# Licensing Order of 1643



## Bryan (Mar 21, 2006)

Howdy,

I'm doing a comparision of Milton's argument for free speech found in his Areopagitica to Mill's argument found in On Liberty for my Intro Philosophy final paper. I'm looking for some background information on the Licensing Order of 1643 (what the Areopagitica was written against). Anyone have any websites?

Bryan
SDG


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Mar 21, 2006)

Here is the text of the Order. Some background or context is provided here. And the response, if you will, of the Westminster Assembly to Milton's argument is found here.


----------



## Bryan (Mar 21, 2006)

Excelent, thanks!

Bryan
SDG


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Mar 22, 2006)

*Company of Stationers*

For some background on the Company of Stationers, the below is from a section on the printing of the Westminster Standards from my article (p. 47), "œExamining the Work of S. W. Carruthers: Justifying a Critical Approach to the Text of the Westminster Standards & Correcting the 18th Century Lineage of the Traditional Scottish Text," _The Confessional Presbyterian,_ 1 (2005) 43-64. 


> The Minutes contain entries showing the Assembly´s concern for publications of the time. They had a committee dealing with the printing of Bibles, were interested in particular printing projects, as well as in censorship of books.*[size=-2]20[/size]* As to the last, the Assembly was particularly concerned with the number of books promoting blasphemy and heresy (_Minutes,_ 218), and apparently brought to Parliament´s attention any work that became a concern to them (_Minutes,_ 170, 172-173; Lightfoot, 9). Also, the Parliament on its part would on occasion ask the divines to review a book (_Minutes,_ 338, 351). The usual agent of such censorship was the Company of Stationers, which had been given power to seize books and make arrests, since the time of Queen Mary,*[size=-2]21[/size]* when they were granted a monopoly over all printing. On at least one occasion, the Stationers´ wardens attended upon the Assembly to bring to their attention a particular book and individual they had in their custody (_Minutes,_ 105). But beyond these various interesting items, other than the orders for printing, and the expressed care for exactness, there are no details describing how the scribes were to work with the printer. Again, it becomes necessary to make reasonable suppositions based upon what is generally known about printing practices of the time.
> 
> 
> > *20.* _Minutes,_ 71, 78, 83, 97, 105, 123, 149, 166, 169, 170, 181, 182, 184, 186, 188, 192-193n.
> > *21.* W. W. Greg, _Some Aspects and Problems of London Publishing Between 1550 and 1650_ (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1956) 1-4. The Long Parliament, while curtailing some of the abusive powers granted by the Star Chamber in 1637, retained the Stationers as the enforcers of state censorship (Greg, 13). According to Sheila Lambert, the 1637 grant was at the Stationers´ solicitation to protect their monopoly. [Robin Myers and Michael Harris, eds., _Aspects of Printing From 1600,_ Sheila Lambert "œThe Printers and the Government, 1604-1640" (Oxford Polytechnic Press, 1987) 1]. Others take issue with Ms. Lambert´s understating of Laudian censorship. [Robin Myers and Michael Harris, eds., "œIntroduction"; _The Stationers´ Company and the Book Trade 1550-1990_ (New Castle: Oak Knoll Press, 1997) vii-viii; and Jean Tsushima, "œMembers of the Stationers´ Company who serviced in the Artillery Company before the Civil War: Ralphe Mabbe and his Network," Ibid. 74; 83 n17].


----------

