abounded. Many 
stationers, such a s those who were nominated by the King 
to the Court of Assistants in 1681 and 1684, were keen to 
advance their c a reers by a iding g overnment investig ations 
of the opposition p ress. Whi g publishers h a d to take 
c a reful prec autions in all their p lans for fear of discovery 
and p ossible prosecution. They a ssumed again the chara cteris-
tics of a n underg round press -- shared printing, false 
imprints, a nd distribution by ticket. Wives played a 
cruci a l a nd increasingly public role by p roviding continuity 
of tra de during the detention or absence of their husbands 
and by taking bold risks themselves in publishing prop aganda . 
More tha n ever, opposition stationers de p ended on 
e a ch other, their f amilies, their journeymen emp loyees, 
293 
and their apprentices for loyalty. A conspira cy of silence 
during an investigation was difficult to command, but it 
was the tested means of p reventing a discovery. Once the 
Tory jury h a d been ins talled for the London sessions in 
December 1682 the g overnment was virtually assured of a 
successful p rosecution. It was tha t assurance, coupled 
with and i n part c a used by the collapse of the Whigs as 
a party, which demoralized opposition s t a tioners and 
made it increas ingly hazardous for them to publish 
agai nst the g overnment. 
Some idea of the measures t aken by opposition 
stationers to pe rsevere despite the effectiveness of 
the g overnment prog r amme to control the press c an be 
gained by an examination of the experience of Francis 
Smith's f amily. Evidence, by the very nature of their 
cl andestine a ctiviti es , i s scarce, but g limpses come from 
information gathered by the p rosecution for their tri als. 
F orced by the St a tioners' Company by-law to use i mprint s , 
the Smiths resorted on occ as ion to u s ing the name of a 
former appr entice or even false i mprint s . To publish 
without an i mprint was to a ttract a ttention to a tract; 
to publi sh with the name Smith in the i mprin t was to invite 
investigation because of their notorious re putation. But 
a remarkable number of pol itica l bro ads ides and pamphlets, 
particula rly during the contested shrieval election i n 
1682, bear the imprint of ' E. Smith'. In his absenc e , 
Francis Smith's wife and daughter assumed a g reater 
public responsibility for his trade, while his son, 
Francis Smith 11, worked in the backg round to arrange 
det a ils of printing and distribution. l The Smiths 
294 
continued to serve the declining Whig cause long er than 
most stationers, but in the end g overnment prosecution 
sapped their endurance. 
Before Francis Smith went into exile in November 
1681, he sold his shop and warehouse for b125 to evade 
distraint up on his g oods 'which would, by common Retail, 
2 h ave yielded many Hundreds of Pounds'. His family was 
left in difficult straits by his decision to avoid justice. 
They would have been closely watched by the g overnment 
for clues to Smith's hiding p l a ce, and the normal conduct 
of his trade would have been disrupt ed by the sale of hi s 
shop and warehouse. No public a tions appeared under a 
Smith imprint until March 1682 ( Samuel Wilson's An Account 
of the Province of Carolina). In the intervening months, 
public ations sponsored by the Smiths seem to have been 
issued under the i mprint of Abraham Green. He had been 
1. It is p robable that his other son, Sllifiuel, also a ided 
the family efforts, but there is no evidence to support 
the supposition, exc~pt Richard J aneway's report to the 
St a tioners tha t he h ad sold Merlin Revived for him. Wi ng 
M1828. St a te Co. Court Records , Llber E, 2 October 1682. 
2 . 'The Cas e of Francis Smi th'. It i s l i kely tha t Smith 
sold his pro erty to a friend or sympathi zer who may have 
p ermitt ed use of the buildings . 
295 
appren tic e d to Franc i s "'mi th a n d h a d t ak en u p hi s fr ee d om 
in the Stationers' Company in 1678. 1 There exists no 
proof that the five tracts published in 1681 and 1682 
for 'Ab. Green' h a d been planned by the Smiths. But these 
five tra cts were the only ones which ever c a rried his 
imprint, and e a ch imprint l a cks the expected shop address, 
indic a ting that he had not established a trade independent 
of the Smiths. Three of the tracts were works of a uthors 
normally handled by the Smiths: one by Edmund Hickeringill 
and two by Edward Whitaker. The two Whitaker pamphlets, 
The I gnoramus Justices and An answer to the order of the 
Middlesex justices were precursors to The Second Part of 
the I gnorrunus Justices which appeared under the imprint 
of E . Smith in the spring of 1682. In his affidavit to 
the Court of Assistants in October 1682, Janeway reported 
that he had. soid Ignoramus Justices for Eleanor Smith. 2 
Furthermore, there is evidence that Abraham Green maintained 
his contacts with the Smiths. On 3 January 1683 he provided 
a ~20 surety for Francis Smith 11 on a recognizance to 
f a ce prosecution brought by Robert Stephens. 3 
Beginning in March 1682 Smith publications again 
1. McKenzie, Stat. Co. Apprentices, 1641-1700, p . 153 
(#4162). . 
2. Wing W1702, W1699, and W1705. Stat. Co. Records, Liber E , 
entry for 2 October 1682. 
3. London Sessions file for Janua ry 1682/3. 
F 
296 
c a rried the a ddress 'the Ele phant and Castle in Cornhill' 
( a bsent is the a dditional direction 'near the Roy a l 
Excahng e'). These books were p rinted for E. Smith, an 
initial which denoted either Francis Smith's wife or 
his daughter, both named Eleanor. Francis Smith II's 
only imprint in 1682 appeared on Edmund Hickeringill's 
The Mushroom, a re ply to Dryden' s The Medal:- The paucity 
of his imprints did not indicate that he was not involved 
in the publication of Whig prop a g anda. Instead, it is 
a s i gn of the extent to which Francis Smith 11 and his 
mother and si s ter exploited the leg al principle of cover-
ture ('the condition or position of a woman during her 
ma rried life, when she is by l aw under the authority and 
protection of her husband,).2 While Francis Smith 11 
work ed quietly in the b a ckg round, his mother and sister 
a ccepted public responsibility for public a tion and sale 
of their tra cts. In this way, they ho p ed to avoid 
prosecution by claiming tha t their culpability was limited 
by coverture. Eleanor Smith and Jane Curtis took consider-
a ble a dav ant age of coverture to publish with relative 
impunity during their husbands' prolong ed absences. If 
Lan g1ey Curtis were examined concerning a seditious tract 
emanating from his shop , he would say he had been put 
of town and knew nothing about it. The J a ne Curtis would 
pl a y the simple woman when questioned: manuscripts 
were brought to her, but she did not underst and their 
me a ning . Thi s rus e was f a irly common am ong opposition 
1. Wing H1820 . Francis Smith II also used the 'Cornhil1 
a ddress. 
2 . Oxf ord English Dictiona ry. 
III 
297 
stationers. J ames Astwood, when first asked about A Ra-ree 
Show, said he had been 'abroad' when his wife rec e ived the 
manuscript; Thomas Braddyll implicated his wife in the 
same manner during the investigation into The Second Part 
of the Growth of Popery. 
The manner in which the Smiths used coverture wa s 
exposed by Roger L'Estrange in his response to Reflections 
on the City-Charter, and Writ of Quo Warranto, 'Print ed 
for E . Smith'. Th e book was a dvertised in Curtis ' s True 
Protest ant Me rcury on 1 July 16 82 , and L ' Estrange unle ashed 
his first a ttack on this ' New Piece of Mrs Elephants' 
three days l a ter; ' it does so g ood as tell the King, if 
He me ddles with their Cha rter, they'l g o as near to make 
bold with his Crown ' . The next day he described in his 
Observator what was probably an a ctual encounter with 
Francis Smith 11; 'Now Young lVIr. Smith, ( If ye ask h i m 
for One of them ( though they lye upon the Stall ) His 
answe r i s [No. We h ave many Enemies, and I dare not 
me ddle with 'em; but when my Mother or my Sister comes, 
you may h ave as many as you will; for No body can touch 
them.]' l 
Nobody ever did ' touch' Mrs Smith, though her 
daughter did not fare as well. When s he and her daughter 
were indicted in December 1682 for publishing Edward 
1. Wing R704. L'Estrang e, The Observator, I, 164-5 , 4 and 
5 July 1682. 
r 298 
~hit aker's The Second Part of t he I gnoramus Justices, it 
was under the leg al fiction that she was 'Elinora Smith, 
Sp inster, ( ali a s wife of Francis Smith formerly of London, 
st a tioner) '. Though the bill was found, no proc ee dings 
were t aken agai n st her -- probably bec aus e s he proved tha t s he 
was still under the protection of h e r husband. Her da u ghter 
entered into a recognizanc e on 11 December for a ppearance 
the n ex t term, a n d on 15 Janua ry she pleaded not guilty. 
After a jury tri a l on 1 6 April, she was judg ed guilty, 
fined hlO, and required to put u p a bond for g ood behaviour . 1 
In the deb a tes over the p rocedure for electing 
sheriffs , vvhich split the Stationers ' Company and the 
p opul a ce of London during the s ummer of 1682, the Smiths 
vig orously supported the Whig c andida tes, Thomas Papillon 
and John Dubois, and excori a ted the t a ctics of the Tory 
Lord Mayor, Sir John Moore. Si x tra cts and broads i d es 
a-pp e a red und er the imprint of E. Smith, four of which 
rep roduced the texts of pape r s and petitions urg ing 
a c knowl edgement of the t wo Whig s a s sheriffs . In a ddition, 
the Smiths appar ently a do pted the spurious i mprint of 'J. 
John son ' (o r, in one inst ance, 'John Johns on ') to issue 
several more discussions of the constitutiona l principles 
involved in the Common Ha ll election of sheriffs. Nine 
1. London Sessions f il e for December 1682 and J anua ry 
16 82/3. Eleano r Smith 11 was a l s o des i gnated a 'sp inster'. 
C.S. P .D. 16 8 3, p . 178. 
F 299 
-public a tions in 1682 c a rry the J. John,son imprint, six 
of which concern the shrieval election. Each of the 
six election tra cts takes a strong Whig position and none 
incorp ora tes a shop address in the imprint. l Francis 
Smith 11 was directly implic a ted in the publication of 
two of the six tra cts, and 'John Johnson' was never 
examined during an investigation. The Matters of Fact 
I n the Present Election of Sheriffs, •.. And the Misc a rri ages 
of my Lord Mayor ... briefly declared was linked to the 
Smiths by an informant soon after its public a tion, and 
Robert Stephens indic a ted in a re port to Se cret ary 
Jenkins in April 16 83 tha t he h a d ~ evidence tha t Francis 
Smith 11 h ad publ ished it. 2 Also, Francis Smith 11 
was tried and fined for another 'Johnson' bro ads ide, 
A True Account of the Irregular Proceedings At Guild-hall, 
About the Swearing the Two Pretended Sheriffs ••• 
3 September 28. 1682. Smith's indictment was presented 
at the London Sessions in December 1682 before the new 
1. There was a John Jo'hnson wh o h ad received his freedom 
i n 1680 after an apprenticeship to William Godbid, but 
it is unlikely that he would publish intensively for a 
few months and then drop off entirely. Even if he was 
involved, it was prob ably a t the request of the Smiths. 
McKenzie, State Co. Apprentices, 1641-1700, p. 64 (# 1712). 
2. Wing M1304. C.S.P.D. 1682, p. 357; C.S.P.D. 1683, p . 
178. 
3. Wi ng T2377. 
300 
Tory jury. The report in A True Account tha t t he Lo rd 
Mayor h a d a dmin i s tered th e sheriff's oa th to North and 
Rich r a ther than to the ' duly elec ted Sheriffs' constitut ed 
t he ' fal se and s c andal ous lib el'. Smith ple aded no t 
guilty, but on 16 April 1683 he was found guilty of 
publishing A True Account, fi ned blO, and ordered to 
find s uretie s for g ood behaviour. l 
Robert Stephens, the principl e witness agai ns t Smith 
for the g overnment , included Judith Jones i n the prosecut ion 
f or A True Account. Jones was a hawker who served Richard's 
Coffe e-house a t Temple Bar and l a t er the Amst erdam Coffee-
house. She was commonly known as a ' f oe of R . Ste phens '. 
Stephens i nitiate d an a ction agai ns t he r in July 1681 fo r 
selling Robert Fe r g uso n ' s pcllnphlet re ply to the King ' s 
declaration af t er the Oxford Parli ament. She had prot est ed 
i neffec tually with a s t anda rd Whig a r g ument, 'If it we r e 
a Pop i sh thing the Ki ng and Council would have t aken no 
no tic e of it,. 2 A ye ar l a ter Jones was committed t o 
Mar s h a lse a Prison for debts tot alling b4 lOse In order 
to keep her from 't elling what s he knew ', J ane Curtis 
gaine d her release by paying her debt -- a go od example 
of a s t a tioner protecting her own interes t by me eting the 
fi nancia l and legal needs of her h awker , a woman who mi ght 
1. London Sessions file for December 1682, notations on 
the indictment. C.S.P.D. Oct 1683 to Agr 1684, p. 214, 
a ccount by Robert Stephens , misdate d 16 4 i n C.S. P .D. 
2. N. Thompson , The Loyal Protes t ant #37, 12 July 1681. 
11 
f 
l 
301 
h ave been tempted to se cure her rel.e a se by informing 
against J ane Curtis. l On 15 J anuary 1683 Jones pleaded 
guilty to the i n dictment for sell ing A True Ac count and 
2 
was fined 13s. 4d. 
The relatively mild fines i mposed on Fr-811.cis Smith 11 
and his sister Eleanor in April did not end their troub les. 
On the same day tha t they were sentenced, they were 
re quired to g i ve b a il to answer an indictment for 
publishing The Second Part of the Gro wth of Popery. At 
the next sessions i n May an indictmen t was presented to 
the jury charg i ng th em with seditiously printing and 
publi shing this sc andalous libel. 3 Involved and 
c a reful l)lanning went into the clandestine printing and 
distribution of this seque l to Marvell 's i~nensely 
influenti a l An Account of the Growth of Popery. Publica tion 
wa s a c autiously constructed house of c a rds; when one 
participant i n the scheme turned informant, the rest 
collapsed in disarray. The Second Part of the Growth 
of P opery was s h a red among several printing houses, and 
the pagi nation and signatures continued where those of 
Marvell' s Account left off four years before. Thomas 
1. N. Thompson , The Loya l Protest ant #188 , 2 August 1682. 
2. London Sessions file for December 16 82 . El i sabeth 
Downing , p resumably a mercury-woman , was the other witness 
against Smit h and Jones . 
3. London Sessions file for May 1683; the i n dictment is 
s~arized and the offend ing passage quoted by Bowler , 
London Sessions Records, p . 364n. 
302 
Bra ddyll a dmitted tha t he printed three sheets, and 
L'Estra n g e believed that at least four other printing 
houses were involved, including Astwood's.l The published 
re sult betra yed the work of its various printers. Spaces 
between lines of typ e were compressed or expanded at the 
e n d of the severa l sheets, indicating multiple composition. 
Surprisingly for this method of printing , correct 
pagina tion and signa tures were ma intained. The practice 
of sha red printing was commonly utilized in the printing 
of a lma n a cs and c a techisms, and it served the opposition 
st a tioners well in their effort to cover their tracks. 
The manuscrip t sections from which the printer composed 
typ e were p resumably untitled, permitting printers to 
a r g ue tha t they were unawa re of the contents and intent 
of the whole public a tion. The Second Part of the Growth 
of Po p ery provided a decidedly Whig interpretation of 
events in England from 1677 to the election of London 
sheriffs in 1682. It was intended primarily to strengthen 
the resolve of Whig s who remained faithful to Exclusion 
politics. It wa s not sold openly, and distribution ln the 
counties be g an severa l weeks before it was supplied to selected 
1. C.S.P.D. 1683, pp . 277, 299. L'Estra n g e, The Observator, 
I, 355, 12 June 1683. Astwood testified at the trial of 
John Culliford, who wa s indicted a s the author. 
303 
pe rsons i n London. If the publishers were to be di sc overed, 
they wished at le a st to prevent confiscation of the majority 
of copies. Even L'Estrang e, who pounced on new parnphlets 
in order to insert replies in his Observa tor, did not 
locate a co py u ntil the beginning of December 1682, two 
weelcs af ter distribution by ticket h ad begun in London. l 
An i nformant, vvho had infiltrate d lVIonmouth' s retinue, 
reported to Secret a ry Jenkins on 13 November tha t on that 
morning Francis Smi th 11 h a d presented a co py of The Second 
Part of the Growth of Po p ery to lVIonmouth and had left 
seals or tickets wi t h the Duke to g ive others in order 
tha t he ( Smith) could identify them when they c ame by his 
s ho p to collect their co p ie s . Smith a lso procured 
addresses of the Duke's s upporters in order to deliver 
a dditiona l co p ies. 2 
~ 
L'Estrange devoted sev eral issues of his Observator to 
answering The Seo ond Part, which he termed ' an Extract 
of Scandals , and Def81nations out of all the l a te Vomits 
of the Press; and Drawn into One Overg rown Libell,.3 He 
noted a number of scotticisms in the prose and. suspected 
Robert Ferguso n to be the author. Anthony Wood made the 
same a ttribution. But Ferg uson denied authorship in a 
1. L'Estrange , The Observator , I, 251, 1 December 1682; 
"tis a Hard Book to come a t'. 
2. C.S.P.D. 1682 , p . 537. 
3. L' Estrange , The Ob servator, I, 252 , 4 December 1682. 
Justice Warcup bel ieved tha t t he King and g overrunent were 
more vilified than i n 8,11 former libel s ; C.S. P .D. 1682, 
p . 60 7. 
11 
I 
III 
304 
letter to hi s wi f e d a t e d 1 9 December 1 682 , and a t th e end 
of hi s c a r eer ( when a J a cobite ) he f a il e d to include it 
i n a l i s t of hi s public a tions . Desp it e ext ens ive i nv esti-
gat ions and severa l i ndi ctments of othe r s , he was n eve r 
p re s en t ed to the grand jury f o r writing thi s tra ct. l Ins t ead , 
one-JohnCulliford , 'on ce a Tradesman in the Citty', was 
indict ed and fo und guilty of a rranging public a ti on of 
2 The Se con d Part of the Growth of P ope ry. The g overnme n t 
investigation int o th e p rinting and p ub l ish i ng of the 
seditious libel p r oceede d unde r the direction of Robert 
S te phens. Hi s discoveri es re s ulted i n the i ndictment 
agai ns t the Smiths i n May . Ste phens h a d numerou s cont a ct s 
i n the trade and was no t a bove e x cus i ng one i nfract i on i n 
orde r t o ext ract informati on from a s t a t ione r about a 
g r eat e r offenc e . Hi s me thods exp os ed him to crit ic i sm f or 
cOlfilJounding wi t h the oppo s ition , but he was c apable of 
deve lo p i ng s trong c ases . Against the Smiths he mar shalle d 
s i x witn e sses . The n umbe r and v a ri ety of the witness es 
r eflec t ed agai n the spl intering of t h e Whig publishing 
a l l i ance. Lead i ng t he li s t was Ri ch a r d Bal dvv i n , joined 
by Nat hani e l Crouch , Thomas Simonds, and Edward Be r ry; 
two appr entices were a l so ready to test ify , Jo seph Wat t s 
( Wi l li am Miller ' s alJprent i ce ) and Willi am Checkly ( appr enti ce 
1 . Woo d , At h enae Oxonienses , I V, 232 ; C. S . P . D. 1682 , p. 
582 . J. Ferguson , Fe r guson t h e Plott er , pp . 385-6. 
2 . Morr i ce , P , 3 70 . 
I I 
11 , 
305 
to the n ow outl awed J oh n St a r key).l 
Notwiths t a nding Stephens ' s succes s , Secret a ry Jenkins 
expand e d the scope of t he investigation a few days before 
the f ormal indictment of the Smiths. This s i gn a lled a 
new move against the p ress, as p art of wide-ranging efforts 
to identify and punish conspirator s involved in t he Ry e 
House Plot. Jenkins t urn ed to Henry Hil l s , then a Warden , 
and throug h him to the St a tioners ' Company to disc over 
the participants i n the s cheme to publish The Second Part. 
Hills went twice to Whitehall on 21 May and spent the 
s ucceeding d ays in ext e n sive searche s . On the 25th, he 
took the ' a uthor ' (J ohn Culliford ) before the Lord Mayor 
and Secret a ry Jenkin s, and the ne x t day he re turn ed to the 
Lord Mayor with Thomas Bra ddyll, who a dmit t ed prin ting part 
of the tract. Both Culliford and Braddyll , who h a d be en 
s ent to Newg ate a few days earlier, informed the Lord Mayor 
that Robert St ephens had himself been involved in printing 
The Second Part. Stephens entered into two l,40 recognizances 
to f a ce the i nformat ions, but he was l ater exon erated a nd 
discha r ged . 2 Other s t a tioners ,including Ro g er Norton ( who 
h a d b ec ome Master aft e r Mearne ' s de ath e a rlier in May ) , 
Capt. Baker , and Robert Scott, helped to conduct e xaminations 
1. McKenzie, Stat . Co. Apprentice s , 1641-1700 , pp . 113 
( #3056 ) a n d 158 (#4290). . 
2 . Warde n ' s AccoQn t s , 1 682-3, en trie s for 21 to 26 May 
1683. Luttrell, Brief Relation, I , 260. The two r e cogni-
z anc e s a re in the Lon don Sessions file for July 16 8 3. 
I I 
306 
of Br addyll and Lal1.g1 ey Curtis. By the end of May, t he 
St a tioners were able to pr esent Braddyll's and Curtis's 
sworn de p ositions to J enkins . Add itional entri es in the 
Warden 's a c c ount s indica te tha t Hills escorted Mrs Smith 
before the Attorney Genera l on 1 J une and returned to 
Wh itehall on 7 J une with Curtis. 1 
L ' Estra nge , meanwhil e , conducted his ovvn parallel 
i nvestigation . His primary source was Br addy11, whose 
n ormally belligerent demeanour was mo llified by a few 
2 days i n Newga te. He showed L 'Estra nge th e manuscrip t 
of the portion he print ed , whi ch he said he had rec e ived 
f rom Francis Smith 11 and which he believed to be in the 
h andwriting of Edward Whit aker . To excuse hi s partici-
pation , he cl a i me d tha t his wif e h ad printed the section 
for Smith in his absence. L ' Estrang e naturally conc luded 
tha t Smith s hould be clo sely e xamine d, and he cons idered 
Mr s Smith i another mai n wheel in the wo rk,.3 J enkins 
want ed facts , and he enc ouraged the overlapp i ng investi-
gations in order to a chieve hi s ends. But he mus t h a v e 
been patient to withst and L'Estrange's unsparing criticim 
of Hills and Ste phens. L ' Estrange became invo lved to 
regai n h i s pl a ce on th e commi ss i on of peace, and it 
1. Warden ' s Acc oun t s , 16 82-3, entries f or 29-31 May, 1 
and 7 June 16 83 . 
2. Braddyll ' was once a g ood F ri end to S i r Roger L ' Estrange , 
when matters lo oked a little dark u pon him ' ; Dunton , Life 
and Errors, ed. Nichol s , 1 81 8 , I, 251. 
3. C. S . P .D. 16 83 , pp . 26 1, 272, 273, 277, and 299; r eport s 
by L'Estrange to Jenk i ns . 
307 
suited his purp ose and temper~ent to s lash a t his opponents. 
He c a lled Hills a knave a nd insisted that Stephens had 
s ingled out Braddyll bec ause he h ad printed surre ptitiously 
1 titles in the Company's English Stock. He never missed 
an opportunity to po int out Ste phens's f a ilings ( 'I can 
hardly think of tha t villain and kee p within the compass 
of g ood manners'), and on this occasion he i nformed 
Jenkins that Braddyll h ad received advance warning from 
St ephens tha t he faced a bench warrant for his a rrest. 2 
For his service in this and other Rye House Plot inquiries, 
L'Estrange regained his place as J. P. early in July.3 
The intensity of these inve s tigations, combined with 
the political implications of the discovery of the Rye 
House conspiracy, shattered the pledges between partie s 
i nvolved i n the publication of The Second Part of the 
Growth of Popery not to divulge incriminat ing evidence. 
'H ave a g ood heart', wrote Francis Smith 11 to Jo hn Culliford 
late i n May , 'for when the business comes to a push, I'll 
do you no hurt,.4 But Cul1iford followed his foolish 
information agains t Robert Ste phens with one accusing Smith, 
which in turn released Smith to g ive testimony against him. 
1. C.S.P.D. 1683, p . 277. L'Estrang e, The Observator, I, 
355, 12 June 16 83. Braddyll h ad a lso angered the St a tioners 
in December 1681 by twice r efusing to pe r mit a search by 
the Master and Wardens, with Stephens, for s urre ptitious 
a ccounts of Shaftesbury' s trial -- a search undert aken by 
order of the P rivy Council; C.S.P.D. 1680-1, p . 62 7. 
2 . C.S.P.D. 1683, pp . 27 2 , 299 . 
3. Lut trell, Brief Relation , I, 265 . 
4. C.S.P.D. 1683 , p . 277. Des: ite Smith's pre c autions of 
forwa rding the letter vi a his brother Samuel , Francis 
Bampf ield ( a minister in Newgate ), a nd Jane Curtis, it was 
intercepted. 
I' 
I 
308 
Smith entered into a h200 recogni zance on 8 June to 
1 
answer Culliford ' s cha r ges . Three days l a t er hi s s i s t er 
put u p a s i mila r h200 bond to ap.$wer the i nd ictment 
2 presented i n May. About thi s time Smith began coo pe r a ting 
with t he i nvestigation , and soon Cull iford was again 
committed to pri son ' for c a rrying ' the libel to the press. 3 
Two men , one of them a gardener , a lso underwent s crutiny 
for having co p i es of the lib e l i n their p osses s ion. 4 But 
g overnment p ro se cution c oncentra ted on Culliford . He 
came before the Sess i ons f or Ga ol Delivery on 12 July to 
face cha r ges of seditiously wri ting and c a using t o be 
pri n te d both The Second Part of the Growth of Popery and 
The Second Part of the Ignoramus Jus tice s ( for which Eleanor 
Smith h ad been fined in April ) . The witnesses i n both 
CB,ses were the publisher ( F r anc i s Smith 11 ), t wo of the 
prin ters ( J ames Astwo od and Thomas Br addyll ), a n d Robert 
Stephens. Culliford pleaded not guilty, but a ft er tri a l s 
on 29 August , the jury returned guilty verdicts. He was 
1. London Sess ions file for July 1683; he appeared before 
the court i n J uly and was released from his b ond . The 
recogni zance i nd icates tha t he h a d left his mother and 
sister to move into his ovvn lodgi ng s i n Bell Alley, Co l eman 
St ree t. 
2 . London Ses s ions fi le f or J uly and August 1683 ; ' To 
answere an i ndictment found against her at the Se ss ions of 
Goale delivery for printing and publi shing sedi tious and 
treas onable books and pamphl ets' ( italics mine). She 
appeared befo r e the court in July and entered i n to a new 
recognizance of h 90 to app ear a t the next Sessions of Peace . 
Her b ond was continued i n August. 
3. Mo rrice , P , 370 , 1 9 June 16 83 . 
4. London Sessions file for J uly 16 83 . J ohn Hooker , the 
gardene r, and Ben j run i n Butler both entered i n to hlOO 
recogniz a n ce s; Butler was l a ter i ndic ted a t the Mi ddlesex 
Sessions. 
1\ 
309 
fined ±rlOO for each offence, sentenced to stand i n th e 
p illory in the Royal Exchange and i n Flee t St. near 
Chancery Lane, and committed in safe custody to Newgate 
prison un til those penalties were me t. To a ttain his 
rel:ease he was a lso required to find bail for ±r300 for 
1 g ood behaviour for two years. By contrast, Francis and 
Eleanor Smith were found no t guilty of publishing The 
Second Part of the Growth of P opery after tri a l before a 
2 jury on 18 December. 
The evidence presented against Culliford proved tha t 
he h a d brought severa l sheets to the press and h a d l a ter 
correct ed them. 3 He was not the author of The Second Part 
of the Growth of P~ery in the sense tha t he wro te the 
text , but he was the author in the legal sense tha t he 
had helpe d to a rrange public ation a nd di s tribution. He 
b e c am e the sc apegoat to pro tect the trades of Smith, Astwood , 
and Braddy11 . Under common l aw a pe rson found guilty of 
se ditious libe l effectively bore the entire responsibility 
for damages, because he h a d no right of redress from others 
involved . Only rarely was a s t a tioner penalized after 
p roducing the author or pe rson who brought the manuscript 
1. London Sessions f ile for July 1683; two indictments. 
Luttre11, Brief Relation, I, 276, The books were a ls6 
burned; C.S. P.D. Jul to SeD 1683, p. 374. 
2 . London Sessions file f or May 1683; annotation on 
indictment. Francis Smith was examined before Secret ary 
Jenk i ns on 7 and 8 Sept_ember; Warden' s Ac c ount s, 1683-4. 
3. C.S.P.D. Jul to Sep 1683, p . 352. 
310 
to the pres s ( excep tions are IVI ichael Sparke and Willi am 
Prynne, and Nathaniel Thomp son with Farwell and Pain) .l 
For this re ason, desp ite their apparent culpability, 
Francis and Eleanor Smith were judg ed not guilty in 
December. Compared to the severe p ena lties meted out to 
participants in the Rye House conspira cy, whose trials 
began the day he was indicted, Culliford's fine was 
reasonable. But hi s c ase took on a new dimensi on because, 
in the l anguage of the indictment, he was resp onsible for 
writing a libel firmly ass i gning a centra l and a ctive 
role i n th e Pop ish Plot to the Duke of York. On 11 
November 16 8 3 James brought an a ction of scandalum magna tum 
against Cull iford for ~100 , 000. Two we eks lat er the suit 
was tried before J udge Jeffreys and agai n Franc i s Smith 11 
gav e ev i den ce against Cull i ford . The on ly matter of 
di spute was the amount of damage s t o b e award e d J ame s . 
Culliford a r gue d tha t h e crune fr om the I s le of Purbeck 
and possessed only ' a very mean Es t a te', but J effrey s 
i ns tructed the jury tha t 'the qu a lity of the pe r s on 
Scandal ized was of the g re a test cons ider a tion in an Action 
of this k ind'. The jury returned with a v e rdict g ranting 
~100,000 damages. The a ction was the first of several 
suits brought by Ca tholic peers against printers and 
authors for publishing libels in Popish Plot narratives. 2 
1. Kitchin, L ' Estrange , pp . 101n and 339n. 
2. Luttrell, Brief Rela tion, I, 288; Morrice, P , 392, 394; 
C.S.P.D. Oct 1683 to Ap r 1684, p . 352. 
311 
The g overnment took adv ant age of the exposure of th e 
Rye House plot to bring a ctions agains t the fe w remaining 
agents of opposition pro paganda. The Lcrd Mayor moved 
agai ns t newsletters, which were still circul a t ed in 
l a rge numbers, by forbidding 'coffe e-houses and other 
places to ent e rtain them,.l Several stat i oners were 
c al led before the Privy Council e arly in July concern ing 
a se r mon about the plot, Truth Will Out. John Dunton, who 
h a d entered the co py in the St a tione rs' register, claimed 
tha t he h a d refused to join in and nrnned Georg e Larkin 
as the prin t er. 2 L ' Estrange plunged enthusiastically 
i nt o his resp onsibilities a s J. P . a nd sent regular reports 
to Secret a ry Jenkins. In them he implic a ted the Bapti s t 
p rinter John Da rby as one who was as much involved in the 
consp iracy as any one else. L'Estrange u sed words such 
as bold , cunning, dang erous, and desp r a te to describe 
Darby, whom Dunton l a ter nominated as one who was 'cool 
and t emperat e in a ll his passions ,.3 Darby ange re d the 
g overnment by printing and d istributing The Spe eCh Of the 
La te Lord Russell, To the Sheriff s: Tog ether with the Paper 
deliver'd by him to them, in which Russell vindicated his 
i nnocenc e of any treason in regard to the Rye House plot. 
1. Newsletter of Henry Muddiman , 14 June 1683, cited by 
J.G. Muddiman , The Ki ng ' s Journalist, p . 222. 
2. C.S.P.D. Jul to Sep 16 83 , pp. 72, 79; Ste phen Parks , 
John Dunton and the Engl ish Bo ok Trade, 1976, pp . 22-3, 223. 
3. C.S.P.D. 16 83 , pp. 336, 346-7; C.S. P . D. Jul to Sep 1683, 
p . 374. Dunton, Life and Errors , I, 247. 
312 
Darby fulfilled all the stipulations of the Stationers' 
by-la ws. He entered the broadside in the register on 21 
July 1683,. the day of Russell's execution; he put his 
imprint in the colo phon, 'London: Printed by John Darby, 
by Direction of the Lady Russel. 1683'; and he freely 
a dmitted when interrog ated before the Council that he 
had printed 20,000 copies of the broadside. l The Speech 
Of the Late Lord Russell was sold in the streets on the 
same day as the execution of Russell and sold 'prodigiously' 
in the ensuing weeks. 2 Darby's blithe acce ptance of 
resp onsibility for Russell's Speech and his willingness 
to admit that he had printed Samuel John!:3on"s JUli a n the 
Apostate exa s p erated the government but g ave them little 
to prosecute. Nontheless, he was indicted before the 
King 's Bench on 6 November for printing Russell's Speech. 
He ple a ded not guilty and faced trial on 20 November. The 
jury brought in a guilty verdict, but judgement was deferred 
until 1 February, when he was fined a mere twenty marks 
and bound to g ood behaviour for one year. The very small 
fine, which Da rby immediately paid, reflected the singular 
nature of his case. Luttrell, for one, noted that it was 
remarkable that Darby should be prosecuted at all; he had 
put his imprint on the broadside and had acknowledged it 
1. Wing R23 56. S .R., 111, 174. C.S.P.D. Jul to Se p 1683, 
p . 432. 
2. Luttrell, Brief Rel a tion, I, 271. 
313 
before the Council; no one had ever been indicted for 
printing the spee ches of ' p op ish traitors'; and the same 
papar wh;Lch he printed was l a ter printed by order of the 
Sheriffs of London. l 
La ng ley Curtis revived the issue of Russell's 
innocence i n October 16 83 with a curious pamphlet, The 
Ni ght-Walker of Bloomsbury, which related reports of 
1 Russell's ghost. In the imprint, Curtis used the name 
of another st a tioner, John Granthrun , who joined with 
Robert Stephens as witnesses at the presentation of Curti s 's 
indictment in the October Sessions. The indictmen t added 
to h is nwnerous legal problems. Curti s was questioned 
before the Council in Sept ember 16 83 ab out Samuel Johnson' s 
JUli an the Apostate, and on 15 October hi s wife was forced 
into a recogn i zance for prin ting re p ort s of the proceedings 
of the Newgat e Gaol Delivery, contra ry to a n order of the 
Sessions. This was a comm on Curtis infra ction, but in 
De cembe r s h e app e a red before the court and was discharg ed, 
2 p erhap s because of coverture. Curtis did not conf ine hi s 
op i n ions to his public a tions , and l a te in Se ptember his 
outsp oken comments against the Duke of York i nvolved him 
in a coffee-house brawl. Curtis cha r g ed hi s a tt a cker 
Edward Hemsley wi th a ssault a t the October Sess ions . 
L ' Estrang e took u p Hemsley's defence in the page s of hi s 
1. Wi ng l'T1154. 
2 . C. S . P .D. Jul to Sep 16~3 , p . 432 . Reco gni zanc e in the 
London Sessi ons file f or Oc t ob e r 16 8 3. 
314 
Observ a tor, but he was found guilty a nd fined 3s. 4d. on 
21 J anu a ry 1 684. 1 Curtis ple a ded not guilty to publishing 
The Ni ght-Walker of Bl oomsbury in December and offered bail. 
The court, ho wever, took notice of him 'for an Ol d Offender' 
and committed him to Newgate. On 16 J anu a ry 1684 he was 
p ermitted a writ of certiora ri to the Ki ng 's Bench , but 
thi s brought him little a dvant age . His c a se was he a rd 
b efore Judg e Jeffreys on 14 Febru a ry and he was judg ed 
guilty. He received hi s sent ence on 21 April. Like 
Francis Smith two months l a t er, Curtis vva s fined fr500, 
bound to g ood behaviour for lif e , and sentenced to s t and 
in the p illo ry in Bloomsbury market. The libel was also 
burnt. 2 
The g overnment fina lly c a ught Georg e Larkin a t fault 
in April 16 84 . He h a d been J aneway's p rinter for the 
Impartial Prote s t ant Me rcury and was closely a llied to the 
opposition publishers. On 4 April he entered in the 
St a tioners' reg ister a bro ads ide agai ns t the est ablished 
church, Sh all I, Shall 11 No, No , which included a se rie s 
of questions; ' Sh all I comply for pulpit Liberty and make 
1. Lon do n Sessions file f or Dctober 1683, Hemsl ey's recog-
nizance ; file for December 1683 , Curti s's information . 
agai ns t Hemsley. L' Estrange, The Observa tor, I, 418-9, 
10-11 Oc tober 16 8 3. 
2 . London Se ss ions f ile for December 1683 ; Luttre11, 
Bri ef Relation , I, 302, 306; Morrice, P , 432; London Gaze tt e 
# 1 904 , 18 Febru a ry 1683/4 and # 1 923 , 24 April 16 84; An 
Account of the Proceedin ~s of the Kin 's Commissione~ of 
the P e a ce •.• the 1 28 13, 14th. Days of December 1 3 , p . 4. 
Hart , I nd ex, pp . 2 2-3 . 
315 
God's truth beholding to my Lye, No'. Within the week 
he was indicted a t the London Sessions on an information -
brought by Robert Stephens and Thomas Pattendon, a journey-
man printer. La rkin h a d failed to add his name to his 
imprint, which ma y h ave a ttracted attention to the 
broadside, but it was the seditious nature of the questions 
which formed the basis for p ro se cution. Larkin's c as e 
was on ly one among several prosecutions of a uth ors and 
publishers for a r guing the Di ssenting relig ious position . 
He ple aded guilty and was fined ~20 and sentenced to stand 
i n the p illory a t the Exchange. Becau se h e could not pay 
h is fine, he was returned to Newgate in safe cus tody, where 
he remained for a t leas t a year.l Not unexpe ctedly his 
i mprisonment g re a tly hindered his trade, and authors 
feared to engage his printing house because he was 'Obnox ious 
2 to the Government'. 
Thus the g overnment not only had broken the alli ance 
between opposition stationers but h ad lef t them with 
few options for continuing their trade . Curtis, La rkin, 
and Smith were burdened with fine s they could no t pay; 
Da rby knew he had to be wary; Baldwin was under surveillance 
and J a neway ke p t a v ery low prof ile; Harris published a 
1. London Sess ions file for April 1684; S.R., Ill, 232. 
2. ' As to wh at is objecte d , Tha t Mr La rkin is Obnoxious 
to the Government, I think it will be very hard to find 
any man fit to publish thi s Book that is not or will no t 
be esteemed so , u p on his publishing s uch a Book, under the 
resent Complexion of the times '; letter of Enoch Prosser, 
a Baptist bookseller, to J ames Jones dated 10 Decembe r 1684 
(in tercepted by L' Estrange ). The Observator, 11, 198 , 10 
1684/5. 
316 
few books during 1683 and 16 84, mos t of which he carefully 
entered a t St a tioners' Ha ll, but he de pended more on 
establishing his victualling house. Nothing appeared 
after 1683 with a Smith imprint until James 11 relaxed 
his policy against Dissenters. Though opposition stationers 
had been silenced, they had not been pe rsuaded that t heir 
a ctivitie s had been wrong or their opinions incorrect. 
The potential of the English opposition press was still 
s trong , but it rema ined unexpressed until the explosion 
in party ~ropaganda after 1688. 
317 
Chapt er Eight 
Quiescence and Collab oration 
318 
When J ames 11 succeeded to the throne in February 
1685 the g overnment held a secure command over the press. 
The absence of a rush of pamphlets, as h a d occurred in 
1660, reflected the quiet stability of the tra n s fer of 
p ower. Opposition st a tioners were mute, and after the 
crushing defeat of Monmouth there was ' an universal damp 
u p on Trade ', which continued until 16 88. 1 During the l as t 
months of Charles II' s reign, day-to-day supervision of 
the press passed to t wo Tories with extravagant monarchist 
op inions, ~effreys and L'Estrange. They supported the 
increasing use of prerogative powers by James to regul a te 
the press. The influence of the Stationers' Company was 
eroded by this emphasis on p rerogative, even though the 
officers loyally observed roya l commands and the re-ena cted 
Printing Act. The King interfered several times in the 
interna l af f a irs of the Company, and by the advent of the 
Prince of Orange matters of g overnance in the Company were 
enormously confused. Encourag ed by the fresh political 
climate after 16 88 , the Whig s assumed control of the 
1. Dunton, Life and Errors , I, 79. 
319 
St a tioners' Company and individual stationers initiated 
a Whig publishing scheme unprecendenied since the 
Exclusion Crisis. Although the English press was quiescent 
during J "arnes 11' s reign, its potential power remained 
undimished. 
During the Exclusion Crisis, Secretary of State 
Jenkins h a d served a s the g overnment liaison with the 
Stationers' Company. He h a d issued orders to Stephens 
and to the Ma ster and Wardens to search for s pecific 
books or to conduct examinations and had been the one to 
whom the St a tioners rep orted. He had a lso help ed to 
p repare the g roundwork for the exemp l a ry submission in 
th t d " 1 e quo warran 0 procee 1ng s. Secretary Sunderland 
completed the project when Jenkins resigned his office in 
the middle of neg otiations for the new charter, but it wa s 
Sir Georg e Jeffreys who a ssumed Jenkins' mantle as the 
offici a l concerned with the daily overview of the press. 
In filling this role Jeffreys followed Scroggs's earlier 
example and drew up on his own experience in suppressing 
opposition st a tioners while Recorder of London. He 
h a d p resided over trials against many of them, and he 
wa s re a dy to s p e a k out for h a rsh pena lties against the 
most a ctive. 2 As Lord Chief Justice he delivered 
the ~500 judg ements against Langley Curtis and Francis Smith 
1. Dr. Wynne, Jenkins' secretary, received a five guinea 
payment f rom the St a tioners' Company for his help on the 
cha rter; Warden's Accounts, 16 83-4, entry for 10 July 1684. 
2. At Ba1 dwin's he a ring before the King 's Bench on 15 May 
16 82 for publishing his newspaper The Protestant Courant, 
J effr eys ac~uainted ~he Court with severa l other thing s 
concerning Mr. Baldwin' and a sked tha t 'he mi ght be made 
an Example'; T. Vile, The London Mercury # 13, 1 8 May 1682. 
320 
in April and June 1684. During tha t same pe riod he met 
with the Master and Wardens on several occasions to receive 
t b t . . 1 rep or s a ou selzures. Jeffreys owed his appointment 
a s Lord Chief Justice to Secretary Sunderl and , and it wa s 
2 
on his behalf tha t he, in effect, supervised the p ress. 
The resp onsibility ma tched hi s intere s ts and temperament, 
and he rema ined the Company's prima ry cont a ct with the 
g overnment until L'Estrang e's adv ancement in Decembe r 1684. 
To regain his position as Surveyor of the Press, 
whi ch he a chieved on 17 December 1684, L'Estra ng e conducted 
a c ampai gn to discredit Stephens. L'Estrang e a ccused him 
of g iving warning before searches, comp ounding with 
offending s t a tioners, and p l anni ng publications against 
The Observa tor. Opp os ition s t a tioners were quite willing 
to drive a wedge of mistrust between L'Estrang e and Stephens 
by re porting for the information of one the approaches of 
the other. 3 Ste phens a roused L'Estrange's unending wra th 
by p resenting Joanna Brome before the London Sessions i n 
April 16 8 3 for printing The Observa tor without a uthority.4 
At the same time he a lso p resented J ames Astwood for The 
1. Warden's Accounts, 1683-4 , entries for 28 April, 5, 7, 
11, & 19 May 1684; Court Records, Liber F, 10 June 1684. 
2. J. P . Keny on , Robe rt Spencer, Earl of Sunderland, p . 89 . 
3. F or example, Georg e La rkin told L'E s trange a bout promptings 
from St ephens to publish a reply to The Observator; C. S . P .D. 
1683, pp . 301-2. 
4. L'Estrange, The Ob servator, I, 323 , 325, & 328; 20 , 23 , 
& 27 April 1683. 
321 
Weekly Pacguet of Advice. Both pleaded not guilty; Astwood's 
p le a was s ust a i ned by the jury a nd Mrs Brome removed her 
c ase to the King 's Bench by a writ of certiorari. One of 
the witnesses agai ns t Mrs Brome was L'Estrange 's 
friend Randal Taylor, the be a dle of the Stationers ' Company. 
His p resence i n dic a t ed Company ap~roval of the prosecution , 
which Stephens instituted in order to comply with g overrunent 
, l ' d' 1 1 direc tlves to suppress a 1 news p erlo lca s. Astwood was 
presented again in July (with Brigitta Care, Henry Care's 
wife), and this time he ple a ded guilty and was fined b3. 
2 Public a tion of The Weekly Pac quet ce ased . Mrs Brome was 
not presen ted again, but L ' Estrange t remained upset that 
Stephens h a d entered an informa tion against his periodic a l 
i n the first ~l ace. He insi s ted that it was not a news paper 
and cited as a licence hi s patent of August 1663 (long 
forgotten by al l except him). Meanwhile Stephens was a lso 
losing Nathaniel Thompson' s support. In 1681 Thompson 
p r a ised him for his successful searches and prosecutions, 
but i n March 1 68 3 he referred to him as 'one Stephens' who 
h a d accused him (correctly ) before the Privy Council of 
starting up his news paper again. 3 In 1685, after Stephens 
h ad brought a suc c essful prosecution agains t him in November 
1. London Se ss ions file for April 1683. 
2. No a ction was t aken against Brigitt a Care . The last 
issue (V, 47) app e a red on 13 July 1683. Londo n Sessions 
file for July 1 683 . 
3. N. Thorn s on , The Loyal Protestant #3 7, 12 July; #43 , 
2 August 1 681; #2 46, 17 March 16 82/3. 
322 
1684, Thomp son described him a s 'Robin Ho g , the Eng ineer 
of the F a ction, and the Assist ant Swearing-Master to the 
Gre a t Beuk-b l awer Titus,.l Informers cannot exp ect univer-
s a l p opularity, and Ste phen s was cert a inly no exception. 
He received the support of L ' Estrang e ( though a lways 
g rudg ing ) and Thomp son until he trespassed on their 
p reserves. Personal differences entered into the rivalry, 
and the venom felt by L'Estrang e for Stephens wa s returned. 
Since Stephens initiated the indictments against the 
le a ding opposition stationers, it is hardly likely that 
he enjoyed their support. Disliked by a ll with whom he 
cro s sed s words , he nonetheles_s continued to receive the 
b a ck ing of the St a tioners' Company and the g overrunent 
desp ite compl a ints. He p etitioned for a sala ry from the 
St a tioners in recognition of his services in preventing 
p ira ciesup on the English Stock and was g ranted a. g r a tuity 
of 140 in June 1684. 2 
Motivated by the prospect of g overnment employment, 
L'Estra n g e a tt a cked Stephens a gain in October 1684. He 
cha r g ed him with e x cusing offences and encouraging pamphlet 
re plies agains t himself; 'he is a Betrayer of his Trust; 
And a F a lsifyer in his Majesties Service'. His bitterness 
wa s exp ressed most explicitly in his recollection that 
Stephens h a d p resented charg es against him to the Lords 
1 . N.T., A Collection of 86 Loya l P oems , 1 6 85 , pref a c e . 
2 . St a t. Co. Court Records, Liber F, 16 and 2 5 June 16 84. 
323 
Committee in October 1680. 1 L'Estrang e c a rried the day 
on thi s occ as ion, and $tephens was g radually eased out of 
his position as Messenger of the Presso His l as t payment 
from the g overnment 'secret service' fund c ame on 29 
October, and soon after the successful prosecution of 
Thomps on l a te in November he was relieved of his duties. 
Ste phens received hi s final reimbursement for expenses 
from the Stationers ' Company on 22 December, but a lready 
L ' Estrang e h a d t aken over as Surveyor of the Press and 
2 Thomas Saywell had been appointed the new Messenger. 
L ' Estrang e's first responsibility a s Surveyor was to 
meet with the Stationers to consider again methods to 
suppress the ce ase lessly vexa tious trade in libel s . 3 He 
drafted a p etition for the Stationers to send to the King , 
which was approved in committee (with only the a ddition 
Of two words in the margin ) and sanctioned by the full 
Court of Assistants on 30 December 1684. The petition, 
which urge d the King to reins t a te a system of licensing 
public a tions and to reduce the number of printing p re sses 
and dealers in books, was referred to L'E s trange by the 
King. Thus L'Estrange drafted the petition, arranged for it s 
1. L ' Estrange, The Observa tor, 11, 1 44, 4 October 1684; 
11, 170, 20 November 1684. 
2. Warden's Accounts, 1684-5, entries for 26 November and 
17 & 22 December 16 84. J.Y. Ackerman, Moneys Received and 
Paid for Secret Services, p . 92. Stephens petitioned the 
Privy Council for payment of his salary on 5 December; 
P .C. 2 , 70 ( 271 ) . Luttr ell, Brief Relation, I, 323. 
3. C.S. P .D. May 16 84 to F eb 16 85 , pp. 256, 257; Sunderl and 's 
warrant to L' Estra n g e and his letter to the St a tioners' 
Company , both dated 17 December 1684. 
324 
approva l by the Stationers, and then received a royal order 
to consider its implic a tions. l The implications were not 
very g reat. Licensing had been a keystone of the 1662 
Act, but it made little difference to the suppression of 
libels. The p enalties for publishing without a licence 
were insignificant compared to prosecution for libel or 
even infring ement of imprint by-laws. Licensing served 
to protect the timorous stationer from resp onsibility for 
the content of his publication by transferring it to the 
licenser. It was a tedious and cumbersome process to 
p rocure a licence, and the whole system was discarded after 
1695. Reducing the number of de a lers in books had long 
been one of L'Estrang e's aims. During the spring the 
Stationers drew u p lists of book-dealers to f acilitate 
their transfer to the freedom of the Stationers' Company. 
They could then be reg ul a ted by Company by-laws. But 
even this prog r amm e 'bogged down over the issue of which 
company would pay the costs of transl a tion. Book-dealers 
were found among the Leathersellers, Barbers, Cutlers, 
Surg eons, and of cour se the Habe rdashers, but the Stationers 
refused to pay the 28s ~ 10d.in fees :required in each instance 
to the City of London, Town Clerk, and City officers. The 
p roject continued to be discussed for months without being 
1. State Co. Court Records, Liber F, 20, 27, and 30 December 
1684; 28 J anu a ry 1684/5. C.S.P.D. May 1684 to Feb 1685 , 
p . 275. 
325 
resolved. 1 
J ames 11 confirmed L'Estrang e i n a ll his responsi-
bilities and expressed a pprov al of his work by conferring 
a knighthood on him in April 1685. 2 The following month 
he ordered him to c arry out his s uggestions and plan for 
establishing licensing by proclamation. The King was 
explicit in his interpretation of his powe r s. He considered 
command of the press to be a ' prerogative inseparable from 
th e sovereignty of his imp erial croM~,.3 Though the 1662 
Printing Act was revived by Parliament in June for seven 
years ( and from thence to the end of the next session of 
Parliament ), con trol of the press during James II's reign 
was usually expressed in terms of his prerogative. Special 
licences and rights to copy were granted, and trades of 
Catholics were adv anced through the use of prerog ative. 
The chief sufferer was the Stationers ' Company itself. 
Soon af t er L ' Estrang e became Surveyor of the Press 
in December 1684, he was faced with an imp ortant investi-
g a t ion concerning distribution of t wo libels on the death 
of the Ea rl of Esse x . Both a r gued that Essex had been 
murdered in the Tower and that tales of his suicide had 
been fabric a te d by the g overnment. The longer of th e t wo, 
An Enquiry into, and Detection of the Barbarous Murther Of 
1. St a te Co. Court Records , Liber F, 17 Februa ry 1684/5 
a nd 6, 21, & 22 May 1685. C.S.P.D. Feb to Dec 1685, p . 142. 
2. Kitchin, L'Estra ng e, p . 361. 
3. C.S.P.D. Feb to Dec 1685, p . 158 (ll694). 
326 
the Late Earl of Essex , was p rinted in Holland and shipped 
from there for distribution in England. It was written 
1 by Robert Ferguson. The shorter one, a single folio sheet 
printed on one side only, was an abstract of Ferguson's 
tra ct and was printed in London. Its title, Murder will 
2 Out, evoked similar pmnphlets from the Interregnum. 
L'Estrange was well primed for the investigation because 
he h ad been busy discovering persons respons ible for The 
Observator Prov'd a Trimmer, distributed e.arlier in 
December. He cons idered the appearance of an effective 
a tt ack on him with the dispersal of libels against the 
g overrunent no coincidence. Indeed it proved a consp ira cy. 3 
He resp onded with appropriate vig our and pe rsuaded the 
g overnment to do likewise. An exceptionally thorough 
inve stigation was launched. The Stationers met with 
Jeffreys twice on 24 December and a t his command employed 
' Messengers and others' to search a ll suspicious places 
and persons. The search continued during the af ternoon 
and evening of Christmas day, and next day the Master, 
Wardens, Treasurer, Messenger, and the bookseller Robert 
Clavell (serving as const able) were again busy.4 L'Estrange 
h a d a thorough rep ort ready for Secretary Sunderland by 
1. Wing F737; J ames Ferguson, Fe r guson, pp. 385-6. 
2. Wing M309l. 
3. L'Estrange, The Observat or, 11, 179-80, 196; 6 & 8 
December 1684 and 7 J anua ry 1684/5. 
4. Warden's Accounts, 1684-5, entries for 24, 25, 26 & 29 
December 1684. 
327 
the New Year. Col onel Henry Danvers, whose Treatise of 
Baptism Francis Smith published in 1673, was identified 
a s the compiler of the abstra ct Murder will Out from the 
printer's copy of the manuscript. The printer ( never 
named) and two women who had brought the co py to him a lso 
admi tted tha t Danvers h a d p l anned the distribution of the 
broadside. It had been 'scattered about the streets' and 
handed in a t doors. Sunderland ordered L'Estrang e to 
continue his investigation and to proceed against those 
committed. l A blOO reward was announced in the London 
Gazette for the discovery of Danvers, who had fled a t the 
2 firs t sign of a search , and now faced a charge of treason. 
Another search for Murder will Out was conducted by the 
St a tioners on the morning of 2 J anuary , and two days l a ter 
the be a dle went to Devonshire House wi th a Messenge r to 
look for Danvers. 3 
Among the many pape rs confisc a ted during the inve s ti-
gat ion were three letters which help t o illus trate how 
books printed in Holland were imported to England. Holland 
had long p rovided an alternat ive for those who were 
1. C.S. P .D. May 16 8 4 to Feb 1685, p. 271. R. Yard to E. 
Poley , 2 J anu a ry 1684/5, Poley Papers , Osbo rn Collection, 
Yale Univ. Libra ry. L'Estrange , The Observator, 11, 196, 
7 J anuary 1684/5. . 
2. London Gazette #1996 , 5 J anuary 1684/5. 
3. Warden's Ac coun ts, 1684/5, entrie s for 2 J anu ary and 
10 March 1684/5 . Danvers faced an a lmost conviction and 
execution if he had been caught. As Richard Yard wrote to 
Edmund Poley, 'if he be t aken (he] 'Nil1 passe his time 
but ill ' ; l et t er of 5 J anuary 16 84/5, Poley Papers. 
328 
unwelcome in England but who still wished to influence 
op inion there. The early sectarian relig ious g roups had 
set u p presses in Holland when printing in England was 
imp r a ctic ab le before 1640. L'Estrange h ad long been 
alerted to the possibilities of importation of books from 
.); -" 
Holland, and in his Considera tions and Propos a ls In Order 
to the Re gul a tion of the Press in 1663 he urg ed the 
implementation of penalties against importers, dispersers, 
and English printers working overseas. It was always 
more convenient and cheaper for the English opposition to 
print and publish in London, but in times of close super-
vision of the press recourse to Holland was possible. 
Holland was also the base for Dutch propaganda concerning 
English policy, especially during the Anglo-Dutch wars and 
the two years before the Revolution of 1688. There was 
little need during the Exclusion Crisis for printing in 
Holland, bec ause the press wa s relatively unrestrained in 
London. But the successful p rosecution of opposition 
stationers and the failure of the Rye House plot meant 
L d 1 f 1 f - t- 1 on on wa s no onge r a sa e pace - or prln lng. Exiles 
in Rotterdam and Amsterdam could have served as proof-re ade rs, 
1. Among the g rievances listed by the 129 stationers who 
signed a petition to the Stationers' Court in August 1684 
was the practice of ' p rivate printing and importing 
impressions of Bookes not only injurious to Propriety but 
notoriously Obnoxious both to Church & State'; Court Records, 
Liber F, 4 August 1684. 
329 
and it is likely tha t some English stationers supplemented 
the Dutch printers. The Eng lish g overnment kept a distant 
watch on the more suspicious of the Dutch printers whose 
p roducts showed u p in Engl and. Secretary Jenkins wrote 
to Henry Sidney in 1680 to a sk him to do what he could to 
s top 'Schwartz the Ph anatique Printer' from p ira ting the 
works of Dr Hammond, which were the co py of Richard Royston, 
the King 's bookseller. l During the furor over the Essex 
libels, Thomas Chudleigh, the English envoy at the Hague, 
was instructed from Whitehall to insist tha t all printers 
a nd booksellers there be summoned for examination. The 
States Genera l coop erated, but the printer resp onsible 
was not identified. 2 
Difficulties of imp ortation and distribution were 
ma jor hindrances to reliance on pro paganda p roduced in 
Holland. The Stationers were often called upon to search 
the Customs House in London, and other ports of entry could 
be watched. Letters seized during the Ess e x libels investi-
gation , three of which were printed by L'Estrang e, indicate 
tha t the importers relied on methods long used by other 
imp orters and London booksellers who wished to send opposi-
tion tra cts to the counties. The books were sent in small 
parcels with covering letters employing a simple code for 
1. B.M. Add. Mss . 32,681 ( 54 ) ; letter of 31 August 1680. 
2. C.S. P .D. May 1684 to Feb 1 685 , pp . 302- 3. 
330 
deltvery. In one of the letters printed by L'Estrange, 
'razor' was the code word for books. Mr. Norden, mentioned 
in the letter, was a Baptist shipmaster responsible for 
delivery of the tracts; Henry Loades, to whom the parcels 
were addressed, was not part of the distribution ring. 
If the parcels escap ed seizure, then Norden could distribute 
the tracts; if they were confiscated, the innocent Henry 
Loades would s houlder the blmne. The intercepted letters 
were in the handwriting of John Wilmore who had been 
foreman of the London g r and jury which had returned an 
i gnoramus verdict on Colleg e's first indictment. The 
blanks in the letter were a do pted by L'Estrang e to protect 
those who h ad been n amed. However, one can be sure that 
everyone mentioned was closely examined: 
20 Araster. the 30 of 8 ber. 1684 
Sr, I have by Mr Norden sent you, made up in 
Brown Paper, and Directed to Mr Henry Loades Merchants 
in London, with XX:X:X under the said Directions, 
Four of the Best New-fashioned Protestant Razors; 
whereof 2 of them a re for Your self, one of them 
for ---- And the 4th you must g ive to some Honest 
F ellow tha t will make Good use of it. Pray g ive it 
to ---- Enclosed is 2 Letters, One to ---- and One 
to ---- who have also Two Parcells of the Same 
Commodity sent them. P r a y favour me that the Two 
Letters be sent by an Honest Hand, and they will 
c all u p on the Master for the Goods. So not else, 
but Wishing the Commoditys safe to your Hands, and 
tha t you make the Most of them, I rest your Friend 
and Servant, 
IGNORAMUS. l 
1. L'Estrang e, The Obse rva tor, 11, 203, 1 9 J anuary 1684/5 . 
331 
Letters as crude as this a ided d istribution of the 
Essex libels. Another letter used 'scissor~ to represent 
books. Dispersal i n this manner was surprisingly effective. 
J-l'Estrange admitted tha t he intercepted only three or four 
parcels, each with only a few books in them. Presumably 
several hundred and p rob ably over a thous and co p ies re a ched 
their recipients safely. Later in the reign the Dutch 
were able to smuggle in many thousands of their pamphlets. 
Examples were made of tho se who were discovered. Norden 
the shipmaster p leaded guilty on 23 January before Jeffreys 
of transporting some of the tracts, and in July he was 
fined 200 marks, pilloried at Ratcliffe, and bound to good 
behaviour for seven years. Mary Holmes, one of the agents 
in Engl and , was fined t 100 and also bound to g ood behaviour 
1 for seven years. After examination before L'Estrange, one 
Mr Burmuden was charged with receiving co p ies of the libel 
from Danvers. He denied the charg e and apparently refused 
to coo pe r a te with the investiga tion. Required to provide 
tlOOO bail, he appeared before the King's Bench on 23 
Janua ry to face indictment. Several other suspects also 
h ad their appearances recorded, but none was tried. 2 A 
bundle of prunphlets, including two of the Essex libels, 
was found during a ·search a t the house of one Cap t a in 
1. Morrice, P , 453; Luttrell, Brief Relation, I, 352. 
C • S • P • D. M ay 16 84 t 0 F e b 16 85, pp. 2 6 8 , 297. 
2. Morrice, P , 452, 453, 466. 
'I 
332 
Thimbleton, a Baptist preacher. He was tried and convicted 
for having the books in his custody. In June 1686 he was 
fi n e I,100 and p illoried three times. Morrice noted that 
while Thimbleton was in the p illory 'the p eo ple were no t 
only not abusive, but very civill to him , .l The printer 
of Danvers' Murder will Out seems to have escaped prose-
cution by identifying him as the author. Danvers was 
never c aptured. 
Imp ort a tion and distribution of books from Holl and 
p osed many difficulties. Nonetheless it is surprising 
tha t an impression of Monmouth's Declaration for his 
2 inva sion was printed ne a r London. Presumably the plotters 
c a lcul a ted tha t immediate and thorough dispersal outweighed 
the da n g ers of discovery. London had to be p ersuaded to 
support the rebellion if it wa s to succeed. Papers were 
~ 
'thrown u p and down', but the quick identification and 
exp editious tri a l of Monmouth's printer, Willialll Disney, 
served a s a s a lutary warning to inhabit ants of London. 
Disney wa s the son of one Colonel Di sney who h a d fought 
with royalist troop s during the civil wa r. He was not a 
freeman of the St ationers' Company. On 15 June 1685, just 
four days after Monmouth landed at Lyme, fifty soldiers 
surrotmded Disney's house near Lambeth. Acting on the 
1. Luttrell, Brief Relation, I, 381; C.S.P.D. J a n 1686 to 
May 16 8 7, pp . 174, 183, & 190 ( # 69 2 , 721, & 744). Morrice, 
P, 561. 
2 . Wing Tl'I 242 9 . 
333 
information of one Mr Babington who had seen Disney's press, 
the Mess eng er Thomas Atterbury c a ught him in the act of 
printing a further manifesto by Monmouth, consisting of 
1 t we lve or t wenty sheets. The Stationers removed Disney's 
pre ss to their Hall on 18 June and l a ter p resented Atter-
bury with a bound l a r ge paper co py of Keble's Statutes to 
reward hi s efforts. 2 Reports circul a ted that two other 
printers h a d been a rrested in London, but Disney was the 
only one who suffered. He was a rra i gne d on a cha r ge of 
h i gh treas on on 22 June for printing Monmouth's Decl a r a tion . 
His tri a l took p l a ce three days l a ter in Southwark before 
Judge Jeffreys a t a s p ecial commission of oyer and terminer, 
and he was f ound guilty. On 29 June he was e x ecuted a t 
Kenni ngton Common i n Surrey, and his qu a rters were fixed 
on the City gat es . 3 This was the first execution of a 
p rinter since John Twyn 's tre as on verd ict in 1664, and it 
was prob ably the f irs t judicia l execution after Monmouth's 
i nv as ion. Monmouth was defeated a t Sedgemoor on 5 July 
and was himself beheaded on 15 July.4 The failure of the 
rising no t only c aused a s lump in the b ook tra de but led 
to a temp orary exile of several stationers, who lik e 
1. Morric e , P , 468 ,472; Luttrell, Brief Rela tion, I, 348. 
2. Warden's Accounts, 16 84-5 , entries for 18 June and 8 
July 1685. 
3. Morrice, P , 470-2 ; Luttrell, Brief Relation, I, 350; 
London Gazette #2046 , 29 June 1685 . 
4. Luttrell n ot ed tha t n o 'las t spee ches ' of those executed 
for Monmouth' s i nv asion were printe d , ' as was usua l formerly'; 
Brief Relation, I, 363-4. 
III 
334 
Dunton's apprentice Samuel Palmer 'ha d been dabbling in 
Monmouth's a dventure'. Dunton himself chose this moment 
to carry a venture of books to New England. At Gravesend 
he met Thomas Malthus, a bookseller, who was retreating 
to Holland. La ter in James II's reign, when travelling 
on the continent, he saw John Starkey, outlawed since 
1683, and Benjamin Alsop, who h ad joined Monmouth's army.l 
The discovery of Disney's printing press expedited 
the passage of the 1662 Printing Act throu~h Parliament 
by 24 June 1685. 2 It was at this time that a list of 
p rinters, with addresses of their p rinting houses and 
number of p resses, was p repared by the Stationers. 3 The 
document is undated, but it was almost cert ainly drawn 
u p to encourag e Parliament to revive the Printing Act and 
to initiate a p rog ramme to reduce th e number of p rinters 
as stipul a ted in the Act. 4 This survey proves that over 
fifty printing houses were operating in London at the 
beg inning of J ames II's reign. By contrast, only thirty-
three houses (t en of which were supernumerary by the 
1662 Act) had been i n business in 1675. 5 Thus there had 
1. Dunton, Life and Errors, I, 86 , 130, 147-8, 212, 214. 
Parks, Dunton, pp. 24-5, 32. 
2. The Lords voted to have Monmouth ' s De c laration burnt 
a t the Royal Exchange on the same afternoon that Disney 
was a rrested, nine days before the renewed Printing Act 
was passed; L.J., XIV, 41. 
3. This s urvey is among documents in the ' searching ' file 
a t Stationers' Hall. 
4. The Stationers set u p a cOl11IDi ttee to lobby for reviving 
the Printing Act on 22 May; Court Records, Liber F. 
5. s. P. 29, 36 9 ( 97 ) . A s u,!rv e y t ak e n in 16 6 8 i s al so 
among the State Papers; S.P. 29, 243 (126 ). 
335 
been at least a fifty per cent increase in the number of 
ma ster printers. The most probable explanation of this 
g rowth is the l ap se of the Printing Act in 1679 and the 
demand for p rinted p ro p ag anda during the Exclusion Crisis. 
If the g overnment ho p ed to crush the opposition book trade, 
they had to do more than silence them. They needed to 
diminish the publishing strength latent in the number of 
p resses belong ing to opposition printers, but there is 
no indication tha t this was accomplished during the reig n 
of J ames 11. The revived Printing Act stipulated a maximlw 
of twenty-three printing houses, but few measures were 
taken a g ainst sup ernumerary presses. In July 1684 the 
Stationers formed a committee to investig ate John Harfinch, 
Georg e Croom, and John Bringhurst, printers who were not 
freemen of the Company. When the survey of printing houses 
wa s compiled in 1685, Ha rfinch still printed in Montag u 
Court in Little Britain; Bringhurst, a Quaker printer, had 
' g on' fro m his establishment in Leadenhall; and Croom 
op era ted two presses in Thomas Streeet. Croom, who issued 
The Loya l London Mercury in 1682, eventually transferred 
his freedom to the St a tioners from the Leathersellers in 
April 16 88 . He and Harfinch rema ined in business throughout 
J ames II's reign. In February 1687 the St a tioners' Court 
determined tha t David Mallett, Thomas Milbourne, and Mrs 
Pl a yford were sup ernumera ry printers and ordered them to 
g ive u p their tra de. Mrs. Pla yford, who wa s p robably 
336 
recently widowed, seems to have submitted. David Mallett 
told the Court he would not cease printing , and he and 
Milbourne con tinued to work their presses despite the 
order. l 
The core of the opposition printers, Astwood, Braddyll, 
Da rby, and La rkin, opera ted between them twelve presses in 
16 85 . All had been employed by Francis Smith during the 
Exclusion Crisis. Thomas Braddyll r a n five p resses, a 
n umber surpas sed by no printer and matched only by the 
long-est ablished houses of Thomas Newcomb in the Savoy, 
and Willi am Rawlins a nd Samuel Roycroft in St. Bartholomew 
Close. John Darby, Braddyll's neighbor in St. Bartholomew 
Close, worked three presses . James Astwood owned two presses 
in St. Christopher's Alley off Threadneedle Street, as 
did Georg e La rkin who left his house a t the Tower end of 
Bre a d Street after his rele ase from Newgate in 1685 to 
t ake u p the shop v a c a ted by Job and John Howe in Bishops-
gate. I n addition , Robert Roberts, Thomas Snowden, and 
Thomas Dawkes p rinted for the Whigs , re s ulting in a tot a l 
of t wenty opposition presses. This figure could perhaps 
be i n creas ed by including the houses of Georg e Croom, the 
t wo Howes, and the Qu ake rs Andrew Sowle and John Bringhurst. 
All of the se printe~s e xperienced constrictions of their 
trade during J ames II's reign , but everyone except Bringhurst 
1. The Pl ayford press does no t appear i n the 1685 survey. 
Mallett ope r a ted t wo p ress es and lVI ilbourne three. 
337 
continued to print until a t least 16 89 . The failure of 
L'Estrange and the Stationers' Company to enforce the 
terms of the the revived Printing Act against supernumerary 
p resses help ed to account in larg e part for the ready 
capacity of the trade to meet the demand for p rinted 
propaganda after 16 88 . 
One p rinter who did not survive the Revolution but 
who did very well during J ames 's reign was Henry Hills. 
Throughout his long career he carefully a llied himself 
with the prevailing politica l power. As one contemporary 
observed, Hill s 'ra n through more Opinions than ever the 
Wandering Jew is said to have done Countries,.l Before 
the Restoration he was an a ctive memb e r of lfl illiam Kiffin's 
Particular Baptist congre g ation; after 1661 he shunned the 
Bapt ists to become an Ang lican; and in 16 86 he convinced 
Jame s 11 tha t he h a d converted to Ca tholicism. Hills h ad 
a c anny c apacity to ingratiate himself with those in a 
p osition to disp ense favours. He became a freem a n of the 
St a tioners ' Company i n 1 651 by redemption after a forceful 
recommendation from Lieutenant General F leetwood. 2 He 
prin ted ab out thirty books for the Baptist s before 1662 
and was s ucces s ively a Printer to the Ar my , Printer to 
1. The Life of H.H., 1688 ( Wing L2029A), p . 54. 
2. St a t. Co. Court Records, Liber C, entries for 4, 6, & 
22 August 1651. 
338 
the Council of State, and Printer to the Committee of 
Safety ( October 165 9 ). After the Restoration Hills had no 
inclinat ion to cha lleng e the new government, and he so on 
received official printing contracts as an assignee of 
Christo pher Barker Ill, who held the paten t as King ' s 
Pri n ter with Ma jor John Bill. In 1677 Hills was himself 
sworn a Ki ng ' s Printer, and during the last years of the 
1 
reign he served a s a Warden of the St a tioners' Company. 
Henry Hills converted to Roman Catholicism in part 
to avoid payment of b4000 damage s to the Earl of Peterborough 
on an a ction of scandalum magn a t um . Hills h a d been act ive 
i n 1679 i n printing v arious P op ish Plot narratives and 
tri a l ac coun t s i n ass ocia tion with a number of Presbyterian 
booksellers. Hills and Thoma s Newcomb, as King 's Printers, 
p rinted the firs t sixteen iss ues of Votes of the House of 
Commons U!ider licence from Willi am Williams, Speaker of 
the House. Following the example of J ames "s suit against 
John Culliford, Lord Pe terborough brought several actions 
agai nst printers whose P op i sh Plo t public a t ions reflected 
on his cha racter. Agai nst the bookseller Samuel Heyrick 
he received b5000 damages in April 16 85 . 2 He also appears 
to have received awards from four other printers. From 
1. A.F. Johnson , 'The King ' s Printers, 1660-1742', The 
Libra ry, 5s. , III (1949 ), pp . 33-4 . Robert L. Ha i g:-'New 
Li ght on the Ki ng ' s Printing Off ice, 16 80-1730', Studies 
in Bibliog r aphy, VIII (195 6), pp . 157-6 7. 
2 . Luttrell, Brief Rel a tion, I, 338 . 
II1 
339 
all except Hills he made 'a very easy composition'; from 
Hills he demanded full payment. He had no doubt been 
influenced by L'Estrange's fulminations against Hills and 
by re po rts tha t Hills had permitted many opposition pamph-
let s to be entered a t St a tioners' Hall while he was Under 
Warden. Hills had a card u p his sleeve, ho wever. Some 
ye a rs e a rlier he had married a foreign Catholic, with 
whom he h ad two children who were r aised as Catholics. 
(Hi s eldest son, Henry Hills, junior, was a child of an 
earlier marriage). He went to James's confessor, F r 
Mansuete, and admitted that he had long inclined towa rd 
Catholicism. Mansuete removed his rema ining scruples, 
absolved him, and se rved him a t Mass. After some time, 
Hills discussed with Mansuete _ the financial difficulties 
he faced on a ccount of Pe terborough's refusal to ac ce p t 
less than the full award. Later when Hills was c a lled 
before the Council to explain his delinquency, Jeffreys 
took the lead i n c a lling him as much a rogue as any who 
lived. Hearing the se t aunt s, the King whispered in 
Jeffreys ' ear tha t it was his information tha t he was ' a 
very honest man'. Taking the hin t, Jeffreys quickly 
calmed down. Later the King i mpressed upon Peterborough 
the adv antages of waiving his demands for compensation. 
Hills eventu a lly paid only legal fees. l 
1. Morrice, P , 520-2. 
340 
J ames 11 recognized in Hills a printer who could 
serve hi s g r and desig n of reconverting Eng l and . By a 
warrant of 22 J anu a ry 16 86 , he n amed Hills his ' Printer 
to His Maj esty' s Household a nd Chapel'. Hills was g iven 
the right to print Roman Ca tholic service books and 
devotional works and to sell them publicly. l When the 
St a tioners seized an impression of one of the devotional 
pamphlets in F ebrua ry, Sunderland ins tructed the Wardens 
to return them to Hills. 2 On 3 March the King expanded 
Hills ' s ~atent by pe r mitting him to print and sell Ca tholic 
mi ssals, brevi a ries, manu a ls, c a techisms, and lives of the 
sai n t s . 3 These books, pamphlets, and bro ads ides were 
published i n l a r g e numbe rs and we re intended not only for 
the u se of convinced Ca tholics but as part of a programme 
to cre a te a climate of op en discussion about the merits 
of Ca tholicism. Much of thi s literature was i mmed i a tely 
answered by Ang licans, and an e x tensive debate ensued . 
But ev en thi s debate serve d to exp ose greater numbers to 
Catholic tenets. 4 Hills was al lowed to p roduce impress ions 
of u p to 5000 cop ies in one ye a r for each work. This was 
1. C.S . P.D . J an 16 86 to Ma;y: , p . 13 (#58 ) • 
2. Ibid. , p . 36 (# 149 ) • 
3. Ibid. , ~. 54 (1/221 ) . 
4. Jones, The Revolution of 16 88 , p . 88 . 
I I I 
341 
a t least double the size of a normal impression. The 
capacity of the Catholic press was expanded after Obadiah 
Walker, Master of University College , Oxford, received a 
roya l licence on 1 May to print or reprint up to 20,000 
per year of specified boOks. l Matthew Turner, who had 
spent much of the Exclusion Crisis in prison for selling 
p op ish books, petitioned on 14 June 1686 for the right to 
sell Catholic books. In August 1687 he was granted the 
right to print and sell co p ies of about two dozen Catholic 
works. His impressions were limited to 4000. 2 The 
contrast between the King's subvention of Catholic printers 
and his willingness to burn the French and English editions 
of An Account of the Pe rsecution of the Protestants in 
France a t the re quest of the French Ambassador was not lost 
on contemporaries. The order for the arrest of Jose ph 
Reyner, the transla tor of An Account, was issued in Council 
on 12 May 1686, a week after the books had been burnt a t 
the Royal Exchange. Reyner was arrested the next day and 
tri ed before the King 's Bench on 5 June. He submitted that 
he had no t thought it a crime in a Pro test ant kingdom to 
publi s h a boole on behalf of suffering Christians, but he 
. was found guilty. Later he apologized to Barillon, the 
French Ambassador , who magnaminously judged tha t Louis XIV 
1. C.S. P .D. J an 1686 to May 1687, p. 119 (#492 ). 
2. Ib id., p. 2 36 ( # 89 3); C. S . P . D. J un 16 87 t 0 F e b 16 89, p. 60 
(#295 ) . 
I 
I 
342 
h a d received public satisfaction from the information 
h aving been p resented. Accordingly, the English judges 
1 fined him only one mark. 
Thus far the King h a d not impiDged excessively_ on 
the p reserves of the St a tioners' Company. Mona rchs h a d 
reserve d the right to appoint particula r stationers to 
offices in the roya l household, and occasionally they h ad 
g r anted licences which superseded the co py reg ister at 
Stationers' Hall. The St a tioners were willing, unlike 
John Evelyn, to s to p seizing Ca tholic books, though the 
printing and sale of them went against the sense of 'divers 
Acts of Parliament,. 2 But in October 1686 James issued 
two orders which st abbed a t the he art of the Company's 
c a refully guarded Eng lish Stock and tra de in almanacs. In 
the f irst order, Hills was g iven p ermission to print a 
Catholick Almanack; in the second John Gadbury received 
the sole right to print a nd publish his a lmanacs. Both 
orders specifically excluded the Stationers from interference. 3 
The following year J ames i mplemented his new p olicy 
of i ndulg en ce to Dissenters. His purp ose was to unite 
politically the Roman Catholics and Dissenters against 
the Anglic ans. Eventua lly he planned to c a ll a new Parli ament 
1. C.S.P.D. J an 16 86 to May 16 87, p . 130 (#533). Luttrell, 
Brief Relation, I, 376. Morrice, P , 535, 537, 539 , 542. 
2. E . S. deBeer, ed., The Diary of John Evelyn, p . 8 42. 
3. C.S . P .D. J an 1686 to May 1687, pp . 290 ( # 1084) and 291 
(# 1095 ). 
I ' 
343 
to remove the penal l aws and repe a l the Test Acts. 
Dissenters were divided in their response to the Decl a r a tion 
of Indulg ence, which was issued on 4 April 1687. Some 
were willing to risk the disfavour of the King to avoid 
approb a tion of r epeal of the Test Acts against Catholics. 
Others, exhausted from five years of prose cution, thankfully 
embra ced the indulg ence. l The p olicy was enforced not 
only a t court and in parli amentary corp orations, but in 
London livery comDanies. James was willing to sacrifice 
the c a reful cultiva tion of loya l companies for the further-
ing of his g oa ls. In October 16 8 7 he commenced a series 
of purg es which turned the Anglic a n world of the Stationers' 
Company u ps ide down. Those who had submitted without 
p rotest to the guo warranto a ction of 1684 were put out 
and replaced by their opponents. Ironically, the King 
based his purg e on the p owers of t he 1684 cha rter, which 
gave him the right to manipulate the composition of the 
Court of Ass ist ants. On 4 October the Lord Mayor, a cting 
on orders from the King , removed the Master, Wardens, and 
fourteen Tory Anglican ass istants from office. One week 
l a ter the Lord Mayor restored the five assistants who h ad 
lost their places in 16 84 and directed tha t new officers 
be elected. F ifty-four s t a tioners we r e removed from the 
livery. Among them we re Roger No rton (the deposed Master), 
Thomas Newcomb, and Jose ph Hindmarsh, who a ll held appo int-
1. Lacey, Di ss en t and Parli ament a ry P olitics, chapter i x . 
344 
ments under Charles 11. Even Robert Scott, who had been 
sworn the King's Stationer and Bookseller in place of 
Charles Mearne in Se~tember 1686, lost his position on the 
Court of Assist ants and in the livery. On 12 October 
Henry Hills was elected Master and Edward Brewster, one 
of the restored assistants, was chosen Upper Warden. 
Christopher Wilkinson, who survived the purge, became 
Under Warden. The next day thirteen new assistants were 
added to the eight who h a d been unaffected and five who 
had been restored. The new assistants represented a 
predominantly Dissenting background: Thomas Parkhurst, 
Henry Mortlock, and William Miller had been involved in 
the Whig petition in 1681, and Dorman Newman and Nathaniel 
Ponder were p rominent Presbyterian and Congregational 
booksellers. The new Court approved an address to the 
King on 17 October. It was the first and perhaps most 
effusively loyal address from a livery company printed in 
the London Ga zette. l 
The extent of the purge indicated that the King's 
a dvisers had drawn up lists of members of the livery 
companies a nd h a d judg ed the political and relig ious 
opinions of each one. Mistakes were made, but only 
slight alterations were necessary in March 1688 to improve 
the comp osition of the Court of Assistants. Seven 
assistants were deposed on 1 March, three of whom had g iven 
1. State Co. Court Records, Liber F, entries for 12, 13, 
& 17 OctOber 1687. London Gazette #2287, 20 October 1687. 
, . 
345 
u p their trade; Henry Mortlock and William Fisher lost 
their positions gained only the previous October. Benjamin 
Tooke, the Anglican publisher of Heraclitus Ridens, was 
restored to the Court of Ass istants, and he and two others 
were restored to the livery. However, another fifty-three 
livery men were displaced, among them Charles Brome, 
L'Estrange's publisher. l 
As part of his programme to use the press, which 
included manipulation of the g overnance of the Stationers' 
Company, J ames issued a proclamation for suppressing 
seditious and unlicensed books. Issued on 10 February 1688, 
the proclamation emphasized the provisions of the Printing 
Act and ordered the prosecution of al l unlawful hawkers 
a nd de a lers in book s . 2 J mnes also s u ppl emented the 
regulatory role played by Hills since his e lection as 
. Master by appointing him a justice of the peace. In 
addition, the young er Henry Hills was designated the 
Messenger of the Press ( re plac ing Saywell ) on 22 February. 
They encourag ed the printing of books and pamphlets which 
supported the King 's po licy of indulgence to Dissenters 
and repeal of the Test Acts. Those whose politic a l and 
religious viewpoints did not please the King found their 
trade pro s cribed. Ironically, those who h ad closely 
pol iced the opposition press in the p revious decade now 
suffered under this new supervision. As Roger Morrice 
1. St ate Co. Court Re cords, Liber F, entries for 1 and 5 
March 1687/8. 
2. London Gazette #2321 , 16 February 1687/8. 
\ 
346 
noted, the Tory Anglic a ns now conducted their tra de 'with 
the s a me difficulty tha t the Dissenting Protestants did 
under their Domina tion,.l Robert Cl avell was one stationer 
c au ght in the chang ing and conflicting loyalties. Well-
known for his term-c a t a logues of books, Cl avell was a 
Tory during the Exclusion Crisis. In Octobe r 1685 he 
served on the jury which found Henry Cornish guilty of 
high tre a son. But in 1688 he vvas presented for printing 
co p ies of F agel ' s Le tt er several week s a f t er the first 
distribution of that effective pamphlet in London. He 
re a dily submitted to the Court and received only a small 
fine, but he endured comments f rom Chief Justice Wright 
tha t he a nd others of his opinion were 'more ing enious ' 
tha n those who h a d stirred up the n a tion a de c ade earlier. 2 
Dissenting st a tioners were divided in . their resp onse 
to the Decl a r a tion of Indulg ence. Georg e Larkin embraced 
the roya l p olicy and actively printed in its beha lf. His 
fello w Baptist John Da rby r a rely p ut his n ame a t the 
bott om of a title page, but it would s eem indic a tive 
of his refusal to support the King tha t only one i mprint 
in 16 8 7 carried his n a me, and none in 16 88 . Richa rd J a newa y 
pu b lished nothing between 16 8 5 a nd 1687, but in 1688 he 
issued ten titles. Dorma n Newman a l s o worked for the 
1. Morrice, Q, 23 9 ( 3 ) . C.S.P.D. J une 1687 to Feb 1689 , 
p . 1 50 ( # 795). Henry Hills, junior was g r a nted a hlO 
sal a ry ; Court Rec ords, Liber F , 6 Augu s t 16 88 . 
2. Morrice, Q, 26 5 ; Luttrell, Brief Relatio~~ I, 440. 
347 
g ove r nment. At the center of g overnment- sponsored pro pa-
ganda directed to Di ssenters was Henry Care. He wrote a 
weekly newspap er, Publick Occurrences Truely St a ted, which 
appear ed 'with a llow.ance' for thirty-four issues from 
21 F ebrua ry 16 88 . Larkin, who h a d printed J aneway's 
I mparti a l Protestant Me rcury, now printed Care's newspaper 
a t the Two Swans without Bishopsgate. Care found himself 
in the unusua l position of commending the Stationers' 
Company for dilig ence in discovering vendors of unlicensed 
books . l Before hi s death on 8 August, Ca re wrote severa l 
pamphlet defences of g overnment policy. These were a dvertised 
in the London Gazette and sold by Dissenters. His Animad-
vers ions on a Late Paper , Entituled A Letter to a Dissenter 
was sold by John Harri s , and Richa rd J aneway sold two of 
his tra ct s vindicating the proceedings of the Ec clesiastic a l 
Commission. Three pri n ter s were employed by the g overnment 
to p roduce the p ropag anda: Andrew Sowle, Thomas Milbourne, 
and George La rkin. 2 Sowle printed William Penn 's books 
i n s u pport of J ame s. His one imprint i n 16 86 jumped to 
eleven i n 16 8 7 and thirteen in 16 88 . Milbourne, like 
Da r by , tende d n ot to a c knowledg e hi s printing role in 
i mprint s , but he did print a t least one book for Ca re. 
La rkin was the l east a bashed in support of the King , and 
1. H. Ca re, Publick Oc curren ces Truely St a ted #5 , 20 March 
16 8 7/8 . S ee J.R. Jon es, 'J ames II's Whig Collab orqtors', 
Hi s toric a l J ournal , III (1960 ), p . 68. 
2. J.Y. Ake r man, Moneys Re ceive d and Paid for Se cret 
Se rvices, p . 213 . 
his t wo i mprint s in 1686 increase d to fift een in 1688 . 
Imprin ts by th ems elve s do not a lways chart r eliably a 
348 1· 
printer's trade , but it is cle a r tha t Larkin esc ap ed from 
his priva tions a t the beginning of James II's reign to 
expand his trade dramatically by its end. Larkin did not 
suddenly adapt principle in the pursuit of p rofit when 
h e began printing for the King. Inste ad , he re sponded 
to the King 's change in p olicy to express more openly hi s 
own religious and political p os ition . He supported the 
repeal of the pen a l l aws as a material benefit to Dissenters, 
and he took a dvant age of the indulgence to print several 
books for Bapti s ts, including three by John Bunyan . 
In the first i ssue of Publick Occurrences Truely 
St a ted Care announced a numbe r of royal decisions which 
benefited Dissenters. Leading the li s t was the report tha t 
Francis Smith h ad been released from King's Bench pr i son 
on a f ull par don from the Ki ng fo r h is conviction for 
publishing A Ra-ree Show. l Soon after Smith' s i mprisonment, 
his son Fra n ci s p e titi oned Charles 11 for his release. He 
was unsuccessful even though h e reminded the Ki ng tha t h e 
h ad t e s tifi ed in <Tames's suit against J ames Cul liford. 
La t e r h e p e titione d for a p l a c e i n the Customs House 
b e c a us e hi s f amily had b e en r uin e d by hi s t e stimon y a nd. 
his f a t her ' s conviction. Ag a i n he was unsuccessful. 2 But 
1. H. Ca re, Publ ick Occurrences # 1, 21 February 16 8 7/8. 
2. C . S.P.D . Oc t 1683 to Apr 1684 , p. 352. 
349 
the pol icy of indulgence in 1687 encouraged the Smiths to 
try once more. Apparently the King recognized the propa-
ganda v alue of pardoning a Dissenter as well-known as 
Smith. On 27 J anu a ry 1688 he instructed the Attorney 
General to arr ange for Smith's release. l 
Ironically, Smith was one of the fifty-three stationers 
displaced from the livery on 1 March 1688. The most 
prob able reason far. his removal is tha t the list of 
liverymen was prepared before Smith was pardoned and it 
was not revised. Smith's imprisonment left him short of 
c apital and unable to begin publishing again on a l a rge 
scale. In add ition, it is likely tha t ne a rly four years 
in King's Bench prison had impaired his health. 2 He was 
now about fifty-six years old. He could not, therefore, 
ac tively support the King 's policy of indulgence, but he 
does appear to have favoured it. With the help of Richard 
J aneway, he published Some Ne cessary Disguisitions and 
close Expostulations with the Clergy and Pe opl e of the 
Church of Engl and . 3 The a uthor of this pamphlet reserved 
most s corn for Anglican clergymen who had encouraged 
p erse cution of Dissenters to preserve the crown and who 
now failed to approve indulgence. J aneway sold the tra ct 
at his shop in Queen's Head Alley in Pater Noster Row. 
No shop is mentioned for Smith, which p robably means that 
1. C.S.P.D. Jun 1687 to Feb 1689, p. 137 ( # 719 ). 
2. The claim that his health had been i mpaired was made 
on his Bunhill Fields epitaph. 
3. Wi ng S4528. 
350 
he h ad not found new quarters for selling books. 
When James abandoned his po licy of indulgence in 
the face of invasion by William of Orange, the careful 
realignment of p ower in g overnance of the Stationers' 
Company was a lso forsaken. By order of the Lord Mayor 
on 7 October 1688 all who had been Assistants or liverymen 
a t the time of the quo warranto proceeding s against the 
London City charter in 1683 were restored to their places. 
Francis Smith was among the sixty-five stationers restored. 
Then in November Lord High Chancellor Jeffreys instructed 
those companies which h ad surrendered their charters in 
16 84 to operate in the future under their old charters. 
Accordingly, on 27 November, the Stationers met to elect 
new officers. Rog er Norton, Master in 1684, took the 
chair and John Towse and Henry Hills temporarily resumed 
their former p ositions as Wardens. They sat long enough 
to elect John Towse Master a nd John Baker and Robert 
Cl avell Wardens. Thus the purges of 1687 and 1688 were 
erased , and men like Thomas Parkhurst lost their positions 
as Assistants. The Stationers had benefited from the 
16 84 charter and were reluct ant to forfeit its advantages . 
They considered the possibility of arguing tha t they h ad 
never formally s urrendered the old charter, but tha t ploy 
would h ave confused company matters even more. Problems 
stemming from roya l interference, particularly that of 
seniority, continued to plague the Company for years. The 
I 
351 
best solution seemed to be to restore a ll liverymen who 
had been removed a t any time. In addition, on 4 February 
1689 , Assistants displaced in any purge were rechosen. 
On 20 May 1690 Parliament reversed the 1684 quo warrantos 
and on 2 June new officers were elected for the last four 
1 
weeks of the Company year. 
Hills lost his position as Master on 27 November 1688. 
Two weeks earlier a larg e mob had gathered outside his 
house in Blaclcfriars and had broken his windows. Secretary 
of State Middleton, a t J ames 's direction, wrote to the 
Lord Mayor to re quest an armed g u a rd to protect Hills's 
house. But Hills realized tha t resistance was fruitless. 
He was granted a pass to trave l overseas on 9 December 
and he departed with his family for St. Omer soon after. 
On 11 December the London mob again a ttacked his house as 
part of violent reactions agains t Roman Catholics. Six 
presses with all his forms and type were c a rried out of 
his house and burned near Fleetbridge. Two cartloads of 
books and ill1printed paper helped to fuel the bonfire. 2 
Before the public disturbances died away, Sir Roger 
L'Estrange was apprehended, examined, and committed to 
Newgate prison. He h ad long since g iven u p writing The 
1. St a t. Co. Court Records, Liber F, entries for 11 October, 
27 November, and 3 December 1688; 4 February 1688/9. 
Blagden, 'Charter Trouble', pp. 376-7. 
2. C.S.P.D. Jun 1687 to Feb 1689, p. 348 (#1915 ) and p. 419 
(#2379). Morrice, Q, 361. Plomer, Dictionary •.• 1668 to 
1725, pp. 154-5. J.G. Muddiman , 'Henry Hills, Sen.', Notes 
& Queries, 163 (1932), pp. 5-7; Hills wrote his will on 
10 December. He died a t st. Omer the following ye a r. 
352 
Observator, but he recognized tha t he was too well-known 
f or his ass ocia tion with J ames to avoid ve ngeanc e . Fearing 
a rrest, he went i n to hiding and denied his name when 
ob se rved . He was fOill~d on 17 De cember and brought before 
the Lord Mayor and Court of Aldermen. Sir Georg e Treby , 
the Re corder of London who h ad often borne the brunt of 
his critici sm , led th e examination of L'Estrange on 
cha r g es of writing The Observator with reflections on the 
government. The Court re quired a l a r g e bail which he 
could no t mee t, s o he was committed to Newgate. He was 
released eventua lly, but he never aga i n i nf luenced the 
1 
supervi s ion of the press. AS far a s the book trade wa s 
concerned, the f light of Hill s and th e a rrest of L ' Estrang e 
signified the end of J ames II's reign and his prero gative-
b a sed pol icy for the p ress. 
1. Morr ic e , Q, 376. Ki tchin , L ' Estrange , pp . 367-8. 
H. M.C. Keny on , p . 211. 
353 
Chapter Nine 
J Conclusion 
354 
Parti san publishing flourished after the Revolution 
of 16 88 . Public re a ction to the authorit a tive policies 
of J am es 11 was expre ss ed in a v a st number of politic a l 
and rel i g ious tra cts i n 1689 and 1690. The cha r a cter of 
the politica l settlement was much deb a ted, and many 
pamnhle t s presented a r g uments rel a te d t o the bills for 
comprehension and tol e r a tion before Parli ament. Whig 
s t a tioners bega n news pape rs v'lhich refl e cted tho s e of the 
Exclus ion Crisis in sco p e and form at. Publi shers s uch 
as J aneway and Baldwin, tra ined and tested during the 
Exclusio~ Crisi~, work ed on a much l arge r s c ale after 
the Revolution. They published Whi g tra cts without much 
re s tra int, though e a ch was c a lled to a ccount by the 
g overnment and in P a rli ament on one or t wo occasions. l 
The role of the p olitic a l press i n Eng l and d eveloped 
s i gn ificantly during the reigns of Charle s 11 and J ames 11, 
though it continued to moul d and be mo ulded by cont'empo r a ry 
1. Desp ite th e provisions of th e Printing Act, which 
contin ued i n force until 1695 , Baldwin entered on ly a 
h andful of hi s pamphl e t s a t St a tioners' Ha ll. As long 
as he a dded hi s name to a pro pe r imprint, he avoided the 
penalties of t he St a tioners' Company by-l aws . He was 
n ot a liveryman until 16 92 , and in effec t he c a rried on 
h i s tra de i n the manner of an inde p endent businessman. 
355 
events af ter 1688 . Opp osition stationers such as F r ancis 
Smith secured a persi s tent influence for a partisan press 
by outlasting g overnment a ttempts to suppress them. The 
v a lue of their c areers lies as much in this f a ct of their 
s urviva l as in the collective merit of their public a tions. 
They persisted because they believed in what they 
publi shed. Their a ctivities were based firmly on p rinci -
ple rather than profit. They endured fines and punish-
ment s to further their ide als, a nd they wedded relig ious 
and political p rinci ple to mechanic practice to challeng e 
the g overnment. 
Unlike those st a tioners who worked primarily for 
profit, the opposition stationers were not as susceptible 
to econ omic sanction, which was the basis of most 
Stationers' Company regul a tions. The more extreme 
opposi tion stationers we re little involved with the 
S t a tioners ' Company. They r a rely owned shares in the 
English Stock and did not s erve in the g overnment of the 
Company. Yet they survived, and the fact of their 
survival helped to we aken the fabric of the St a tioners ' 
monopoly. The Company faded in significance after 1688. 
Likewise, the endurance of Francis Smith and others 
in opposition help ed to erode the basic a lly Tudor press 
policy. Thi s p olicy conceived of the press as an agent 
of the established g overnment. Criticism was not 
p ermit t ed because it hindered obedience to the King as 
1 
356 
he a d of state (or father of the national family). Printing 
occurred by le ave from the King through patents to indivi-
dual stationers and to the Stationers ' Company as a 
whole. Content was regul a ted by licensers, and those who 
challeng ed g overnment policy were swiftly punished. 
Newspape rs and politica l tra cts were especially discourag ed, 
because they led unqualified pe rsons to question g overnment 
decisions. But thi s policy was a lmost impossible to 
implement in the l a ter seventeenth cen tury bec ause it 
neither recognized the extent of opposition nor a cknow-
ledg ed the determina tion of opposition s t a tioners. 
Tent a tive solutions were pro p osed for tempora ry situations, 
a nd supplementary statutes and ordinances were passe d. 
The offici a l primarily in cha r ge of overseeing the press 
shifted between Secret a ries of St a te, Lords Chief Justice, 
and Surveyors of the Press, resulting in a confusion of 
responsibility. Exp eriments in control we re conducted 
and a chieved only moderate s ucce ss . l For a p olicy of 
' n o criticism', modera te success was n ot sufficient. 
Smith and other s t a tioners, by continuing to publish 
critici sm and to distribute news , eventually defeated 
restrictive a ttempts to control the press . Their 
dilig ence of purp ose and a dherence to princip l e i s of 
1. Ha rry Ransom, The First Copyright Statute, pp. 12, 1 5. 
--
immense import a nce to the est ablishment and toleration 
of partisan propaganda and politics -in Engl and. 
357 
James 11 a dministered the tra ditional ' no criticism' 
policy through the use of his prerogative, but his 
politica l failures discouraged William and his advisers 
from a do pting a similar strategy. In the first months 
after Willi am a ssumed control of the g overnment, the 
p ress was rel a tively unfettered. Stationers produced 
wh a t they wished, though mos t showed their books to 
licensers before public a tion. Ironically, J ames II's 
policie s left Whig st a tioners in the strong est position 
to t ake a dvant age of the ne w s urg e in tra de. They h a d 
been encouraged to t ake the le a d in g overning the 
St a tioners' Company in 1687 and 1688. Although they 
temp ora rily lost their p ositions a t the restoration of 
the old cha rter, they soon regained them. Men lik e 
Thoma s Parkhurst were the ones, not the Tories, who 
p rovided continuity during the brief interregnum and 
f irs t ye a r s of Willi am ' s reign. Lik ewi s e, mo s t 
oppo s ition s t a tioners were fully organized a t the Revolution 
bec a u se of their s upport for J ames II ' s policy of indulg en c e . 
Their b u s ines s con t a ct s with e a ch other and with di s tributors 
we re fr esh after ye a~s of n eglect. They quickly a do pted 
Willi am ' s st anda rd and quietly i gnored their complicity 
for relig ious r eason s with J ames. Indeed their c a sua l 
358 
transfer of a lleg iance underscores the imp ortance of 
Dissenting relig ious op inions lliaong the motivating factors 
for opposition stationers. 
Within days after William met the Convention Parliament, 
1 Robert Stephens was reappointed Messenger of the Press. 
His was not the only familiar face in the book trade. 
John Starkey returned from exile to take up a place on 
the Court of Assistants in February 1690 and immediately 
f t . . t 2 commenced a 'vexatious' campai gn or grea er senlorl y. 
Stephens a ccused Jane Curtis before the Court of Assistants 
of printing pamphlets without licence. He also rep orted 
that she had refused entrance to him despite his secretarial 
search warrant. Unbowed by the hardship she and her 
husband h ad suffered, she justified her actions before the 
Court with s uch vigourous l anguage against Stephens tha t 
the Court ' we re apprehensive he might be in danger of his 
life by doeing his duty'! Jane Curtis, for one, did not 
consider gene r a l search warrants any more palatable after 
the Revolution than during the Exc lusion Cri s is. 3 
Francis Smith welcomed the Revolution of 1688 , but 
he was too ill and too poor to · publish. He was concerned 
ab out the passage of the bills of comprehension and tolera-
1. John Robert Moore, '''Robin Ho g" Stephens: Messenge r of 
the Press', Papers of the Bibliog r aphic al Soc iety of America, 
L (1956 ), 381-7. 
2. Stat . Co. Court Records, Liber F, entries for 3 February 
and 3 March 1689/90 , 5 May , 2 June, 5 June, and 25 June 1690. 
3. Liber F, entry for 6 March 1688/9. She was dismissed 
with a warning. 
359 
tion through Parliament. From his new residence a t the 
'Elephant and Castle in Popes-he a d Alley, over against 
the Royal Exchange ', he published Mr. Chillingworth's 
Judg ement of the Religion of the Protestants. This was 
an extra ct recommending tolera tion of dissenters which 
he had i ssued in 1680. 1 Janewa y and Baldwin, whom Smith 
help ed to tutor in the techniques of opposition publishing , 
now a ided him in his p overty. J aneway sold Some Necessary 
Disquisitions for him in 1688 , and it is likely tha t he 
a rranged the public a tion to benefit Smith. Similarly, 
Baldwin organized di s tribution of a Whig bro ads ide, A 
Satyr u p on Tyrconnels coming over to Ireland, which c a rried 
the unus u a l imprint, 'Printed for F. Smith. And Published 
by R. Baldwin in the Gre a t Old-Baily. 1689 ., 2 The follo wing 
year he produced an ins i gnificant pamphlet intended for 
quick sale and profit which c a rried the print of E. Smith. 
He pl a ced his own a dvertisement on A Sad and Lament able 
Account of the Dreadful Fire Tha t happen'd on the Fourteenth 
of this Inst ant April, 1690. 3 He may a lso have paid Smith 
a small fee for re printing some of his politcal pamphlets 
in State Tra cts . 
Smith a lso turned to the Genera l Baptists for relief. 
He applied for aid from White's Alley Church in March 16 89 
a nd received ten shillings. 4 But his major effort was 
1. Wing C3887. 
2. Not in Wing ; co py in the Houghton Library , Ha rva rd. 
3. Wing S23 7A. 
4. Wh ite' s Alley Church Book, I, 38 , 11 March 1689; 
Guildhall Library, London. 
360 
a c ampai gn to receive reward from King Willi am for his 
long c a reer of opposition publishing. He p re pared 'The 
Cas e of Francis Smith, Bookseller' and appended it to a 
broadside re print of The Speech of a Noble Peer in 1689, 
which he ' p resented' to William, 'tha t blessed Instrument 
of England's Deliverance from Popery and Sl avery'. He 
emph as ized his sufferings for the Whig c ause, highlighting 
his punishment for publishing Shaftesbury's Speech and 
downpl aying his role in h anding to the press A Ra-ree 
Show. This became the pattern in his petitions, until 
reference to the ballad was dro pped a ltog ether. Smith 
concluded his 'sorrowful Story of his 41 Imprisonments, 
hi s los s of Sho p and Tra de many Ye ars', by recommending 
himself and his family to 'the compassiona te help of 
well-di spo sed Christians'. Following public a tion of this 
a ccount of his difficulties, he pet itioned the King for 
a p l a ce in the warehouse of the port of London worth ~60 
per annum. The pe tition was re a d in Council on 8 August 
16 89 , and the King f avourably referred the matter to the 
Tre asury for consideration of what position might be open . 
In October Smith was employed as a watchman a t the port 
of London ( he h a d pe titioned to be a counter clerk) .l 
He completed hi s working days there as Housek ee per, and 
his life seems to h ave ended quietly. He died on 22 
December 1691 and was buried in Bunhill Fields, the 
1 . P.C. 2, 73 ( 206 ), 8 August 1 689; Cal. Treas. Books , I X, 
1689-92, pt. I, pp . 226 , 282. 
361 
burying place for Dissenters . l 
In his will , dated 29 October 1691, Smith named his 
wife executr i x. He left her property (house, orchards, 
and six a cres of l and) at Wes t Humble in the parish of 
Mickleham , Surrey and bequeathed to her his collection of 
bboks. After his death, his cousins Francis Blower of 
Bicester, Oxfordshire, gent. and Ri cha rd Blower of Barnard's 
Inn, London were to sell the property and divide the 
proceeds between his two sons Franc i s and Samuel. The 
remainder of his estat e was left to his daught er Eleanor 
( who had become Eleanor Marshall a few years before ) and 
to Helen Matthews, p resumably another daughter. 2 
Smith ' s family did n ot attempt to rema in in the 
book trade. His widow petitioned for a positi on of 
supernumerary l and waiter f or one of ther sons. Henry 
Sidney referred the petition to the Customs Commissioners, 
but there is no note of the outcome. 3 Eleanor Smith did 
publish two further editions of Va v asor Powell ' s Useful 
Concordance to the Holy Bible. She entered the book at 
Stationers ' Hall in June 1693 and described herself in 
1. His epitaph is printed in Proceedings in reference to 
the Preservation of the Bunhill Fields Burial Ground, 1867, I' 
p . 65. 
2. P.C.C. Fane 15. Muddiman, 'Francis Smith ', p. 61. 
Smith ' s daughter Eleanor may have married the Willi am 
Marshal l wh o printed and sold the engraved plate of 
John Bunyan ' s A Mapp Shewing The Order & Causes of Salva-
tion & Damnation, New Wing B5554A. 
3. C.S.P.D. 1691-2, p. 156; Cal. Treas. Books IX, 1689-92, 
p t. IV, p . 1594. Francis Smith 11 a lso p etitioned for 
the land waiter's place or the surv eyor ' s p l ace in the 
out ports; ibid., p. 1534. 
, 
362 
th e im~rint as 'Eleanor Smith, Executrix of Francis Smith, 
l ate Bookseller'. A new title page was p re pared for the 
1696 issue which was sold by Nicholas Boddington for 
Eleanor Smith.l 
Francis Smith's trade spanne d more than three dec ades . 
He started business during the Interregnum and learned 
from the great r adic a l publishers of the 1650' s , Calvert, 
Brewster, and Chapman . Desp i"\ie the di s couragements of 
g overnment investigation and examination, he established 
a pattern of opposition bookselling in the first ye a rs 
af t e r the Restoration which remained una ltered throughout 
his long c a reer. In his turn, he drew u p on hi s e xperience 
to guide and encourage other stationers during the 
Exclus ion Cri s is. These we re the years when he was most 
a ctive for the Whigs , i n publi shing , selling, p l anning 
and c ampai gning . He became known to the public as an 
outsp oken advoc a te of parli am ent a ry politics and Dissenting 
beliefs. He was not a lways noble or correct, but he vvas 
r a rely daunted. In both p olitic s and relig ion he was 
mo re radical than most Englishmen. He s u pported republic an 
p l a t forms i n 1659, and in 1680 he reportedly excla imed that 
he would never g ive u p publishing until England was a 
1. S .R. 111, 423, 19 June 1693. Neither of these editions 
i s listed in Wing , but co p ie s are in the libra ry of 
Regent' s Park Colleg e, Oxfo rd. Eleanor Smith a lso 
published a broadside in support of William 111 in 1695 , 
England ' s Deliverance from Popery and Slavery , which was 
s ol d by John Whitlock; n ot in Wing , copy i n the Houghton 
Library , Harvard. 
J 
363 
free s t a te. The source of his determination lay in his 
relig ious beliefs, tempered by fines and imprisonment. 
The a ctivities of Francis Smith and like-minded 
s t a tioners gave expression and continuity to the 
opp os ition . Through men like Smith, the idea ls of the 
Co~nonwealth were kept a live after the Restoration. By 
p ersonal example he demanded the preserva tion of his 
individual liberties such as h abe a s corpus and vig ourously 
opp osed the imposition of g eneral search warrants. His 
public a tions helped to p romote relig ious and p olitica l 
diversity. His legacy was one he sha red with other 
opposition stationers: the establishment of partisan 
publishing tolera ted by g overnment. 
BIBLI OGRAPHY 
I. Manuscrip t sources. 
A. St a tioners' Hall, London. 
Court Records, Liber D, 1654- 1677. 
do. , Liber E , 1674-1683. 
do. ,Liber F, 1683-1697. 
Orders of Parliament, Liber A. 
Co p ies of Documents Relating to Damasking , 16 78-1689. 
Recei p t Books, 1679-1694. 
Warden's Accounts, 1663-1728. 
Warehouse Kee p er's Books, 1662-1723 ( for Eng lish 
Stock). 
Journa l Book for Money Disbursed, 1656-1698 
(for Eng lish Stock ) . 
Dividends from English Stock , 1644-1672 . 
do. , 1673-1689. 
F iles with unbound manuscrip ts. 
Dama sking file, including order to dama sk 
Francis Smith's stock, 1678. 
Se a rching file, including bills for se a rching , 
bills for attending trials, rep ort on printing 
presses seized, c a . 1675, a nd ' Some rema r ques 
in the ye a rs 1673 & 1674 about the business 
of the Company of S t a tion ers'. 
Folder cont a ining bill s of Robert Ste phens. 
F older with a list of p rinters, c a . 16 85. 
B. Public Record Office, London. 
State Papers, Domestic. 
Privy Council Re g isters: 2/ 54- 73. 
P.C.C. Fane 15, Francis Smith's will. 
C. Briti s h Libra ry, London. 
Add. Ms s . 15643 Re g i s ter of the Committee of 
I n tellig ence, 1679-1682. 
Add. Mss. 326 80-1 Corresp ondence of Henry Sidney. 
Add. Mss. 4156 8 Newsletters, 1675-9. 
S16an Mss. 392 9 Henry Muddiman's newsletters, 1687-9. 
D. Guildha ll Library, London. 
Ms. 507 Letters of Sir John Moore , Lord Mayor of 
London . 
Ms. 59 2/1 White's Alley Church Book, vol. I, 16 81-
1700. 
E. Corporation of London Record Office, London. 
Repertories of the Court of Aldermen. 
Session Minute Books. 
Rolls for London Sessions of Peace and Gaol Delivery 
( one roll for each session) . 
F. Dr. Williams's Library, London. 
Roger Morrice Ms . Entry Books (P,Q,R), a di a ry 
of public events from 1679-1693. Ms. S is an 
index. 
G. Pepys Library, Magdalene College, Cambridg e. 
PL2875 (Miscellanies VII, 465-91 ) : Minutes of 
the 'Green Ribbon Club'. 
H. Codring ton Libra ry, All Souls College, Oxford. 
Ms . 16 2 Extracts made by Narcissus Luttrell from 
journals of both Houses of Parliament of proceeding s, 
1676-1678. 
Ms. 171 Narcissus Luttrell's journa l of affairs 
J anu a ry 1679 to Februa ry 1681, 'being a collection 
of newsletters, many of which contain diverse 
false stories and scandalls which were then 
g oeing on in those times'. 
I. Osborn Collection, Beinecke Library, Ya le University. 
P oley Pape rs Letters, 1681-5, to Edmund Poley, 
Eng lish envoy in Berlin, from Richard Ya rd, 
Sir Leoline Jenkins , Rowland Tempest, and Willi am 
Blathwayt. 
J. Hunting ton Library, San Marino, Ca liforni a . 
HM 30314-5 Collection of 235 newsletters to Sir 
Leoline Jenkins, 1676-1680, from Francis Benson 
and Richa rd Ya rd a t Whitehall. 
11. Cont emp ora ry Newspapers and p eriodic als. 
Me rcurius Publicus, 29 December 165 9 to 1 8 December 1662. 
-L'Estrange, R'oger ~ . The Intellig encer, Mondays for eighteen 
i ssue s , 31 August to 28 December 1663. 
~---- , The Newes , Thursdays for eighteen issue s , 3 Se ptembe r 
to 31 December. F rom 4 J anu ary 1663/4 The Newes a nd The 
Intellig encer were joined. Publication ce ase d 29 J anu a ry 
166 5/6. 
The London Gaze tt e , t wice weekly ( Monday a nd Thursday) from 
1665. During th e Exc lusion Crisis it was written by 
Richard Ya rd. 
J 
J 
Care, Henry. The Weekly Pacquet of Advice from Rome: or, 
The History of Popery. Five Volwnes, 3 December 1678 
to 13 July 1683. The first four volumes were published 
and sold by Langley Curtis; volume five carried the 
imprint of A. Maxwell and ( from #14 ) J. Astwood. 
Harris, Benjamin. Domestick Intelligence, Or News both 
from City and Country. 114 numbers, from Monday, 7 
July 1679 to Friday 15 April1683 • With issue #56 the title 
became The Protes t ant ( Domestick ) Intelligence, Or , 
both from City and Country. Harris did not publish his 
newspaper between 16 April 1680 and 28 December 1680, 
but there was no break in numbering. 
Thompson, Nathaniel. The Domestick Intelli ence· or 
News both from City & Country. It begins with 15, 
26 August 1679. From #19 , 9 September 1679 until #90, 
14 May 16 80 , the title was The True Domestick Intelligence. 
Harford, Hobert. Me rcurius Anglicus: or, The Weekly 
Occurrences Faithfully Transmitted. 51 numbers, from 
Thursday, 20 November 1679 to Saturday 15 May 1680. 
From #11 , the title was The True News: or, Mercurius 
Angli cus. 
Smith, John. The Currant Intellig ence, or an Impa rtial 
Account of Transac tions both F orra i gn and Domestick. 
24 numbers, from Saturday , 14 February 1679/80 to 
Tuesday, 4 May 1680. 
How, J. Catholick Intelligence: or, Infallible News both 
Domestick & Forre i gn. 5 numbers, from Monday , 1 March 
to Monday , 22 March 1679/80. 
Everingham, Hobert. Mercuriu s Civicus: or, A True Account 
of Affairs both Forre i nand Domestick. 24 numbers, 
from Monday, 22 March 1679 0 to Thursday 12 May 1680. 
Curtis, Lang ley. The True Pro te stant Mercury: or, 
Occurrences Forein and Domestick. 188 numbers, from 
Tuesday, 28 December 1680 to Wednesday, 25 October 1682. 
Smith , Francis. Smi th' s , Protes t ant Intelligence: Domestick 
& Foreign. Published for the Information of all True 
English~men. 22 numbers , from Tuesday, 1 February 1680/1 
to Thursday , 14 April 1681. 
Toolce, Benj amino Heracli tus Hidens: or, A Discourse 
between Jest and Earnest, where many a True Word ;Ls 
spoken in opposition to all Libellers against the 
Govermnent. 82 numbers , from Tuesday, 1 February .1680/1to 
Tuesday , 22 August 1682. 
Harris, Benjamin. Th e Weekly Discoverer Strip ' d Naked: 
or, Jest and Earnest Expos 'd to Publ ick View in his 
Proper Colors. 6 issues, from 16 February to 23 March 1680/1. 
Thompson, Nathaniel. The Loyal Protestant, and True 
Domestick Intelligence or News both from Cit and 
Country. 247 numbers, from 9 March 1 0 1 to 20 March 
1682/3. ( Suspended between 16 November 1682 and 20 
February 1682/3). 
Benskin, Thomas. The Protest ant Oxford Intelligence: or, 
Occurrences Forraign a nd Domestick. 6 numbers, from 
10 to 28 March 1681. Continued as The Impartial London 
Intellig ence: or Occurrence s Forrai nand Domestick. 
4 numbers, 4 to 14 April 1 1. 
Smith, Francis. Democritus Ridens: or, Comus and Momus, 
_ A New Jest and Earnest Pratling concerning the Times. 
13 numbers, first four undated, #5 , Monday, 11 April 
to Monday, 13 June 1681. 
L ' Estrange, Roger. The Observator. From 13 April 1681 
to 9 March 1686/7. Printed by Henry Brome and af ter 
his death by his widow Jo anna Brome. 
J aneway, Richard. The Impartial Protestant Mercury. 
115 numbers, from We dnesday , 27 April 16tH to Tuesday, 
30 May 1682. 
Davies, T. The Observator Observ'd: or, Protestant 
Observations upon Anti-Protes t ant Prunphlets. 3 numbers, 
Friday, 6 May 1681; last two undated and printed for 
J. Gifford. 
Benskin, Thomas . The Domestick Intelligence: Or News both 
. from City and Country Impartially Related. 155 numbers, 
from Friday, 13 May 1681 to 16 November 1682. 
Baldwin, Richard. Mercurius Anglicus. 3 numbers , Monday, 
10 Oc tober to Monday , 1 7 October 1681. 
Low, Jona than. The Protestant Observator: or, Democritus 
Flens In a Di a logue. 10 numbers, from Saturday, 19 
November 1681 to Saturday, 24 December 1681. 
Smith, Eleanor. A New Di a logue Between Some body and No 
body, or the Observator Observed. 5 numbers, Friday, 
25 November 1681 to Monday, 19 December 1681. 
Curtis, Langley. The Monthly Recorder, of All True 
Occurrences both Foreign & Domestick. 5 numbers, 
1 Jan u a ry to 1 May 1682. 
Vile, Thomas . The London Mercury. 56 numbers, Thursday , 
6 April 16 82 to Tuesday , 17 October 1682. ( Successor 
to J aneway ' s paper;. 
Baldwin, Richard. The Pro test ant Courant, I mparting News 
Forre i gn and Domestick. 6 numbers , from Monday , 24 
April 1682 to Saturday , 13 May 1682. 
i 
Croom, George . The Loyal London Mercury: or the Moderate 
Intelligencer. 20 numbers, Wednesday, 14 June 1682 to 
Saturday, 19 August 1682. Continued by the author as 
The Moderate Intelligencer,. 15 numbers (#21-35 ) , Wednesday, 
23 August 1682 to Thursday, 12 October 1682. Continued 
by Croom a s The Lo al London Mercur : or the Currant 
Intelligence. 25 numbers 1-25, Wednesday, 23 August 
1682 to Wednesday, 15 November 1682. 
Curtis, Langley. The Epitome of The Weekly News. 2 numbers , 
Monday, 28 August and Monday, 4 September 1682. 
Care, Henry. Publick Occurrences Truel St ated. 34 numbers, 
21 February 1 to 2 October 1 Printed by 
George La rkin. 
Ill. Francis Smith ' s publications, from the Exclusion 
Crisis to the Revolution of 1688. 
Bunyan, John. Grace Abounding to the chief of Sinners. 
Third edition. 
London, for F. Smith, ( 1679 ) . 120. Wing B5524. 
C[are) , H( enry1. A Word in Season: Being a P a rallel 
between the intended Bloody Massacre of the People of 
the Jews, •.. and the Hellish Powder-Plot. 
London, for Francis Smith, 1679. 40. Wing C537. 
An Exact Collection of all Orders, Votes, Debates, and 
Conferences in the House of Peers, and House of Commons, 
... Relating to, and concerning Thomas Earl of Danby, 
And the other five Lords in the Tower. 
London, for Francis Smith, 1679. fol. Wing E1531. 
An Impa rti a l Account of Divers Remarkable Proceedings The 
last Sessions of Parliament Relating to the Horrid 
P op ish Plot, etc. 
London, for Francis Smith, 1679. fol. Wing 163. 
Jenison, Robert. The Narra tive of Robert Jenison, Of 
Grays-Inn, Esquire. 
London, for F. Smith, T. 'Basset, J. Wright, R. Chiswel, 
and S. Heyrick, 1679. fol. Wing J561. 
A-New-Years-Gift for the Lord Chief in Justice Scg~. 
Being some Remarks on his Speech made the First day of 
Michaelmas Term, 1679. 
N.p ., n.d. fol. (The last two pages , at least, were 
written by Smith, and his son Francis was a rrested early 
i n J anu ary 1680 for selling it). Wing N807. 
P r ance, Miles. The Additional Narra tive of Mr. Miles 
Prance of Covent-Garden, Goldsmith. 
London, for Francis Smith, Thomas Basset, John Wright, 
Richard Chiswel and Samuel Heyrick, 1679. fol. Wing P3170. 
Some Observat ions Upon the Late Tryals of Sir Georg e 
l,iVakeman , Corker and Marshal, &c. By Tom. Tickle~foot 
the Tabore r, late Clerk to Jus tice _ Clodp a te. 
London, for A. Brewster, 1679. fol. Wing S4540. 
( Smith ' was convicted before the King 's Bench on 7 February 
16 80 of printing and publishing thi s tract ) . 
16 80 
An Act of Common-Councill Of the City 
Retrenching of the Ex ences of the 
London, for Fr. Smith, 16 O. fol. 
( Luttrell: l6 ' August 1680 ) . 
A Ca techistical Guide to Sinners, And 
tha t are Babes in Christ. 
London, Pr inted by J.D. to be sold 
W. Crook, 1680. 8 0 • 
to such Converts 
by Fr. Smith, and 
Wing C1480 . 
Chillingworth, William . NIr. Chillingworth's Judgment of 
th e Religi on of Prot es t ants. 
London , for F r ancis Smith , 16 80 . fol. Wing C38 86. 
( Lut trell: 2 July 16 80 ). 
The Genius of True English-Men. 
Lond on, for F r ancis Smith, 1680. brs. Wing G5l8. 
[Pennyman , John]. A Bright Shining Light, Discovering th e 
Pretenders to it. Recommended to the People c alled Qu akers. 
London, Print e d, and a re to be sold by Franc is Smith, 
1 680 . 4 0 • Wing P1404. 
~~--- Another issue, with page eight reset, with the 
addition of a thirteen-line poem. Five hundred co p i es 
of this i ssue were printed. ( Copy at Campridge) . ,. 
Pe tyt, Willi ruTI . The Antient Right of the Commons of 
England Asserted; or, a Discourse Proving •.. tha t the 
Comm ons of Eng l and were ever an Essent i a l part of 
Pa rl i 8111ent . 
[L ondon , ] for F. Smith , T. Bassett, J. Wright, R . Chi swe ll , 
and S. Heyrick , 16 80 . 8 0 • Wing P1945. 
The Procee d i ngs of the Grand-Jury of the City of Bristol , 
u p on An I n dictment agai nst Edward Flower. 
Colop : London: for Francis Smith , 1680. ·( br§ . Wing P3 835 
Rich, Robert. An Epistle to the Pe ople Ca lled Quakers, 
Emitted by Mr. Robert Rich. 
London, P~inted in the Year 16 80, to be sold by Francis 
Smi th. 4:P . Wing R1355. 
----- The Epistles of Mr. 
London, Prin ted, And a r e 
1 680 . 4 0 • 
( Luttrell: 1 9 May 16 80 ). 
Robert Rich to the Seven Churches. 
to be sold by Francis Smith, 
Wing R1356. 
The Report from the Committee of the Commons in Parliament , 
Appointed ..• To consider the Petition of Richard 
ThomFson of Bri s tol, Clerk. 
London: Printed by George Larkin, for Franc i s Smith , 
and Benjillnin Harris, 1680. fol. #51 in Votes of the 
House of Commons. 
{Smith , Franc i sl. An Account of the Injurious Proceedi ngs 
Sir George J effreys Knt. Late Re corde r of London, 
Against Franc i s Smi th, Bookseller. 
London , for Francis Smith , (1680 ). fol. Wing A300 ; 
will be listed under Smith in revised Wi ng. 
To the Kings Mos t Excellent Ma jesty. The Humble Petition 
and Address of t he Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and Commons 
of th e Ci ty of London. 
London, for Franc i s Smith, 1680. brs . Wing T1520. 
Tory, Stephen. lVI ixt Marriages Vindicated: or a Discourse 
of Mixt Marri ages By way of Dialogue. 
London, for Franc i s Smith, 1680. 4 0 • Wing T1943A. 
(Luttrell: 6 March 1680). 
We dnesday , Octob. 27. 1680. Two Unanimous Votes Of this 
..• Parliament, Concerning the Sub ject s Right in 
Pet ition i ng. 
Colop: London , for Francis Smith ... Who suffered a 
Chargeable Impri sollinent in the Goal of New-Gate , in 
Decemb. last, for Printing and Promoting Petitions for 
the Sitting of this present Parli ament. brs. Wi ng T3542. 
1681 
The Address of the Freeholders of the County of Middlesex . 
Colop: London , for F r anci s Smith, 1680. Wing A548. brs. 
( Luttrell: 4 March 1681). 
B. , T. The Loyalty of the last Long Parlirunent: or , 
A Letter to an English Gentleman a t F lorence. 
London , for Francis Smith , Senior , 1681. 40. Wing BIB7. 
Bethel and Smi t h; Or a Sober Answer to a Tantivy Pamphle t, 
enti tled How and Rich, &c . 
Colop: London, for S . F. {16.81). brs. Wi ng B2080. 
A Collection Of the Subst ance of several Spee ches And 
Debates made In the Honourable House of Commons, 
Relat i ng to the Horrid Po~ i sh Plot, UFon occasion of 
the Bill for Di sabling J ames Duke of York. 
London: for Francis Smith , 1 681. fol. Wing E2538. 
College, Ste phen. A Letter from Mr . Ste phen Colledge to 
A Person of Qu ality, up on his Removal to Oxford , to 
be Try'd upon Impeachment of High Treason. 
Colop: Pr inted for Francis Smith, 1681. brs. Wing C5224. 
(Luttrell: 15 Aug u s t 1681 ) . 
[College, StephenJ. A Ra-ree Show. To the Tune of I am 
Senceless Thing . 
London, Printed for B .T. ( i.e. F r anci s Smi th) , 1681. 
brs. Wing C5226A; to be listed und er title in revised 
Wing . 
( Luttrell: 9 April 1681). 
The Earl of Essex his Spee ch At the Delivery of the 
Pe tition. 
Colo p : London, for Franc i s Smith, 1681. brs. Wing E3305 . 
( Lut trell: 27 J anu a ry 16 81 ). 
The Earl of Essex 's S eech At the Deliver of th e Pe tition 
To the Ki ng , J an. 25 . 1 O. Another edition. 
Colop: London, for Franc i s Smith , 1681. brs. 
Variant of Wing E3305 . ( Copy a t Cambridge ) . 
F [irmirU, Thomas]. Some Proposals F or the imployment 
of the Poor , and For the prevention of Idleness. 
London, Printed by J. Grover, and are to be sold by 
Francis Smith, and Brab. Aylmer, 16 81. 4 0 • Wing F9 72. 
The Genius of True Eng lish-men. 
London,..... for Francis Smith, [1681]. brs. Wing G519. 
(Luttrell: 18 April 1681). 
Hickeringill, Edmund. The Horrid Si n of Man=Catching: 
Explai n 'd I n a Sermon uSon J er. 5. 25,26. Preach 'd a t 
Colchester, July 10. 16 1. 
London, for Francis Smith, 1681. 4 0 • Wing H1811. 
----- Second edition. 
London , for Francis Smith , 1681. 40. Wing H1812. 
----- Third edition. 
London, for Francis Smith , 1681. 40 . Wi ng H1813. 
Hickeringill, Edmund. The Naked Truth. The Second Part. 
London, for Francis Smith , 1681. fol. Wing H1821. 
( Lut trell: 12 October 1680). 
----- Ano ther issue, wi t h 'The Bookseller to the Reader ' 
appended . Variant of Wing H1821. 
----- Second Edition. 
London, for Francis Smith, 1681. fol. Wing H1 822 . 
(James I]. Vox Regis: or, the Difference 
Ruling by Law , and a Tyrant By His Own 
Excellency of English Laws, Rights and 
betwixt a King 
Will: With the 
priviledges. 
Wing J14 . 
A Land-Mark for al l true English Loyal Subjects, Or an 
English mans Guide to divert him in these dark times 
out of Treasonable Ways. 
Colop: London, for Francis Smith, 16 81. brs. l ing L323. 
The late Famous Try a l of Mr . Hickering ill, ••• 'N i th an 
Information exhibited against him for Barretr, . 
London, for Fr. Smith, 16 1. fol. Wing L547. 
Merlin Reviv'd: or, An Old Pro-phecy Found in a Manuscript 
in Pontefract Castle in York-shire. 
London, for S.S. 1681. brs. Wing M1828. 
Published by Samuel Smith, Francis Smith's son. 
Plain De a ling : Or , A Dialogue between Humphrey and Roger, 
About Chusing the Next Parli ament. 
Colop: London, for Francis Smith, 1681. brs. Wing P2353 . 
( Luttrel1: 1 February 16 81 ) . 
The Pro testation of the Lords u~on rejecting the Impeachment 
of Mr. F itz-H arris. March 2 . 1681. 
Colop: London, for Francis Smith, 1681. brs. Wing E2843. 
[Ronquillo, Pedrol. The Last Memorial of the Spanish 
Ambassador, Faithfully Translated into English. 
Colop: London, for Francis Smith, 1681. brs. Wing R1916. 
Seasonable Cautions for Juries, Solicitors and Witnesses; 
To Deterre from Man-Catching. 
Colop: London, for Francis Smith, 1681. brs. Wing S2222 . 
[Shaftesbury, Anthony Ashley Coo pe r, Earl of). A Speech 
Latel made b, a Noble Peer of the Realm. 
Colo p : London, for F.S., 1 1. fol. Wing S2901. 
----- Another edition, te x t begins ' My Lord'. 
Colop: London, for F .S., 1681. brs. Wing S2902. 
-----. Another ~dition, text begins ' My Lords'. 
Colop: London, for F.S., 1681. brs. Var i ant of Wing 
S2902. ( Copy at Cambridg e). 
A True Narrative of the Proceedings a t Guild-Hall, London, 
The Fourth of this Instant February, in their Unani mous 
Election of the ir Four Members to serve in Parl i ament. 
Colop: London, for Francis Smith, 1681. brs. Wing T2 809. 
( Luttrell: 5 February 1 681 ).' 
The Vindication of Slingsby Bethel Esg; •.. Against the 
several Slanders Cast upon him Upon the occasion of 
of his being proposed, for one of the Burg esses to 
Serve in the late Parliament. 
London, for Francis Smith, 1681. fol. Wing B2078. 
( Luttrell: 28 April 1681). 
Votes of the Honourable, the Commons of England, Assembled 
in the l a te Pa rliament at Westminster, in F avour of 
Pro t estant Dissenters. 
Colop : London, for Francis Smith, (1681). brs. Wing E2762. 
(Luttrell: 1 Se ptember 1681). 
Vox Populi: or the Peoples Claim to their Parliaments 
Sitting , To Redress Grievances, and Provide for the 
Common Sa fety; ..• Recommended to the King and Parliament 
at their Meeting a t Oxford, the 21th of March. 
London, for Francis Smith, 1681. 40. Wing V729. 
Ya rranton, Andrew. A Full Discovery Of the First Presby-
teri an Sham==Plot, or a Letter. 
London: for Francis Smith , 1681. 4 0 . Wi n g Y15. 
1682 
The Declaration of the Hung arian War , La tely se t out by 
the most Illustrious Michael Ap afi, Princ e of Transylvan i a. 
London: for Francis Smith, Sen., 1682. fol. Wing A3526. 
Eng land's Remembrancer: Setting forth The beginning of 
Papal Tyrannies, bloody Persecutions, Plots, and in hu-man 
Butcheries. 
London, for E. Smith, 1682. 8 0 • Wing E3036. 
A Fourth Paper Presented b~ divers Citizens of the City 
of London, Sept. 12. 16 2. 
Colo p : London, for E. Smith, 1682. brs. Wing F1688. 
tHickering ill, Edmund]. The History of Whigg ism. 
London, for E. Smith, 1682. fo1. Wing H1809. 
-----. The Second Part of the History of Whiggisme. 
Colo p : London , for E. Smith, 1682. fol. 
Continuation of Th e His tory of Whigg ism, but p robably 
issued separately. 
----- The Horrid Sin of Man-Catchin. Fourth edition. 
London: for Francis Smith, 1 2. fol. Wing H1814. 
----- The Mushroom: or, a Satyr against Libelling Tories. 
Lon don, for Fra: Smith Jun., 16 82. fol. Wing H1820. 
(Luttrell: 23 Ma rch 1682 ). 
-----. Sc andalum Magnatum: Or the Great Tri a l .•• Betwixt 
Henry Bishop of London, .•. and Edm. Hickering ill. 
London, for E. Smith, 1682. fol. Wing H1825. 
( Luttrell: 3 April 1682 ) . 
----- Scandalum Magnatum. Second edition. 
London, for E. Smith, 1682. fol. Wing H1825A. 
The Lord Mayor of London's Vindic a tion. 
Colo p : London, for E. Smith, 1682. 40. Wing L3409. 
A Paper Presented by divers Citizens of the City of London, 
Sept. 5. 1682. 
London, for E. Smith, 1682. brs. Wing P285. 
A Paper Subscribed and Delivered by divers Eminent and 
Worthy Citizens to the .•• Lord Mayor And Court of Aldermen, 
At Guild-Hall, July the 20th 1682. 
Colop: London, for E. Smith, 1682 . brs. Wing P288. 
Reflections on the City-Charter, and Writ of Quo Warranto. 
Tog ether with a Vindication Of the l a te Sheriffs and 
Juries. 
London, for E . Smith, 1682. 4 0 . Wing R704. 
Remarkable Observations On the Comet, in the Ye a r 1680. 
As a lso on the Blazing-Star, now seen, this present Month 
of August, 1682. 
Colo p : London, for E • Smith, ( 1682] . brs. Wing R918. 
To the Lord Mayor and Court of Aldermen of the City of 
London. 
Colop: London, for E . Smith, 1682. brs. Not in Wing . 
( A co py is in the Guildhall Library, London). 
(Whit ake r, Edward) . The Second Part of the I gnoramus 
Justices: or An Answer to the Sc andalous S eech of Sir 
W. S .•.. S oken ..• On Monda the 24 of April 1 2. 
London, for E. Smith, 1 2. 4. Wing W1 705. 
[Wil s on, Samuel] . An Account of the Province of Carolina 
in America. To ether with An Abstract of the Patent. 
London: Printed by G. Larkin for F r ancis Smith, 1 2. 
40 . Wing W2932 . 
-----. Se cond Edition. 
[L ondon) , Printed by G. Larkin for F r ancis Smith, 16 82. 
40. WingW2933 . 
Paginat io n corrected from the t wo issues of the f irst 
edit ion. 
Bugg , Francis. The Painted-Harlot Both Stri pt and Whipt, 
Or the Second Part of Naked Truth. 
London, Printed by J. Gain, for the Author , Anno , :16 83 . 
and a re to be s old by F. Smith. 4 0 • Wing B5380 . 
The Cit izens Los s , when the Cha rter of London is Forfe it ed , 
or g iven up. 
Colo p : London, f or Franci s Smith Senior, 16 83 . 
fol . Wi ng C4341. 
Some co p ie s have ' Entered a ccording to Order' adde d 
a t the b ottom of page four. 
A Cong r a tul a tory Poem on the wonderful Atchievment s of 
Sir John Mandevil, &c. 
Colop : (L ondon), P rin t ed for F r. Smith sen ., 1683. 
brs. Wing C5831. 
( Luttrell: 26 July 16 83). 
Holvvel, John. An Appendix to Holwel ' s Ca t astrophe Mundi, 
Be ing An Astrolog ic a l Di scourse. 
London, Printed by J.G. for F. Smith, 1683. 40. 
Wi ng H2515. 
Some co p ies describe Holwel as te a cher of ' Mathemacicks' , 
others as te a cher of ' Mathematicks '. 
A Hue-and-Cry after the Plot. 
Colo p : London, for F • Smith, ( 1683]. brs. Wi ng H3293. 
Misda ted i n mos t c a t a log ue s 16 88- 9 , but F r anc is Smith' s 
daughter El eanor entered it a t St a tioners' Hall on 
13 April 1 683 . S . R . Ill. 145 . 
A New-Ye a r s -Gift To the Tories: Or a few Sobe r Queries 
con cern i ng them. By a n Hones t Trimmer . 
London , for Franci s Smith Sen., 1682/3 . brs. Wing N820 . 
[Shadwell, Thomas] . Some Reflections u p on th e Pretended 
Parallel in t he Pl ay c a lled Th e Duke of Gui se , In a Le tt er 
to a F riend . 
London, for F r ancis Smith, s en., 16 83 . 4 0 • Wi n g 28 73. 
Sober Advice to Chruch-Wardens , in A Letter to A Church-
iarden In London , From hi s Friend out of the Countrey. 
London , for F. Smith Senior, 1683. 4 0 • Wing S4400. 
1688 
Some Necessa ry Disquisitions and close Exp o s tul a tions 
with th e Clergy and Pe opl e of the Church of England , 
Touching their present Loyalty. 
London: for F. Smith, and a re to be Sold by R . Jena wa y , 
1 688. 4 0 . Wing S4528 . 
Chillingworth, William. Mr. Chillingworth's Judgment of 
the Religion of Protestants, &c. 
Colo : ( London] , Printed for Fr. Smith, 1689. 4 0 • 
Wing C3887. 
A Satyr u p on Tyrconnels coming over to Ireland, to be 
Lord De puty of that Kingdom. 
London, for F . Smith. And Published by R. Baldwin, 1689. 
brs. Not in Wing . 
( A copy is in the Houghton Library, Harvard). 
[Shaftesbury, Anthony Ashley Cooper, Earl of). The Speech 
of a Noble P eer of this Realm, ma de in the Reig n of 
King Charles 11. An. 1681. 
London, for Fr. Smith, 1689. brs. Not in Wing . 
( Co p ies in the Guildhall Libra ry, London and the 
Hunting ton Library, San Marino, California). 
Includes 'The Ca se of Francis Smith, Bookseller'. 
1690 
A Sad a nd Lillnentable Account of the Dreadful Fire That 
h appen'd on the Fourteenth of this Inst ant April, 1690. 
Colo p : London, for E. Smith, 1690. brs. Wing S237A. 
(Luttrell: 17 April 1690). 
A New-Ye a rs-Gift for the La te Ra parees. A r. 
Lon don: for E . Smith, 1 91. Wing N 
(Luttrell: 1 Janua ry 16 91). 
P owell, Vav a sor. An Useful Concordance to the Holy Bible. 
Second edition. 
Londo n , for Eleanor Smith, Executrix of Francis Smith, 
( 16 9 3) . In six es. Not in Wing . 
Entered a t St a tioners' Hall on 19 June 1693. S .R. Ill. 423. 
(A co py is a t Re g ent's P a r k Colleg e, Oxford ) . 
En g l and's Delivera nce from P op ery and Slavery: And the 
P iety a nd Justice of King Willi am, and Queen Mary .•. 
i n As cending the Throne ·of these Dominions, Asserted. 
Lon don : for Eleanor Smith, and a re to b e Sold b y John 
Whitlock , 1695 . brs . Not in Wing . 
(A co py i s i n the Houghton Libra ry, Ha rva rd). 
(Luttrell: 4 December 1695). 
Powell , Vav a sor. An Useful Concordance to the Holy Bible. 
Third edition. 
London, for Ele anor Smith, and Sold by Nicholas 
Boddington , 1696. In s ixe s . Not in Wi ng . 
CA copy is at Re gent's Park Colleg e, Oxford). 
IV. Contemporary books and tracts. 
The Arraignment of the Anabaptists Good Old Cause, for 
John Morgan , 1660. Wing A3752. 
(Berkenhead , John]. Cabala, or a n Impa rtial Account of 
the Non-conformist s P rivate Designs, 1663. Wing B2965. 
Bibliotheca Fanatica: or, the Phanatique Library: Being 
a Catalogue of Such Books as have been lately made and 
by the Authors presented to the College of Bedlam, 1660. 
Wing B2826. 
[Blount, Charles). A Just Vindic a tion of Learning : or, 
An Humble Address to ... Parliament in behalf of the 
Liberty of the Press, 1679. Wing B3307. 
Blount, Charles. Reasons Humbly offered for the Liberty 
of Unlicensed Printing, 1693. Wing B3313. 
Bohun , Edmund. An Address to the Free-men and Free-holders 
of the Nation, for George Wells, 1682. Wing B3445. 
----- The Second Part of the Address, by A. Godbid and 
J. P l ayford for George Wells, 1682. Wing B3460. 
----- The Third and La st Part of the Address, for Georg e 
Wells, 1683. Wing B3461. 
The Car-Man's Poem: or, Advice to a Nest of Scriblers, 
( 1680). Wing C595. 
~entions Smi th). 
Clod-Pa te's Ghost: or a Di alogue, [16 791. Wing S4025. 
~Vrongly a ttri but ed to Smi th}O 
(C 01quitt, Anthony]. lVI odern Reports, or, Select Cases 
Adjudg ed in the Courts of King's Bench , Chancery, 
Common-Pleas, and Exche quer, since the Restauration of 
... Charles 11, 1700. Second edition. Wing C5415. 
A Con ratulation on the Di sc over of the Hellish 
Fanatick Plot , 16 1. New Wing C5 15A. 
(Mentions Smith). 
(Dean, J. S.] . The Badger in the Fox-Trap, or a Satyr up on 
Satyrs, 1681. Wing D492. 
(lVI ent ions Smith). 
The Devonshire Ballad. '110 the Tune of 1642, for the 
Assigns of F.S., 1681. Wi ng D1235. 
A Dialogue Be t ween a Monkey in the Old Ba~lY and an Ape 
in High Holbourn, for John Johnson, 16 1. Wing D 1296. 
A Dialogue Betwixt H.B.'s Ghost , and his Dear Author R.L.S., 
for J.M., ( 1681) . Old Wing D1350; New Wing D1349. 
An Elog y a g ainst occasion u p on the Earl of Shaftesbury, 
for Ab. Green, 1681. Wing E34l. 
An Exact Narrative of the Tryal and Condemnation of John 
Twyn .•. with the Tryals Of Thomas Brewster , Bookse~ler. 
Simon Dover, Print er. Nathan Brooks, Bookbinder, . 
by Thomas Mabb for Henry Brome, 1664. Wing E3668. 
[Ferguson, Robert) . An Enquiry into, and Detection of, 
the Ba rb a rous Murther Of the late Earl of Essex, 1684. 
Wing F737. 
[-----J . The Second Part of the Growth of Popery and 
Arbitra ry Government, Cologne, 1682. 
Gre a t NevlJs From Poland: Bein An Im arti a l Account of the 
Election of a New King , for the assigns of F.S., 1 3. 
Wing G1729. 
( Sa tire on the Earl of Ang lesey with a f a lse imprint). 
Harris, Benj runin. To the Honourable House of Commons 
Assembled in Parliament: The Ca se and Humble Petition 
of Ben' amin Harris Bookseller Prisoner in the Kin s-
Bench, 1 1. Wing H 42. 
Hickering ill, Edmund. The Cha racter of a Sham-Plotter, 
for Ab. Green, 1681. Wing H1802. 
A Hue and Cry a fter Dr. T.O., for Alex. Banks, 1681. 
Wing H3274. 
(Mentions Smith). 
An I m a rti a l Account of the Tr a l of Francis Smith ..• As 
a lso Of the Tryal of J ane Curtis, 16 O. Wing S4026. 
Iter Oxoni ense: or The g oin down of the Asses to Oxenford, 
1 1. Wing 11093. 
Sa tire on news-writers). 
[ John son, Samuel] . Julian the Apost a te, for Lang ley Curtis, 
16 82. Wing J82 9 . 
[ Jones, Ro g er] . Mene Tekel; Or, The Downf a l of Tyranny, 
1663. Wing J988. 
L--gley C---s His Lament a tion in New-Gate; Who lie s there 
in dan g er of his Ears for Printing and Publishing Sedition 
and Tre a son , for thi s F ive Ye a rs l a st past, for J. Dean , 
1 68 4. New Wing C7690A. 
The Le a cherous Anab aptist : or, The Di pper Di pt, for Benj runin 
Ha rris, 1681. Wing L808. 
( Sa tire on Smith with f a l se i mprin t). 
, -
L'Estrange, Roger. The Casuist Uncas'd, in a Dialogue 
Betwixt Richard and Baxt er, for Henry Brome, 1681. 
Wing L1210. 
-----. Ci t 't and Bumpkin, in a Dialogue Over a Pot of Ale, 
for Henry Brome, 1680. Fourth edition. 
Wing L1219. 
----- Citt and Bumpkin, The Second Part, for Henry Brome, 
1680. Third edition. Wing L1223. 
-----. The Dissenter's Sa in 's 
Sayings, ,for Henry Brome, 1 
Wing L1241. 
In Reauital for L'Estran 
1. Se cond edition. 
-----. The Dissenters Sayings. The Second Part, for 
Joanna Brome, 1681. Wing L1245. 
the Englishmans Birth-
Second edition. 
-----. Interest Mist akenl or, The Holy Cheat, for Henry Brome, 1661. Wing L12 1. 
----- L'Estrange his Appeal Humbly Submitt ed to the 
Kings mos t Excellent Ma jesty, for Henry Brome, 1681. 
Wing L1202. 
----- L'Es t range no Pap ist: In Answer to a Libel 
entituled L'Estrange a Papist, &c., by T.B. for H. 
Brome, 1681. Wing L126 7. 
----- L'Estrange ' s Case In a Civil Dialogue Betwixt 
'Zekiel and Ephraim , for H. Brome, 1680. Se cond 
impress ion. Wing L1205. 
----- A Memento: directed, for Henry Brome , 1662. 
Wing L1270. 
-----. No tes upon Stephen Colledge, for Joanna Brome , 
1681. Se cond edition. Wing L1282. ' 
----- The Reformation Reform'd: or a short History 
of New-fashion'd Christi ans; Occasioned by Franck Smith's 
Yesterda s Paper of Votes September 2. 1681, for 
Jo anna Brome, 1 1. Wing L12 7. 
----- The Relaps ' d Apostate: or Notes upon a Presbyteri an 
Pamphle t l entituled , A Petition for Peace, for Henry Brome , 1 61. Wing L1294. ' 
----- A Seasonable Memor i al in some Historical No tes 
upon the Liberties of the Presse and Pulpit, for Henry 
Brome , 1680. Wing L1301. 
----- The Shamme r Shamm ' d, for Jo anna Brome , 1681- [ /821 , 
Wing L1306. 
-----. A Short Answer to a Who le Litter of Libel1ers , 
by J. B . for Hen. Brome , 1680 . Wing L1307. 
-----. Stat e-Divini ty; or a su~plement to the Relaps 'd 
Apostate, for Henry Brome, 1 61. Wi ng L13l0. 
-----. To The Ri ght Honorable, Edward Earl of Cl arendon ... 
. The Hwnble Apology of Roger L ' Estrange , for Henry 
Brome , 1661. Not in Wi ng. (Co py at Cambridg e). 
-----. Truth and Loy alty Vindic a ted , From the Repro che s 
and Cl amour s of Mr. Edwar d Bagsh aw , for H. Brome and 
A. Seile, 1662. Wi ng L1320. 
-----. A Whipp a Whipp, Fo r the Schismatic all Anima dverter 
UEon the Bi s ho p of Worcester' s Letter, for Henry Brome, 
1 61 . Wing L1325. 
----- A Word Concerning Libels and Libellers, Hwnbl~ 
Presented To ••• Sir John Mo or, for Joanna Brome, 16 1. 
Wi ng L1327. 
A Letter F rom His Holiness the Po e To ..• J mnes Duke of 
Monmouth, for J. Johns on, 1 Wing I20lA, L14 73. 
The Lif e of H.H. With the Relation a t l a r g e of wh a t passed 
betwixt him and the Taylors Wife in Bl a ck-fri a r s , 
a ccording to the Orig inal, f or T.S., 1688 . Wing L2029A. 
The Matters of Fact In the Present Election of Sheriffs, 
for J. Johns on , 1682. Wi ng M1304 (var .) 
Mr. F itz-H arri s .•. His Case truly s t a ted; .•. In a Letter to 
Mr . C. L.C. F .S. and B.H., for John Smith, 16 81. 
Wi ng M2265 . 
(Mentions Smith). 
A Modes t Vindic a tion of the Earl of S haftesbur ,for 
Smith, 1 1. Wi ng M 375. 
( Satire on Shaf tesbury with a f a lse imprint). 
Murde r will Out: Be ing a Relation of La te Earl of Essex's 
Gho s t, [1684]. Wi ng M309l. 
M We the Commons of London i n Common-Hall Assembled, 
1 O. Wi ng lVI3 l7l. 
( Pe tition to the Lord Mayor to remove Jeffreys). 
N., S. Rawle i gh Re divivus : or, the Life and De a th of the 
~ . • Lat e Earl of Shaf t esbury, for Thomas Malthus, 1683 . 
Wing N72. 
[Nalson, John) . Vo x P opuli, Fax P opuli. Or, A Discovery 
of an Impudent Cheat and Forg ery Put u pon the Pe ople 
of Engl and by Elephant Smith, and his Author of Vo x 
Populi, for S.R . for Ben j. Tooke, 1681. Wing N12l. 
The Nature of a Common-Hall Brief ly St a t ed , for J. Johnson , 
1 682. Wi ng N244 . 
A New Song In Prai se of the LOlal Corn any of St a tioners, 
Who af t er th e general forfeit , for Their s i ngular 
Lo al t obt a i n ' d th e f irs t Cha rter of London Anno 1 684 ., 
by N.T., 1 4. Wi ng N7 lA. 
The Ni ght-'Nalker of Bloomsbury, by J. Grantham, 1683. 
Wing Nl154. 
[ Oa tes, Titus. Articles of High Misdemeanors •.• a ainst 
Sir Willi am Scroggs Knight, Wing 92 9 . 
Observator Prov'd a Trimmer, for John Allen, 1685. 
Wing 0111 (of second nwnbering) . 
[Onslow, Richard]. A Sober Discourse of the Honest 
Cavalier with the Popish CourantIDr" for H. Brome, 1680. 
Wing 0350 . 
The Orders, Rules and Ordinances, ..• of the Mystery or 
Art of Stationers of The City of London, for the Company 
~~ A tationers, 1678. Wing 0403. 
The Orders, Rules and Ordinances ... of the Mystery and 
Art of Stationers of the Cit of London, for the Company 
of St a tioners , 1 2 . Not in Wing . Copy at Guildhall ) . 
A Paper Delivered to the Lord Mag or and Court of Aldermen, 
for Ab. Green, 1681. Wing P2 3. 
A PheniXj Or The Solemn League and Covenant, Edinburgh, ( 1661. Wing D2034, s.n. Douglas, Robert. 
A P illa r Erec ted to the Memorial of P op ish-Nat, Shewing 
how unlike t .he Best~ and how like the worst of Men he 
i s , for J. Jones, 1 82. Wing P223 7A. 
Pitt, Moses. The Cry of the Oppressed, for Mos es Pitt, 
1691. Wing P2 305. 
Poor Robins Dre am , or the Visions of Hell, by M.S., 1681. 
Wing P2884 . 
(Mentions Smith). 
Pop i sh Nat' s Lament a tion, in a Di a logue between ]\fat. 
Thom-pson , the Popish Printer, and The P opish Midwife, 
u~on his a rriva l in Newgate April 5. 1682, for J. Smith, 
1 82 . Wing P2953 . 
The Priviledg and Right of the F ree-men of London, to 
Chuse their own Sheriffs ..•. Vindicated, for J. Johnson, 
1682. Wing P 3533. 
The Pro test ant Cuckold: A New Ball ad , for Francis Smith, 
1681. Wing P3829 . 
(Ballad satire on Benjamin Harris with a f a lse imprint). 
Raymond , Sir Thomas . The Reports of divers Special Cases 
Adjudged in the Courts of Kings Bench, Common Pleas & 
Exchequer, In the Reign of King Charles 11, by the Assigns 
of Rich. & Edw. Atkins, for Samuel Heyrick, and Dorothy 
Dring . Wing R417. 
Thumb's Confession, for G. 
The Ri ght of Electing Sheriff s of London and Middlesex, 
Bri efly stated and decl a red, for R. Dew, 16 82 . Wing R1504. 
The Ri ght s and Priviledg es of the Cit of Lon don Prove d , 
for J. Johns on, 1 2 . Wi ng R1513. 
Th e Rights of t he City Farther unf olded : and The Manifold 
Mi s c a rriages of My Lord Ma or .•• l a id Ouen , for J. 
Johnson , 1 6 2 . Wi ng R151 . 
The Saint turn ' d Curtezan, for the u s e of the Protest ant 
Cobler i n Pell Mell, ( 1 681) . Wing 3359. 
Sc andal Proof, or An Heroic1c P oem On the Reno wned Champ ions 
of the Goo d Old Cause , I mpudent Dick J a neway, and the . 
rest of the Fac tious Tribe, for Don Pedro Va lero, 1681. 
vY i ng S814. 
(Mentions Smith). 
[S croggs , Sir Wil1i aml . The Answer of Sir Willi am Scroggs, 
.•. to th e Articles of Dr. Titus Oates, and Mr. Willi am 
Bedl ow, ( 1680). Wing S21 21. 
----- The Lord Chief Justice Scroggs His Spee ch in the 
Ki ngs-Bench The first d ay of this presen t Micha elmas 
Term 1679, for Robert Pawlet, 1679. Wing S2122 . 
Se ' anus: or the P opul a r lr avourite, for Smith , Curtiss, 
J aneway , Baldwi n , 1 1. Wing S2419. 
( Satire on Shaftesbury with false i mprint ). 
Sheppard , W. Action up on the Case for Slander, for Ch. 
Adams , J. St a rkey, and T. Bassett. Wing S31 73A. 
A Short but Jus t Account of the Trya l of Ben j ami n Harris , 
1 6 79 (/ 80] . Wing S356 5 . 
A Song u p on Information, for NI.R., 16 81. Wing S4684. 
(Mentions Smith). 
Th e Spee ch of the La te Lord Russel, To the Sh eriffs, 
by John Da rby, by Direction of the Lady Ru ssel, 1 683 . 
Wi ng R2356 . 
St a te-C a ses ~ut to J a ck Presbyter, for J.D., 1681. 
Wi ng S529 . 
St a te Tra cts: Be i n a Collection of Several Tre a tises 
Rel a ting to the Government, 1 9. Wing S5329. 
-----. Another edition , 1693. Wing S5330. 
St a te Tra ct s : Being a Farther Collection of Several Choice 
Tre a tises L sold by Richa r d Baldwi n , 1692. Wing S5331. 
Sylvester, Matthew, ed. Reli qui ae Baxterianae: or, Mr. 
Richa r d Baxter' s Narra tive of The mos t Memora bl e Passages 
of his Li[.e and Times, f or T. Parkhurs t, J. Rob i ns on , 
J. Lawrence, and J. Dunton, 1696 . Wi ng B1370. 
T[ homps on] , N[ a thaniell . A Choice Collection of 1 80 
Loyal Songs , by N.T., 1685. Wing TI003. 
----- A Collection of 86 Loya l Poems , by N.T. 1685. 
Wing TI005. 
The Tory Ballad on Their Royal Hignesses Return from 
Scotland , 1682. Wing T1944. 
( Against Whig booksellers ) . 
Treas on Urunasqued, or Truth brought to Light, for Francis 
Smith, 1681. Wi ng T2081. 
( Tory ballad against Shaftesbury and Morunouth wi th a 
f alse i mprint ). 
A Tre a tis e of the Execution of Justice, 1663] . Wing T2095. 
A True Account of the Irregular Proceedings At Guild-hall, 
ab out the Swear i ng of the Tvvo Pretended Sheriffs , for 
John Johnson, [ 16821 . Wing T2377. 
A True Co Py of the Dying Words of Mr. Stephen Colledge , 
for Edith Colledge , 1681. Wing C5231. 
( Underhill, Cave) . Vo x Lachrymae. A Sermon Newly Held 
Forth at Weavers-ha ll, .•. By Eleph ant Smi th, Claspmaker, 
for T. Davies, 1682. Wing U42. 
( Satire on Smith ). 
Ventris, Sir Peyton. The Reports of Sir P eyton Ventris, 
by the Ass i gns of Richard and Edvva rd 1'1.tkyns; for Charle s 
Harper, and J a cob Tonson , 1696. Wing V235. 
[lNhit aker , Edward). An Answer to the Order of the Middlesex 
Justice s; for Ab. Green, 1681. Wing W1699. 
----- The Ignormnus Justices, for Ab. Green, 1681. 
Wi ng W1 702. 
V. Lat er works. 
1'1.bbott, Wilbur C. 'Engli sh Conspiracy and Dissent, 1660-
1674', Americ an Historical Review, 14 ( 1908-9), pp. 
503-28 , 696-722. 
Abrahams, Aleck. 'Francis Smith, 1680', No tes & Querie s , 
145 ( 1923), p. 310. 
1'1.i l esbury, Thomas Bruc e, Earl of. Memo irs (ed. W.E. 
Buckley). Westminster ( Roxburghe Club), 1890, 2v. 
Akerman, John Yonge . Moneys Received and Pai d for Secret 
Services of Charles 11. and James 11 From 30th March, 
1679, to 25th December 1688. Camden Society, 1851. 
Alden, John. ' Pills and Publishing: Some Notes on the 
English Book Trade , 1660-1715', The Library, 5th s., 
VIII (1952), pp . 21-37. 
Alston, R.C. A Bibliog raphy of the Engli sh Lang u age F rom 
the Invention of Printing to the Year l800~ Leeds, 
1965-72, lOve in 11. 
Arber, Edward. The Term Ca t a logues, 166 8-1709 A.D. London, 
1 903-6 , 3v. 
Aylmer, G.E. The St a te ' s Servants: The Civil Service of 
the English Republic 1649-1660. 
Bell, Walter Georg e. The Great P l ague in London 1665. 
London, 1 951 , rev. edn. 
Beloff, Max . Public Order and Popul a r Disturbances, 1660-
1714. Oxf ord, 1938. 
Bennett, H.S. English Books & Readers, 1603-1640. 
Cambridg e, 1970. 
Birrell, Augustine. Seven Lectures on The Law and History 
of Copyright i n Books. London, 1899 . 
Blagden , Cypri an. 'Cha rter Trouble', The Book Collector, 
VI ( 1 95 7), pp . 369-77. 
----- The St a tione rs' Company: A History, 1403-195 9 . 
London, 1960. 
-----. 'The Stationers' Company in the Civil War Pe riod', 
The Library, 5th. s., XIII ( 1958), pp . 1-17. 
Bond , Maurice F. Guide to the Records of Parli ament. 
London, 1971. 
Bosher, Robert S. The Making of the Restoration Settlement. 
·New York , 1 951. 
Bowler, Dom Hugh. London Sess ions Records, 1605-1685. 
London ( Catholic Record Society), 1934. 
Brodowski, Joyce He lene . 'Litera ry Pira cy in England From 
the Restoration to the Early ~igh:feenth Century', Unpub-
lished Columbia Univ. Doctor of Library Science thesi s , 
1973. 
Brown , Louise Farg o. The First Earl of Sh a ftesbury. 
New York , 1 933 . 
----- The Politica l Activities of the Baptists and Fifth 
Monarchy Men in Eng l and During the Interregnum. 
Washington, D.C., 1912, re pr. 1 966. 
Brown, T., ed. Mi s cellane a. Aulic a . London, 1702. 
Browning , Andrew, ed. Memoirs of Sir John Reresby, 
Gl asgow, 1936. 
----- Thomas Osborne Earl of Danby a nd Duke of Leeds, 
1632-1712 . Glasgow, 1 951, 3v. 
Burnet, Gilbert. Bi shop Burnet's History of Hi s Own Time. 
Oxford , 1 823 , 6v. 
Burrage , Ch runplin. The Early English Dissenters in the 
Light of Recent Research. Cambridg e, 1912, 2v. 
Capp , B.S. The Fifth Mona rchy Men: a study in Seventeenth-
century English Millenarianism. London, 1972. 
Catalogue of the Books, Pamphlets & Manuscripts in the 
Angus Ltbrary a t Regent ' s Park College , London. 
London, 1908. 
Catalogue of the Pamphlets, Books, Newspapers , and Manu-
scripts rel a ting to the Civil War, the Co~nonwea1th, 
and Restoration Collected b George Thomason 1640-1661. 
London British Museum, 190 , 2v. 
Christie, W.D. Letters Addressed from London to Sir 
Jose ph Wi11iamson . Camden Society, 1874, 2v. 
----- A Life of Anthony Ash1ey Cooper, First Earl of 
Shaftesbury. 1621-1683. London, 1871, 2v. 
C1 a ncy, Thomas H. English Catholic Books, 1641-1700~ 
A Bibliog r aphy. Chic ago, 1 974. 
C1 a rk, Andrew, ed. The Life and Times of Anthony Wood. 
Oxford, 1891-1900, 5v. 
C1ark, Sir Georg e. The Later Stuarts 1660-1714. Oxford , 
1961, 2nd ed. 
Clyde, Willi am M. ' Parliament and the Press, 1643-7', 
The Libra ry, 4th s., XIII (1933 ), pp. 399-424. 
----- ' Parliament and the Press. 11.', The Library , 4th. 
s., XIV (1934), pp . 39-58. 
----- The Struggle for the Freedom of the Press from 
Caxton to Cromwel1. St. Andrews, 1934. 
Cobbett, Wi11i am, ed. The Parliamentary History of England. 
London, 1 806-20 , 36v. 
Cockburn, J.S. A History of English Assizes, 1558-1714. 
Cmnbridg e, 1972. 
Coo _ er, Wi11i am Durant. Savi1e Correspondence. Camden 
Soc i e ty, 185 8 . 
Cragg , G.R. From Puritanism to the Age of Reason. Cam-
bridg e, 1950, repr. 1 966 . 
-----. Purit anism in the Pe riod of the Gre a t Persecution, 
1660-1688. Cambridg e, 1957. 
Crane, R.S. and F.B. Kaye. A Census of British Newspape rs 
and Periodical s 1620-1800. Chapel Hill , N.C., 1927. 
Crosby, Thomas . The History of the English Baptists. 
London, 1738-40, 4v. 
Curtis, Mar k H. ' Wil1iam Jones: Puritan Printer and 
Propagandist', The Library, 5th s., XIX (1964), pp . 38-66. 
Davis, Herbert and Harry Ca rter, ed. Mechanick Exe rcise s 
on the whole Art of Printing , by Joseph Moxon. Oxford , 
1962, 2nd. ed. 
de Beer, E.S., ed. The Diary of John Evelyn. Oxford, 
1959 ( Oxford Standard Authors edition). 
Dobell, P.J. 'The Popish Plot and the Religious and 
Pol itic al Intrigues of the last qu a rter Of the 17th 
Century', bookseller's catalogue, 1919. 
Ebsworth, Jose ph Woodfall. The Bagford Ballads: Illustra-
ting The Last Years of the Stuarts. Hertford, 1878. 
-----. The Roxburghe Ballads. Hertford (Ballad Society), 
1883-5, volumes iv-v . 
Ellis, H., ed. The Obituary of Richard Smyth ••• being a 
catalogue of ... all persons he knew ..• 1627-16 74. 
Camden Society, 1849. 
Emden , Cecil S. The People and the Constitution. Oxford, 
1956, 2nd. ed. 
Eyre, G.E. Briscoe and Charles R. Riving ton. A Transcript 
of the Re g isters of the Worshi pful Company of St a tioners: 
from 1640-1708 A.D. London, 1913-4. 
Feiling, Kei th. A History of the Tory Party, 1640-1714. 
London, 1924 ( 1970 printing ). 
Feiling, Kei th and F.R.D. Needham, 'The Journal s of Edmund 
Warcup , 1676-84', English Historical Review, Xl ( 1925), 
pp . 235-260. 
Ferguson, J ames. Robert Ferg u son , The Plotter. Edinburgh, 
1887. 
F ishwick , Henry, ed. The Note Book of the Rev. Thoma s 
Jolly A.D . 1671-1693. Chetham Soc iety Public a tions , 
n.s., XXXIII, 1895. 
Ford , Worthington Chauncey. ' Benjamin Harris, Printer and 
Bookseller ', Massachusetts Historic a l Soc iety Proceedings , 
LVII (1923 ), pp . 34-6 8 . 
-----. The Boston Book Market, 1679-1700. Boston, 1917, 
repr. 1 9 72. 
F oster, Sir W. 'V enner ' s Rebellion ', London Topog r aphic a l 
Record, 1 8 (1952 ), pp . 27-33. 
Foxcroft, H.C., ed. ' Some Unpublished Letters of Gilbert 
Burnet ', Camden Miscellany, XI , 1907. 
-----. A Supplement to Burnet ' s History of my Own Time. 
Oxf ord, 1 902 . 
Franc i s , F . C . , 
Catalogues. 
ed. Narcissus Luttrell's P op ish Plot 
Oxford (Luttrell Society), 1956. 
Fraser , Pe ter. The Int elli ence of the Secret a ries of 
St a te & their monopoly of licensed news, 1660-16 
Cambridge, 1 956 . 
Gaskell, Philip . A New Introduction to Bibliog r aphy; 
Oxford, 1972. 
Gee, Hen ry. 'The Derwen tdale plot, 1663', Trans a ctions 
of the Roy a l Historic a l Society, 3rd s., 11(1917), 
pp . 1 25-42. 
Georg e, M. Dorothy. ' Elections and Electioneering , 1679-
81 ', En glish Historical Review, XLV ( 1930 ), pp. 552-578 . 
Gillett, Charles Ri pley. Burned Books: neg lected chapters 
i n British History and Literature. New York, 1932, 2v. 
----- Ca t a logue of the McAlp in Collection of British 
History and Theology. New York, 1927-30, 5v. 
Greg , W. W. A Companion to Arber. Oxford , 1967. 
-----. Some Asp ects and Problems of London Publishing 
Be tween 1550 and 16 50. Oxford, 1956. 
[ Grey, An chitell) . Deb a tes of the House of Commons , From 
the Year 1667 to the Ye a r 1694. London, 1763, lOve 
Ha i g , Robert L. ' New Light on the King ' s Printing Office 
16 80-1730 ', Studies i n Bibliography', VIII (1956 ), pp . 
157-6 7. 
Ha ley, K.H.D. The F irst Earl of Shaftesbury. Oxford, 1968. 
-----, ed . The Stua rts. London, 1973. 
-----. Willi am of Oran g e and the English Opposition, 
1672-4. Oxford , 1 95 3. 
Ha l k ett, Samuel and John Laing . A Dictiona ry of th e 
An on mous and Pseudonrmous Lierature of Great Britain. 
Edinburgh, 1 9 2 - 2 , new and enl a r g ed edn. 
Handover, P. M. Printing in London , from 1476 to modern 
times. London, 1960. 
Hanson , Lawrence. Government and the Press , 1695-1763. 
Oxford , 1936. 
Ha rri s on , Frank Mott. A Bibliog r aphy of 
John Bunyan ., London ( Bibliog r aphical 
6) , 1932. 
the Works of 
Society, supplement 
Ha rt, W.H. Index Expurgatorius Anglic anu s. IJondon , 1872-8 , 
5 parts only published, repr. 1969. 
Havighurs t, Alfred F . 'The Judiciary and Politics in 
the Reign of Charles 11', Law Quarterly Review , 66 (1950 ), 
pp . 6 2-78, 229-252. 
He a d, Richard a nd F rancis Kirkman. The En glish Rogue, 
described in the Life of Meriton La troon. London, 
1 9 28, re pr. 
Heriot, Duncan B. ' Ana b aptism in Engl and during the 
17th Cen tury', Tran sactions of the Con regationa l 
Hi s toric a l Society, XIII 1 937, pp . 22-40. 
He ywood, Thomas. The Di a ry of the Rev. Henry Newcome. 
Cheth8~ Society Public a tions, XVIII, 1849. 
Hill, Christopher. God's Engl ishman : Oliver Cromwell and 
the English Revolution. London, 1 970. 
----- Th e World Turned Ups ide Down: Radical ideas 
during the Engl ish Revolution. New York, 1972. 
Hiscock, W.G. The Chr i s t Church Supplement to Win~ ' s 
Short-Title Catalogue, 1641-1700. Oxfo rd, 195 . 
Hodg son , Sydney. ' Papers and Documents Recently found at 
St a tioners' Hall', The Libra ry, 4th s ., xxv ( 1945 ), 
pp . 23-36 . 
Holdsworth, W. S . History of English Law. London, 1 966 , 
16v. 
-----. ' Press Control and Copyr i ght in the Si xteen th and 
Seventeenth Centuri es ', Yale Law Journal , XXIX ( 1920), 
p p . 841-58 . 
Horwitz, Henry . Revolution Politicks: The Career of Daniel 
F i n ch Se cond Earl of Nottingham, 1647-1730. Crunbridge, 
1968. 
Howe, Ellic. A List of London Bookb i nders , 1648-1815. 
London (Bibliog r aphic a l So ci e ty), 1950. 
Howell, T.B., comp. A Complete Collection of St a t e Tri a l s . 
London, 1809-26, 33v. 
Hunter , Joseph , ed . The Diary of Ralph Thoresby . London, 
1 830, 2v. 
Hyde , H. Montg omery . Judg e J effreys . London , 1948. 
Johnson , A. F . Sele cte d Essays on Books and Printin g , ed . 
by Percy H. Muir. Amsterdam, 1970. 
Jones, J. R . Th e First Wh i gs: Th e Politic s of the Exc lus ion 
Cri s i s , 1678-1683. Oxford , 1961. 
-----. 'The Green Ribbon Club ', Durham Uni versi ty Journal , 
XLIX U956), pp . 17-20. 
-----. 'J ames 11' s Whig Coll a b ora tor s ', The Historic a l 
Journ al, III ( 1960 ), pp . 65-73. 
----- The Revolut ion of 1 688 in Eng l and . London) 1972. 
J ordain, Violet. Si r Ro g e r L'Estrange, Selections from 
the Observ a tor. Los Ang eles (August an Reprint So ci e ty), 
1970. 
Keeton , G. W. Lord Chancellor J effreys and th e Stuart 
Cause. London , 1965. 
Kelyng , Sir John. A Report of Divers Cases in Pleas of 
t he Crown, ed. by G. J. BroV'me. Dubl i n, 1789. 
Kennet t, White. A Re g i s t er a nd Chroni cl e Ecclesiast ical 
and Civil. London , 1728. 
Kenyon , John. The Popish Plot. 
----- Robert Spencer, Earl of 
London, 1958. 
London, 1972. 
Sunderland, 1641-1702. 
Kitchin, George. Sir Roger L ' Estrange : A Contribution to 
the History of the Press i n the Seventeenth Century. 
London , 1913. 
Knott, David. 'The Bookselle rs and the Plot: Luttrell 
Pamphle t s in the Univers ity of London Library ', The 
Book Collector, XXIII (1974), pp. 194-206. 
Lac ey , Douglas R. =D~i~s~s~e~n~t~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 
in England, 1661-1 9 . New Brunswick, 
Latham, Robert and Willi am Mat thews. The Diary of Samuel 
Pepys. London, 1970-6, 9v. 
Lee, Mat thew Henry, ed. Diaries and Letters of Phili p 
Henry. London, 1882. 
Lee, Maurice, Jr. The Cabal. Urbana , Ill., 1965. 
Levin, Jennif er. The Charter Controvers i n the Cit 
of London, 1660-1 and its Conseguences. London, 
1969. 
Levy, Leonard W. Legacy of Suppress ion: Freedom of S~ee ch 
and Press i n Early Ameri c an History. Cambridge, M?-ss., 
1960. 
A List of Books ..• Before 1701 in Guildhall Library. 
London, 1966-7, 2v • . 
Litt1efie1d, David J. 'The Polemic Art of Sir Roger 
1 ' Estrange : A Study of His Pol itical Writings , 1659-
1688', Unpublished Yale Ph. D. thesis, 1 961. 
Loades, D.M. 'The Theory and Pract ice of Censorship in 
Sixt eenth-Century England ', Transactions of the Royal 
Historical Soc iety, 5th s. , XXIV ( 1974), pp. 141-57. 
Long, Ra1ph Bernard. 'Dryden ' s importance as a spokesman 
of t he Tories', Univ. of Texas Studies in Engl i sh , 1941, 
p . 77-99. 
Lord , George deF., ed. P o ems on Affairs of State: Augustan 
Sat iric a l Verse, 1660-1714. New Haven, 1963-75, 7v. 
Lumpk i n , Wil1iam L. Baptist Confessions of Faith. 
Philadelphia , 1959. 
Luttre11 , Narc i ssus. A Brief Historical Relation of St a t e 
Affairs from September 1678 to April 1714. Oxford, 
1857, 6 vols. 
Lynch, Katherine M. J a con Tonson, Kit-Cat Publisher. 
Knoxvi11e, Tenn., 1971. 
Macdona1d, Hugh . John Dryden, A Bibliography of Early 
Edit ions and of Drydeniana. Oxford , 1 939. 
I I 
Manning , Brian, ed. P olitics, Relig ion and The Engli sh 
Civil War. London, 1973. 
lVIar g oliouth, H. M. ed. The Poems and Letters of Andrew 
lVIarvell. Oxf ord, 1 92 7, 2v. 
lVI cGlothlin, W.J. Baptist Confessions of Faith. London, 
1 911 . 
lVIason, Wilmer G. ' The Annual Output of Wing-listed Titles, 
1649-16 84 ' , The Library , 5th s., XX IV ( 1974 ) , pp . 219-20. 
lVI cKenzie, D. F . ed . St a tioners ' Company Apprentices, 1605-
1640. Cha rlottesville, Va ., 1 961 . 
-----. St a tioners' Com a ny Ap rentic es 1641-1700. Oxford 
( Oxf ord Bibliog r aphic a l Society, 1 9 74. 
McKerrow, R.B., ed. A Dictiona ry of Printers a nd Book-
sellers in Engl and , Scotland and Irel and •.. 155 7-1640. 
London , 1910. 
McL a chl an , Herbert John . Soci ani sm in Seventeenth-Century 
England . Oxfo rd, 1951. 
Mi ddl ebush, F.A. Despatches of Thoma s Plott and Thomas 
Chudleigh. The Hague, 1926. 
Miller, C. William . 'In The Savoy: A Study in Po s t-
Res tora tion I mprint s ' , Papers of the Bibliog r aphical 
So ciety, I ( 1 948 ) , pp . 40-6. 
-----. 'Thomas Newcomb : A Re s tora tion Printer's Ornament 
Stock ', Papers of the Bibliog r aphic a l SOCiety, III ( 1 950), 
pp . 155-70. 
Miller, John. P opery and Politic s i n Engl and , 1660-16 88 . 
Crunbridg e, 1 9 73. 
Monagh an , Frank . 'Benj amin Harris, Printer, Bookseller, 
and the F irst Americ an Journa list', Colophon, XI I ( 1932 ). 
Moore , John Robert . ''' Rob in Ho g " St ephens: Me ssenger of 
of the Press', Papers of the Bi b liog r aphic a l So ciety 
of Americ a , L ( 1 956 ), pp . 381-7. 
Moran , J ames. ' St a tioners Companies of th e Briti sh Isl es '. 
Newc a stle, 1975. 
Morison, St anley. The English Newspaper. Cambridg e , 1932 . 
- ---- Ichabod Dawks and his News-Letter, with an a ccount 
of t he Dawks F amily of Bo okse llers and St a tione rs, 16 35-
1731. Cambridg e, 1 931. 
lVI orley, Iri s . A Thousand Lives, An Accoun t of th e Engli s h 
Revolutiona ry lVI ovement 1660-1685. London, 1954. 
Morrison, Paul G. I ndex of P rinters, Publishers and Book -
sell e rs i n Donald Wi ng ' s Short-Titl e Cat a logue .•. 1641-
1700. Charlottesville, Va ., 1 955 . 
Mortime r, Russell S. ' The First Century of Qu ake r Printer s ' , 
The Journal of the Fri ends ' Historic a l SOCiety, XL ( 1948 ), 
pp . 37-49 . 
lVIuddiman , J .G. 'Benj amin Harris, The First American 
Journalist', Notes & Querie s , 163 (1932 ), pp . 129-33; 
1 47- 50; 166-70 ; 273-4. 
The Bloody Assizes. London, 1929. 
----- ' Franci s Smith, "The Elder"', Notes & Queries, 
163 (1932 ), pp . 57-62; 206. 
----- The King 's Journalist, 1659-1689. London, 1923. 
----- Tercent enary Handlist of En glish and Welsh Newspapers, 
Magaz i nes and Reviews. London, 1920. 
Mumby, F rank Arthur. Publishing and Bookselling : A History 
from the Earl iest Times to the Present Day. London, 
1956, 4th edn. rev. 
Newd i gate-Newdegate, Lady. Cavalier and Purit an in the 
Days of the Stua rt s . London, 1901. 
Newlin , Thomas , trs . Bi shop Parker ' s History of His Own 
Times. London, 1727. 
of Hera clitus ', Harvard 
and Literature, XVI 
Nich ol s , J . B ., ed. The Lif e and Error s of John Dunton. 
London, 1818 , 2v. 
Ni xon , Howa rd 1\1 . EngliS-h Restora tion Bo okb i nd i ngs , Samu el 
Mearne and his con temp oraries . London , 1974. 
North, Ro g er. Examen : or, an Enquiry i n to the Credit and 
Vera city of a P retended Complete History. London , 1740 . 
----- The Life of the Ri ght Honourable F r anci s No rth, 
Ba ron of Guildford. London, 1742. 
Nutt all, Geoffrey F. and Owen Chadwick, eds. From Uniformit y 
to Un ity, 1662-1962. London, 1 962 . 
Nutt a ll, Geoffrey F . The We l sh Saint s 1640-1660, WaIter 
Cra doc k , Va v asor Powell, Morgan Llwyd. Cardiff, 1 95 7. 
Ogg , David. England i n the Reign of Charles 11. London, 
1 956 , 2nd . ed. 
Orme, Willi am . ed . 
William Kiff i n . 
Remar kabl e Passages i n th e Life of 
London , 1823. 
Osborn , J ames M. 'R efle ctions on Narci ssu s Luttrell ( 1 65 7-
1732 )', The Book Collector, VI (195 7), pp . 1 5- 27. 
Parker , William R. ' Milt on , Rothwell, and Simmons ', Th e 
Library, 4th s ., XVII I (1 938 ), pp . 89-103. ---
Parkinson, Richard , ed. The Autob i ography of Henry 
Newcome. Chetham So ci e t y Publicati ons , XXVI and XXVII, 
1852. 
-----. The Li fe of Adam Martindale Writt en by Hi mse l f . 
Che th al11 Socie t y Public a tions , IV, 1845. 
Parks , St ephen. John Dunton and the -English Book Trade. 
New York, 1976. 
Penney , Norman , ed. Extra ct s from St a t e Papers Rel a ting 
to Fri ends , 1654- to 1 6 72. London, 1913. 
P i nkus , Philip . Grub. St. s tripped bare. London, 1968 . 
Plant , Marjorie. The Engl i s h Book Trade: an Econ omic 
Hi s tory of th e Making and Sale of Books . London, 1965, 
2nd. ed. 
Plomer , Hen ry R. A Dictionary of th e Booksellers and 
Printers who were a t wo r k in Engl and , Scotl and and 
Ireland F rom 1641 to 1 66 7. London, 1 90 7. 
-----. A Dic tionar of the Print ers and Bookse ll e r s who 
~ _________________________ t _o __ l~7_2~5. London , 1 922 . 
-----. ' Notic es of Printing and Pri n ters in the St a t e 
Papers ', Bi bl iog raphic a , 11 (1896 ), pp. 204-26 . 
-----. ' Se c re t Pr i n ting During the Civil War', The Library, 
2nd s. , V (1 904 ), pp . 374-403. 
----- A Short History of Engli sh Printing 1476-1900. 
London , 1915. 
Poll a rd, A. W. ' Somes Notes on the History of Co pyright 
in England , 1 662-1714 ', The Libra r y , 4th s., III (1923 ), 
pp . 9 7-11 4 . 
Poll a rd, Grah am and Albert Ehrman. The Distribution of 
Books b Catalog u e: from the i nv ent ion of rinting to 
A. D. 1 00 . C~bri dge , 19 5, for the Roxburghe Club. 
Printin Paten ts Abridpements of Pat ent S ecifications 
Re l a ting to Prin ting , 1 17-1 57, pref a tory note by 
John Harrison. London , ( Printing Historical Society), 
1969. 
Rahn , B.J., ed. Sir Ro e r L' Estran e Citt and Bwn k in 
( 16 80 ). Los Angel es Au g u s t an Repri n t So ci ety, 1 965. 
Ralph , J ames. 
Rans om, Ha rry. 
Act for the 
Te x. , 1 956. 
The History of Engl and. London, 1744 , 2v. 
The Copyright St a tute: An Essay on 'An 
Encouragement of Learning , 1710 '. Au s tin , 
Ri v i ngton , Cha rles Robert. A Bri ef Account of the Worshipful 
Company of St a tioners. London, 1930. 
Rix , S . Wilton , ed. Th e Di a ry and Autobiography of Edmund 
Bohun Esq. Beccles, Suffolk, 1 853 . 
Robb i ns , Carol i ne. The Di a ry of J ohn Milward. Cambridge , 
1 9 38. 
----- Th e Ei ghteenth-Century COlnmonwealthmen . Cambridge , 
Mass ., 1959. 
Ro g ers , Philip G. The F i f th Mona rchy Men . Oxford , 1966 . 
Rollins, Hyder Edward . The P e py s Ball a ds. Cambridge , Mass ., 
1929-32 , 8v. 
Ro nalds, F r ancis S. The Attempted Whig Revolution of 1678-
1681. Urbana , Ill., 1937. 
Rostenberg, Leona. Literary, Political, Scientific, 
Religious & Legal Publishing, Printing & B ookselli~g 
in Eng l and, 1551-1700: Twelve Studies. New York, 1 965, 2v. 
-----. The Minorit Press & the English Crown A Stud 
in Repression, 155 -1 25. Nieuwk oo p , 19 71. 
Routledge , J ames . Chapters in the History of P opular 
Prog res s chiefly in relation to The Freedom of the P res s 
and Tri a l by Jury. 1660-1820. London, 1 876. 
Rowe, Violet A. Sir Henry Vane , the Younger. London, 1 970. 
Rutt, John To will. Di a ry of Thomas Burton. London, 1 828 , 4v. 
Sachse, Willi 8~ L. The Diurnal of Thomas Rugg , 165 9-1661. 
Camden Soc i ety , 3rd. s., XC I (1 961). 
Shar p e, Re g inald R . London and the Kingdom. London, 
1 894 , 3v. 
She pard, Leslie. The Broa dside Ballad, A Study in Orig ins 
and Meaning . London , 1962. 
----- The History of Street Litera ture . London, 1973. 
Siebert, Frederick Seaton. F reedom of the Press in Engl and , 
1 4 76 -1776: The Ri se and Decline of Government Control s. 
Urb a na, Ill., 1952. 
----- . ' Regul a tion of the Press in the Sevente enth Century', 
Journali sm Qu a rterly, 13 ( 1936), pp . 381-93. 
Sitwell, Sir Georg e. The First Whig , an a ccoun t of the 
Parli ament a ry caree r of Willi am Sachev erell. Sc ar-
borough, 1 894 . 
Smith, Jo se ph. Bi bl iothec a Anti-Qu akeriana ; or, A Ca t a lo§ u e 
of Books Adverse to the Society of F riends . London, 1 73 . 
-----. A Descriptive Catalogue of F riend s ' Bo oks . London, 
1867, 2v. 
----- Supplement to a Descriptive Ca t a logue of F riends ' 
Books. London, 1893. 
Solt, Le o ·F. Saints in Arms: Purit anism and Democra cy in 
Cromwell's Army. Stanford, 1 959 . 
Sommervill e , C. John. ' On the Di s tribution of Religious 
and Oc cult Literature in Seve n teenth-Century Engl and', 
Th e Library, 5th s ., XXIV ( 1974), pp . 221-5. 
Spencer, Lois. 'The Profess ional and Literary Connexions 
of Georg e Thomason' , The Library, 5th s., XIII ( 1958 ), 
pp . 102-118. 
-----. 'The Politics of Georg e Thomason', The Libra ry, 
5t h s. , XIV (1959 ), pp. 11-27 . 
Starr , Edward C., ed . A Baptist Bibliog r aphy, Phila -
delphia , 1 947- ,in p rogress. 
Ste a r ns , Raymond Phine as . The Strenuous Purit an : Hugh 
Pe t er , 15 98-1660. Urbana , Ill., 1 954 . 
St eele , Robert, ed . A Bibliography of Royal Procl amations 
of the Tudor and Stua rt Sovereigns. Oxf ord , 1910 , 2v. 
Taylor, Adam . The History of the English Genera l Baptist s . 
London , 1 81 8 , 2v . 
[ Te rry, Althal. 'Giles Calvert' s Publishing Ca reer', The 
Journal of the Fri ends ' Historic a l Soci e ty, XXXV (1938 ), 
pp. 45-9 . 
Thomas , Dona l d. Long Time Burning , the histor~ of 
Lit erary Censorship i n Brit a i n. Londo n , 19 9 . 
Thomas , Ke ith. Relig ion a nd t he Decline of Magic. 
London , 1 971. 
Thomas , P . W. Sir Jqhn Be rkenhe ad 1617-1679, A Roy alist 
Uareer i n Po litics and Polemics. Oxfo rd, 1 969 . 
Thomps on , Edward M., ed . Correspondence of the FEl.lnily 
of Ha tton , ..• 1601-1704 . Camden So ciety, n.s., XII 
(18 78 ), 2v . 
Th omson, Robert S . 'The Development of the Bro a dside 
Ballad Trade and it s I n fluence upon th e Transmi ss ion 
of English F olks ongs ', Unpubli shed Cambridg e Ph.D. 
t hes i s , 1 9 74. . 
Turner , J.H., ed . The Rev. Oliver Heywood, 1630-170 2 , 
Hi s Autob iog r aphy, Di ari es , Ane c do t e and Eve n t Books. 
Brighous e, 1 882-5 , 4 . 
Underhill, Edward Bean , ed . Confessions of Faith, and 
other Public Doctlinents, illus tra tive of th e history of 
the Ba ti s t Ch urches of Engl and in th e 17th Centur • 
London Hanse rd Knollys Society , 1 54. 
----- Re cords of the Churches of Christ, gather ed a t 
Fenst anton, Warboys, and Hexham . 1 644-1720. London, 
1 854 . 
----- Records of a Church of Christ mee ting in Bro a dme a d, 
Bri stol. 1 640-1687. London , 1 847. 
----- T~acts on Libert of Conscience ..• 16l4-l66l. 
Londo n Hanse rd Knollys Society , 1 4 • 
Underwood, A.C. A Hi s tory of the Engli s h Baptist s . 
London , 1947. 
Walker, J. 'The Censorshi p of the Press During th e Reign 
of Charles 11 ', History , XXXV ( 1950), pp . 21 9-238 . 
-----. ' Dissent and Re~ubli c ani sm af t er the Restora tion', 
Bapti s t Qu a rterly, 8 (1 93 7), pp . 263-80 . 
--- --. 'The Yorkshire Plot, 1663', Yorkshire Ar cha elog ic a l 
Journal , 31 ( 1934), p . 348-59~ , 
Walker, R . B . 'The Newspaper Press i n th e Reign of 
Willi am Ill', Historical Journal , XVII (19 74), pp . 
691-709. 
Walzer, Michael. Th e Revolution of th e Sai n t s , A Study 
in the Origi ns of Radical Politics. New York, 1 9 70. 
Wedgwood , C.V. Poetry and Politic s under t he Stuart s . 
Cambridge , 1960. 
Weed , Kat herine K . and Ri chmond P . Bond. Studi es of 
British Newspa ers and Periodic a l s from their Be _i nnin 
to 1 00: A Bi bl io g raphy. Stud ies i n Ph ilology , 1 946. 
Wes tern, J. B . Mona rchy and Revolution: Th e Engl i sh State 
in the 16 80s . London , 1972. 
White, B.R. Th e English Separ a tist Tradition. Oxford , 
1 9 71. 
----- ' Henry J essey , A Pastor in Politi c s ', Baptist 
Quarterly , XXV ( 197 3), pp . 98-110 . 
Vhiting , C. E . 
Restorat ion 
Whitl ey , W.T. 
2v. 
Studie s in Engl ish Purit anism from the 
to t he Revo lution , 1660-1688. London, 1 931 . 
A Bapti s t Bibl io araphy . London, 1 916-22, 
----- The Bapti s t s of London 1 6 1 2-1 928 . London, n . d. 
----- A History of Briti sh Baptists. London , 1923. 
----- Minutes of t he General Assembly of the General 
Bapti s t Churches i n England, with k i ndred Reco r ds; 
1654-1811. London , 1909-10, 2v. 
Wil1i ams , J. B . [ i. e. J. G. Muddiman] . 'The F orged "S p e e che s 
and Prayers" of th e Regicides ', Notes & Queries, 11th 
s., VII (1913), pp . 301-2; 341-2; 442; 502-3; VIII, pp . 
81-2; 122-3; 164-5; 202-3; 242-3; 284 . 
----- A History of Engl i sh Journalism to the foundation 
of th e Gazette. London, 1 908 . 
----- ' Nathaniel Thompson and the "Po pish Plot" ") , The 
Month , CXXXVIII (July 1 921 ), pp. 30-7. 
Wi llman , Robe rt. -:'The Or i g ins of " Whig " and "Tory" in 
Engl ish Politica l Language ', His t oric a l Journal , XVII (1 974), pp . 247-64. 
Wi ng , Donald , comp . Short-Title Catalogue of Books 
Printed in England , Scotland , Ireland , Wales , and 
British Americ a and of Engl ish books p rinted in 
other countries , 1641-1700 . New York , 1945-51, 3v. 
Revised edit ion , 1972 ( volwne one ), -
I,'I/ood, Anthony. Athenae Oxonienses , ed. by Philip Bliss . 
Oxford , 1813-20, 5v. in 4. 
Wood.field, Denis B. Surrept itious Printing in Engl and 
1550-1640. New York ~ B ibliographical So ciety of 
America), 1973. 
Wroth, Lawrence C. The Colonial Printer. Portl a nd, Me., 
1938 , 2nd ed. 
Wynne, William . The Life of Sir Leoline Jenldns . London, 
1724, 2v. 
Young , Kimball and Raymond D. IJawrence. Bibliog r aphy on 
Censorship and Propaganda. Eugene , Ore., 1928. 
UNIVBtSITY 
LIBRARY 
CAMBt!It"lG