U) 0~^ « CORNELL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY BOUGHT WITH THE INCOME OF THE SAGE ENDOWMENT FUND GIVEN IN 189I BY HENRY WILLIAMS SAGE 2232.W33°C85"""'""*'"-"'™'^ James, Watson, Kng's olln titer. 3 1924 029 491 929 Overs Date Due ■fliu.^-'-*^ ^t<4^^^ 'r* . '. ^ PW!""*!""'"'"""' ._ . - - »1 Cornell University Library The original of this book is in the Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924029491929 James Watson Kings Printer '; tti." W. J. COUPER GLASGOW PRIVATELY PRINTED 1910 LC- ^/ From the ' Scottish Historical Review ' April, 1 9 10 James Watson, King's Printer THE name of James Watson deserves to be held in grateful remembrance for many reasons. At a time when private cupidity and technical incapacity had brought the art of printing into great discredit in Scotland, he did much to restore it to public esteem by the general excellence of the work that issued from his press. A printing monopolist to a certain extent himself, he did not use his privilege either to oppress others of the trade or to enrich himself at the expense of his art. He had exalted notions of the importance and possibilities of the craft, and published the first ' History ' of it that appeared in j^ritain. Above all, he was time and again the champion of his native country against the encroachments of the South, and by lawsuits and otherwise did what he could to enlarge the liberty of the press in that age of printing restrictions. What is known about Watson's early years may be summed up in a few lines. His father was James Watson, ' the Popish Printer,' whom James VII. set up in Holyrood Palace, and who, before coming to Edinburgh, had been a merchant in Aberdeen.^ Young Watson would appear to have been born in the northern city,^ but in what year is unknown. The date 1664 has been mentioned,* but though this is probable, it cannot be verified. By the time his father died in 1687 he had evidently come to years of discretion, although he describes himself as being then 'young.' Fountainhall, under date Aug. 8, 1687, relates how the Privy Council proceeded against the Edinburgh booksellers and printers, so that they should not print or sell anything with- out license, and adds that Watson, senior, was exempted from this 1 The following entry in the Burgess Register of Aberdeen {New Spalding Club Misc. ii. 396) may refer to him : ' 1648, Jan. 26, James Watsone served with Adam Watsone, merchant, admitted a guild burgess.' A James Watson, younger, merchant in Aberdeen, is pilloried in Records of Justiciary (Sc. Hist. Soc), ii. 209, for an unsavoury offence tried in 1674. 2 Watts's Bib. Brit. ii. 593. ^Scottish N. and Q. xii. 133. James Watson, King's Printer 5 Act, ' so he and his son may print or sell what they please against the Protestants.' ^ If the words put in italics refer to James, it would indicate that he was of respectable age in that year. The religion of the father and the consequent favour which it brought from the King proved more than once an awkward circumstance in the life of the son after James VII. had forfeited the throne. Though he renounced Roman error, the sincerity of his conversion was nevertheless gravely questioned. Within a few years of his death he was saluted as ' Popish Watson.' When it suited her purpose, his arch-enemy, Mrs. Anderson, had no scruple in reminding him that ' he was originally a Papist, that finding as such he could not well exercise his trade as a printer in Edinburgh, especially that he could not with freedom print such books as either his inclination, his religion or his interest prompted him to, and that he was prosecuted frequently for the same, he was pleased publicly to renounce the religion he was educated in and turn Protestant, — as to what kind of Protestant he turn'd I shall not take upon me to determine whether Episcopal or Presbyterian, whether either of them or both in their turn as he found his interest in conforming to this or that.' ^ In support of her allegations that Watson still remained Romanist at heart, Mrs. Anderson declared that Watson took every opportunity of printing Jacobite and Popish books, as well as made a joke of his conversion while in his cups. ' He that can make a jest of changing his religion,' she concluded epi- grammatically, ' may, I believe, without breach of charity be said to have changed but in jest.'* But when Mrs. Anderson so wrote, accusations and recriminations were the order of the day : Watson had his iu quoque in asserting that his rival was guilty of sedition and like political crimes. The truth may be that Watson sat easy to aU religion. His own description of himself is a man ' who is himself most loyal to the Queen and a hearty well-wisher to the church,'* the church being most probably that of England. In fact, that he was an Episcopalian, and a Jacobite to boot, is almost certain. He printed pamphlets on behalf of the Episcopal ^ Decisions, i. 473. ^ A Brief Reply to the Letter from Edinburgh relating to the Case of Mrs. Anderson, Her Majesty's Printer in Scotland [1712 ?], p. 8. ^Ibid. *' Memorial to the Secretary of State' (Scottish Records Office). The ' Memorial' is undated, but it probably belongs to the end of 17 14. It is, how- ever, endorsed ' Memorial for Mr. Watson, printer, 17 13.' 6 W. J. Couper clergy, who at the time could carry on their ministrations only under severe penal enactments.^ Principal Lee points out that about 1 712 the Government was not considered friendly to the Church of Scotland, and adds, that although they had been appointed Queen's Printers for Scotland, ' It was very provoking to see the most violent attacks upon the established church printed either by James Watson or Mr. Robert Freebairn, who seem to have exercised a discretionary power of declining to publish royal proclamations when they were not consonant with their own views ; otherwise it is difficult to discover why the Queen's proclamation against unlawful intruders into churches and manses in Scotland was printed, not by either of Her Majesty's printers, but by John Reid in Bell Wynd.'^ Watson himself tells that his mother was a Dutch woman,^ and the fact opens up an interesting line of conjecture about the extent of the business in which his father was engaged. About the middle of the seventeenth century Aberdeen merchants went far afield. The connection, for example, between them and Poland was very close, and Patrick Gordon, the famous general of Peter the Great, tells J how he was entertained at Posen in 1654 by a company of his countrymen, among whom, strangely enough, was a James Watson.* As is well known, the relations between Scottish merchants and Holland were very intimate, and several of them married Dutch wives. The family of Watson's mother seems to have occupied a good position. Her father' was able to lend money to Charles II. when that scapegrace prince was an exile in Holland, money that never seems to have been repaid. His son-in-law made a claim for it in 1685, but was forced to be content with the gift of a restricted printing monopoly in lieu of hard cash. The memory of the injustice rankled, for as late as 17 14, when Watson, junior, was pleading for his rights as King's Printer, he referred to himself as ' a man whose grandfather suffered for his loyalty.' * Watson says ' he was from his infancy bred a printer,' and his father did what he could to make the path clear for him. ' Before ^ Ingram's ^A Jacobite Stronghold of the Church^ p. 6. ^ Lee's Memorial for the Bible Societies, p. 168. ^History of Printing, p. 15. * Northern Notes and (Queries, iv. 44. ^ At least the inference is that it is to his maternal grandfather Watson refers, History of Printing, p. 16. ^ ' Memorial,' ut supra. It is however somewhat difficult to attach the descrip- tion to Watson's maternal grandfather, upon whom Charles would have no claim for ' loyalty.' It may accordingly refer to the father of James Watson, senior. James Watson, King's Printer 7 his death,' says the son, ' he obtained a gift in my favour of being King's Printer after the expiring of Mr. Anderson's gift, but by his death it was neglected to pass the seals.' ^ It was a far-seeing act on the father's part, for the monopoly granted by Charles II. in 1 67 1 was not due to terminate till 1712, a quarter of a century later. The Anderson family showed unremitting vigilance in pro- tecting their printing rights, but their implacable hatred towards Watson may in part be explained by the knowledge they may have had of this attempt to supplant them. The art to which James was thus committed became a kind of family occupation. His brother Patrick was apprenticed to George Mosman, another Edinburgh printer. Patrick was evidently much younger than his brother, for when in 1698 his master dismissed him for purloining some books and money and for lending some types and tools to his brother without authority, James took up cudgels on his behalf. He tried to force Mosman to take his apprentice back, and when he refused carried the case to the Court of Session. Mosman could not make good his accusations, but the judge saw that useful training was out of the question. He accordingly ordered that Mosman should return the apprentice fee "of 100 marks and pay damages to a similar amount.^ About the same time (22 March, 1700) an Alexander Watson, described as a printer, buried a child in the Cheslie tomb in Old Greyfriars,^ and it is probable that he was another relative. Watson's own son was elaborately prepared to carry on his father's business. ' He educated his eldest son at schools and universities,' he says, ' and bound him apprentice abroad,' so that on his return home ' he might assist his father to bring the art to as much perfection here as it is in any other part.' * Subsequent references seem to indicate that this son unfortunately died before his father, or at least changed his occupation. How James Watson spent his time between his father's death and 1695 is unknown, but it is probable that he per- fected himself in his trade in some Edinburgh printing-house. In the latter year, however, he ' set up ' for himself in Warriston's Close, one of the numerous alleys that led off the High Street. Here he was kept reasonably busy : up to 1 700 a list of more than thirty productions of his press is known. ^ '^History of Printing, p. 16. 2 Fountainhall's Decisions, ii. 13. ^Register of Interments (Sc. Record Soc), p. 672. * ' Memorial.' ^ Cf. Aldis's List of Printed Books before 1 700. 8 W. J. Couper It is unlikely, however, that these books and pamphlets include all his work. It was the day of illicit printing, for Mrs. Anderson had her eyes everywhere watching for infringements of her rights, and in addition the inflammatory conditions that prevailed politically hardly made it safe for a printer pointedly to acknowledge everything he set up. Several productions exist whose style indicates the Watson press, but which cannot be more distinctly identified with him. One booklet entitled An Essay against the Transportation and Selling of Men to the Plantations of Foreigners . . . printed in the year 1699 ends abruptly at p. 24, and a MS. note on a copy declares that the press was then stopped by the Government and publication suppressed. Although there is nothing by which the printer can be identified, he was probably Watson. If Watson cannot be described as litigious by nature, he was yet seldom without a ' guid ganging plea ' of some kind on his hands. One action has already been referred to : he was involved in another in the same year. A wadset of the lands of Balskevie in Aberdeenshire was granted by Irvine of Drum to Forbes of Tilliegreig, which in turn came to 'Watson the printer.' The date of the latter transaction, 1677, indicates that it was probably carried through by Watson, senior, although the fact is not stated. In 1686 Forbes renounced the wadset to Irvine without the consent or approval of Watson, although he had been inhibited by him as early as 1678. Watson, junior, waited for thirteen years before he raised an action for the recovery of what he considered his rights. It was pleaded that Forbes had no- authority to renounce the wadset on his own accord, but the argument showed that both law and the special circumstances of the case were against the pursuer, and he lost the cause. The name of James Nicolson of Trabrown, late Dean of Guild of Edinburgh, was conjoined with Watson's in the case, but what his interest was is not made apparent.-' Watson's connection with the periodical press began in 1699 and continued with more or less regularity till his death. The connection was a most honourable one. He was the first printer of Captain Donaldson's Edinburgh Gazette, that unfortu- nate print which may be said to have started the great succes- sion of the modern Scottish newspaper press. He issued 41 numbers, the last on July 17, 1699, and then, as Donaldson 1 Fountainhall's Decisions, i. 807. James Watson, King's Printer 9 afterwards said, 'he found it in his interest to disengage himself of his printer. The cause of the separation has not been discovered, but it may not have been unconnected with the raid made on Watson's premises already referred to. In the preceding June Donaldson was Imprisoned, by order of the Privy Council, for printing false news concerning the export of wool, and also for reporting the riotous behaviour of some women thereanent,^ but Watson does not appear to have been involved in the trouble. Whatever was the reason for the separation, Donaldson never seems to have employed Watson again, although he was often in straits for a printer. Once Watson began to produce newspapers, he was seldom without having the issue of one upon his hands. It was the time when the printer had more than an operative's interest in the paper he issued. In this way Watson set up at dliferent times, and, no doubt, in part controlled, the first Edinburgh Courant (1705), the Paris Gazette (1706), the Scots Postman (1708), and the Scots Courant (1710). The last he published for ten years from May, 17 10, and perhaps up to his death.* He also did his best to meet the growing demand for the periodical essay, and reprinted the History of the Learned {16^^), Steele's Tatler (17 10), and the Examiner (17 10), as well as assisted in producing a native Tatler (171 1) under the direction of Hepburn of Bearford.* The year 1700 proved to be a somewhat notable one In the story of Watson's career. For some time the anger of the Scottish people had been gradually rising over the failure of their Darien scheme of colonisation : about mid-summer, 1700, It reached almost to frenzy. Watson had previously been publish- ing verses and other matter on the subject,^ and his Jacobite tendencies would leave no doubt as to the view he took of the situation. At last the authorities proceeded against him, and he and Hugh Paterson, an Edinburgh surgeon-apothecary, were apprehended on a charge of printing and dispersing certain pamphlets.* Both were lodged in the Tolbooth, and both pre- sented petitions to the Privy Council to be released on bail. The petitions came before the Council on June 13, 1700. '^Edinburgh Gazette, June 12-15, 1699. ^The last known issue is that for April zo-22, 1720. ^ Fuller details may be found in the writer's Edinburgh Periodical Press. *Carstares, State Papers [1774], p. 448. '-Ibid. p. 525. lo W. J. Couper Watson, appealing ad misericordiam on the ground of ' his sickly condition 1 and poor family,' urged as against the charge of publishing unlicensed papers that the 'alleged deed is not said to be accomplished with any ill design of their petitioners, but as most reasonable to be imputed to the necessity he was under of printing something or other that may sell as the only means of subsisting his numerous family.' If he had printed what was unlicensed, he pleaded ' the daily custom amongst all the printers in town,' as well as the fact that no license was required for reprints. The Council, however, as the sequel shows, took a serious view of the case, and ordered Sir James Stewart, the Lord Advocate, instantly to institute a process against both prisoners.^ Meantime events were marching outside of the prison walls. News came to Edinburgh of the repulse of a Spanish descent upon the Scottish settlement at Darien, and the city went mad with joy. The mob ordered all windows in the main streets to be illuminated on the evening of June 20. When the time came, the thoroughfares were crowded with an unruly multitude that soon proceeded to works of devastation. The windows of all persons suspected of hostility to, or lukewarmness in, the popular cause were smashed. The house of the Lord Advocate was assailed and a warrant for the release of Watson and Paterson forced from him. Those who carried the document, however, were anticipated. ' Others of them,' wrote Murray of Philip- haugh to Carstares, ' had not patience to wait for the warrant, but by fire and other means broke up the Tolbooth and let all the prisoners out.' ^ Watson did not retain his liberty long. Whether he and Paterson were again taken by force or surrendered willingly 1 In the same petition he gives the exact disease from which he was sufFerin —gravel. It was the disease from which most petitioning prisoners suffered at that time. ^ Reg. Priv. Council, June 13, 1700. 3 Carstares, State Papers, 539; Arnot's Hist, of E din. 185. Charles Weir, Robert Henderson, Alexander Aitcheson, and John Easton were indicted on July 22 for the part they had taken in this attack on the Tolbooth. One of the charges against them was, that among other persons ' Hugh Paterson and James Watson, imprisoned and accused before the Lords of the Privy Council, were let out and set free.' Weir seems to have been specially active in the work of liberation. He 'assisted thereat with a drawn bayonett or dagger in his hand.' The prisoners were all found guilty {Records of Justiciary, Advocates' Library). James Watson, King's Printer ii to ' thole their assize ' is unknown : probably the latter, as no reference is made to the matter in the Register of Privy Council. Both appeared for trial before the Council on June 25, a few days after the riot. They were charged with ' making and uttering or [at] least concealing the author, and dispersing false and slanderous speeches and writes to the reproach of his Majesty and misconstrueing his proceedings to the engendering of discord betwixt his Majesty and his people and to the moving of mislike betwixt him and his subjects.' Paterson had the publication of two pamphlets laid at his door, Scotland's Grievances relating to Darien, and what is called A Short Speech proposed by a worthy member to be spoken in Parliament concerning the present State of the Nation. Quotations are given, one con- taining ' horrible words,' to show that these works were illegal in substance as well as in the method of their publication. Watson's particular offence was that he had issued a third pamphlet named, The People of Scotlands Groans and Lamentable Complaints^ made up of extracts from Scotland's Grievances. The author of this last pamphlet, says the libel, ' under the notion of two parents to the country, whereof he makes the Parliament one, says expressly that its other parent is dead or under a morall incapacity and that the people of this kingdom have been deprived of the benign influences of their King those hundred years and that our neighbours have hade the politicall fathers of our country under their command and made them treat the same like enemies and most of all at present, whereby his Majesties authority is as plainly pointed to as if his Majesty had been named.' It is not clear from the indictment whether each prisoner was charged with the other's shortcomings as well as his own, but the Council evidently considered the offences analogous, and held the panels as 'airt and pairt ' in them.^ There seems to have been no defence, although Watson had as his counsel Mr. John Spottiswood, of whose literary connection with his client more shall be said presently. The prisoners ' craved pardon and [threw] themselves upon his Majesties mercy.' The Council took a vote whether the punish- ment should be either banishment or fine, or both. It was carried to exact only one of the penalties, and banishment was agreed upon. Paterson and Watson were accordingly forbidden to come within ten miles of the city for a year and a day ^Reg. Privy Caunc. June 25, 1700. 12 W. J. Couper from July 15, 1700, the penalty for infringement in Watson's case being £^0 sterling.^ Where Watson spent the months of his banishment is only partially known. He was sentenced on June 25, 1700, and it is not till January 27 of the following year that he definitely appears in sight. On that day the ' Act Book of the Barony of Gorbals,' Glasgow, declares that ' James Watson, printer, late in Edinburgh, produced a Testificat of his honesty and good behaviour : and being now come to reside in the Gorballis, he hereby enacts and obleidges him to leive civily and peaceably with his neighbours and obey the Magistrats and Counsell of Glasgow and Baillie and Constables of Gorbellis, in tyme come- ing, under the paine of fyve pounds Scottis, ioties quoties, And Thomas Gemmell and James Smith, Hammermen in Gorbellis are hereby become cautioners for him whom he obleidges to relieve thereof.' ^ The terms of this undertaking had no special reference to the circumstances which had driven Watson to seek shelter in the western town, and contained no suggestion that he might again be guilty of unruly conduct. It was the usual agreement made by those who came to reside within the bounds. During fifteen years at the beginning of the same century over 300 persons came under a like obligation to live peaceably while they remained in Gorbals. On Feb. 4, 1701, Paterson presented a petition to the Privy Council asking that the remainder of his sentence of banishment should be remitted, and he allowed to return to Edinburgh. He pleaded that his practice in the capital was being ruined through his enforced neglect of it, and that his family was suffering great hardships from his absence. The Council seems to have con- sidered the ends of justice already served, and granted the required permission.* No mention is made of Watson, and 1 Mrs. Anderson, in the Brief Reply quoted above, evidently refers to this episode when she says Watson was ' banished nor could he return to Edinburgh till he had made a public recantation of his popish principles' (p. 14). Nothing in the records of the case lends countenance to the addition. 2 The Barony of Gorbals, by Robert Renwick (Regality Club, Series iv. Pt. i. p. 26). There can be no doubt that the Watson of this declaration is the Edinburgh printer. The Gorbals signature corresponds exactly with that affixed by Watson to the petition of the Edinburgh printers in 1704, referred to later. This petition is still exant among the Privy Council papers, and is reproduced (along with a facsimile of the signatures) in the Maitland Club Miscellany, ii. 239- ' Privy Council Register, Feb. 4, 1 70 1 . James Watson, King's Printer 13 there is no evidence that his term of exile was shortened. There exists, however, among some miscellaneous papers belonging to the Privy Council, a rough scroll agenda of the business to be brought before it on March 6, 1701. It contains a long list of items, among which stands 'Petition, James Watson, printer.' Unfortunately, no light is thrown on the nature of the petition. It may have been for the mitigation of sentence, or it may have had to do with the raid made on his premises by the indefatigable Mrs. Anderson, to be referred to presently. Neither the ' Acta ' nor the 'Decreta' of the Council's Register deal with it, and the petition itself is not available. Although banished from Edinburgh, Watson carried on his printing business, and there seems no doubt that the work itself was done in the capital. The sentence on him said nothing about continuing his occupation, and doubtless he made arrangement for the supervision of his printing-house. Only one publication is known to belong to this period — a booklet of 24 pages, named The Song of Solomon, called the Song of Songs. In English Meteer, Fitted to he Sung with any of the Common Tunes of the Psalms. It was a reprint in part of a book published by the Andersons in 1685, and bore the imprint: 'In the Gorbals, Printed by James Watson, and Sold at his House in Craig's Closs, Edinburgh 1701.'^ Exile was not the only misfortune which the erring printer had to endure in 1701. The event is somewhat obscure, but the following are the terms in which he refers to it. ' Mrs. Anderson . . . prevailed with the Magistrates of Edinburgh to discharge my working for some time, and in 1701 obtained a warrant from the Privy Council on a false representation to shut up my workhouse. But upon a full information given in by me to the Lords of Privy Council (wherein all the Printers of Edinburgh concurred) and a debate in the presence of their lordships, she was so well exposed that she made no attempt afterwards of that kind.'^ The oppressive acts of the indefatigable Mrs. Anderson against Watson would thus seem to have extended over a number of years. The minutes of the Privy Council and of the Town Council for 1701 have been searched, but no reference to Watson's complaint has been discovered. It is just ^A copy of this scarce piece turned up a few months ago. An example, however, was sold at the Duke of Marlborough's Sale, June 30, 1 8 19, and another appears in Heber's Lib. Cat. i. No. 6366. ^History of Printing, p. 18. 14 W. J. Couper possible that the unscrupulous lady took advantage of her enemy's absence, and that the petition of the scroll agenda of March 6, 1701, refers to her doings. In 1704 Watson was one of five printers, signatories to a petition presented to the Privy Council. They complained that the Town Council had ordered them to publish nothing whatever without the necessary public authority to do so : and ' for the more sure Performance of the Premisses, Appoints the whole Printers, present and to come, to give Bond and Caution for themselves. Apprentices and Servants observing of the Premisses.'' This the printers asserted was a plain infringement of the regula- tions under which their business had previously been conducted, and practically asked that the Corporation's Act should be reduced. The Privy Council, however, had been irritated beyond endurance by the amount and nature of the illicit printing prevalent, and ordered that the Town Council's Act should be rigidly enforced.^ In the following year Watson was involved in another squabble with the Privy Council. Two men, Evander Maclver and George Ker, had interested themselves in the betterment of the paper manufactured in Scotland, just as Watson had set himself to the improvement of printing. The trio found their efforts largely frustrated by the ease with which printed matter could be imported into the country from England. They were specially angered by an insolent note appended to an English book to the effect that its author would pursue any Scotsman who reprinted it ' for damages before the Secret Council as Usurpers upon his Property and Discouragers of his Endeavours for the Public Good and Service of the Nation.' ^ The petitioners had boldly begun the reproduction of that very book to show their contempt for the claims of their southern rivals, but the Privy Council had stepped in and vetoed its completion. Watson and his friends declared the claim to be ' an open encroachment on their Native Right,' and begged the Council to allow the work to go on. Their Lordships, however, were obdurate, and proceeded to reprisals. They ordered Maclver and Watson to be brought before them to answer for their conduct. On Watson was laid the additional charge of having reprinted a pamphlet called Scotland reduced by force of Armes and made a Province of ' Town Council Minutes, Oct. 29, 1703. ^Maitland Club Miscellany, ii. 236-9. ^Edinburgh Periodical Press, i. 217. James Watson, King's Printer 15 England} Unfortunately, it is impossible to discover the outcome of the whole business, for the Register of the Council has been searched in vain for a reference to it. In 1 709 Watson opened his famous shop, ' next door to the Red Lyon opposite to the Lucken-booths.' Ten years earlier he had removed his printing establishment from Warriston's Close to ' Craig's Closs on the north-side of the Cross,' and there it remained till his death. Long afterwards it continued to be known as the ' King's Printing House.' The Anderson printing monopoly expired on May 12, 1712, and events had made it quite certain that the holders would strain every nerve to retain it.^ Measures were actually being taken by Mrs. Anderson to secure it for her two married daughters, whose husbands ' knew nothing of printing.' Watson had long ago come to a decided opinion regarding the havoc made by the existing patent as it had been worked by the Andersons. ' By this gift,' he said, ' the art of printing in this kingdom got a dead stroke,' and he saw that, if the new scheme was successful, the present deplorable conditions would probably be continued. For the sake of his profession, accordingly, as well as for his own business advancement, he determined to attempt securing at least a part of the gift for himself. As early as March, 171 1, he approached Robert Freebairn, at that time a bookseller in Edinburgh, with the proposal that the latter should make application for the post. It is difficult to understand why Watson did not apply directly on his own behalf, unless it be that he thought his numerous conflicts with the authorities were likely to injure his chance of success. Freebairn consented, but suggested that John Baskett, who had secured the same privilege for England, should be associated with them because of his influence in London.* This arrangement having been made, an 1 Maitland Misc. ii. 247. 2 The authorities for the following narrative are : Watson's ' Memorial,' sent to the Secretary for Scotland (Scottish Records Office) ; the case papers laid by Baskett as appellant and Watson as respondent before the . House of Lords (British Museum) ; Mrs. Anderson's Brief Reply, already quoted. *The person who acted as Baskett's agent in Edinburgh in this matter was Richard Watkins, and Watkins' name sometimes appears in place of Baskett's. Mrs. Anderson had occasion to denounce Watkins as ' a knight of the post, a perjured hackney swearer for pay, a bearer of false witness against his neigh- bour and a suborner of others to swear falsely for reward in order to take away innocent people's estates ' — for all of which she professed to give chapter and verse {Brief Reply, ut supra). 1 6 W. J. Couper agreement was drawn out between the three applicants. Its main provisions were that in whosesoever's name the patent was obtained, the interest of all three in it should be equal ; that the expense of securing it should be borne equally by Watson and Baskett, Freebairn's trouble in going to London being taken as his contribution ; and that a joint printing house should be erected, the expense of which should be shared equally, Baskett undertaking to supply the paper needed for the first year's operations, for which he was to be recouped from the profits. The partners secured the patent on August ii, 171 1, and in October it passed the seals. ^ And now Watson's troubles began. Baskett had evidendy used the Scotsmen for his own purposes, and it did not suit him to take further action after he had obtained from Freebairn on September 1 1 a written acknowledgment of his interest in a third. Freebairn was a man easily influenced, and he fell into Baskett's plans. It was only after much pressure that Watson received from him on April 30, 1712, a formal assignation of his right. The 1 2th of May, on which the Anderson patent expired, was fast approaching, and no steps had been taken to provide premises for carrying on the business of King's Printer. For several months Watson ' daily importuned Mr. Freebairn to commission material for the work house,' but nothing was done. At last — in January, 1713 — Watson took out a notarial instru- ment that he would proceed by himself if operations were not begun, and, no answer having been received, carried out his threat. He expended £44.5 ^ on the required material, and brought six workmen from Amsterdam. Immediately after this the plot thickens, though it is impossible to follow the various incidents chronologically. Mrs. Anderson contrived to get into communication with Baskett, and had come to an understanding with him. Freebairn was won over to her interests by a substantial bribe. Certain irregularities and illegalities in the 171 1 patent were alleged — that, e.g. it had been obtained while the Anderson patent was still running, that Freebairn had never qualified according to law for holding it, and that it transgressed certain Scottish Acts. An unfavourable opinion of Sir James Stewart, the Lord Advocate, had declared it null and void.^ On the strength of these adverse criticisms, 1 Its terms can be read in Lee's Memorial, App. xxjf. ^ This sum had increased to j^zooo by 1 71 8. *The opinion is given at length — Lee's Memorial, App. xxxvi. James Watson, King's Printer 17 Freebairn, aided by Baskett (leaving out Watson altogether), had ' obtained a warrant from his iVIajesty King George to be His sole printer for Scotland, which warrant was the 8th Dec. 17 14, but upon the humble Representation of [Watson] ... a stop was put to the passage of the said grant.' ^ It was time for Watson to vindicate his position, and he insti- tuted proceedings in the Court of Session. He raised an action of declarator against Freebairn and Baskett, and against Watkins as the latter 's trustee. On Feb. 8, 171 5, the Lord Ordinary decreed that Watson had a right to a third part share in the gift made to Freebairn in 171 1, and that he could legally use the title, 'One of the King's Printers.' On appeal, the decision was affirmed by the whole Scottish bench — June 17, 171 5. His next step was to face Mrs. Anderson. In spite of the fact that her monopoly had expired, she had continued to print Bibles, etc., and to act as if she still held the office. On June 21, 171 6, he obtained a judgment restraining her, and awarding him damages for the infringement of his rights. The case was reheard June 29, when Watson, on the judgment being affirmed, waived his claim to damages, and undertook to renounce his privilege of printing law books and of seizing Bibles imported from England — points on which the validity of the first Freebairn patent was questioned.^ Meantime the situation had been further complicated by the conduct of Freebairn. He had joined in the insurrection of 171 5 and had become printer for the Pretender.^ The doubt concerning the validity of Freebairn's patent was now superseded by its actual forfeiture through rebellion — or at least any right Freebairn might have in it. The opportunity was too good to be lost, and going secretly to work, Baskett and Mrs. Anderson applied for a new gift. It was granted on July 6, 171 6, in the joint names of John Baskett and Agnes Campbell, Mrs. Anderson's maiden name.* The ' contentious, rich old woman,' as Watson called her, did not enjoy her triumph long, for she ijohn Baskett v. Watson — The Respondent's Case. 'The humble Repre- sentation ' was likely the document cited as the ' Memorial.' In the Scottish Records Office there is a short document headed ' A Representation concerning the Queen's Printers in Scotland Humbly Offered to the Right Honourable the Earl of Mar, Her Majesty's Principal Secretary of State.' It is evidently Watson's, and must be dated prior to the death of Queen Anne on August i, 17 14. ^Bruce's Decisions, ii. p. 22; Morrison's Decisions, pp. 13254-5. ^Rae's History of Rebellion [1746], p. 194. * She had long before this married a second time and was now Mrs. Patrick Telfer. 1 8 W. J. Couper died on July 24, 1716, less than three weeks after the grant was made. Evidently the patent was obtained without Watson's knowledge, for it was only on December 4, when Baskett's appeal from the Lord Ordinary's decision of the preceding June was before the Court of Session, that the fact of its existence was revealed. The judges, however, were not overawed by it, for they decided in Watson's favour, December 14, 1716, reserving to the defendants their right to sue on their new patent if they saw fit. Ultimately the whole case was carried to the House of Lords, where Watson had again the satisfaction of winning along the whole line except in one particular point. One or the inter- locutors appealed against gave Watson the right of 'printing Bibles and Acts of Parliament and other public papers and sell and dispose of them in any part of his Majesties United Kingdom or elsewhere.' The Lords of Appeal ordered the last ten words to be struck out.^ This final judgment is dated February 15, 17 18. The verdict of the House of Lords had established Watson's right to be one of the King's Printers for Scotland and practically reduced King George's patent of 17 16, for the heirs of Mrs. Anderson were cut off by it from any of the privileges of the position. But in making good his own claim Watson had also, under the first Freebairn gift, established Baskett's title to the same ofllice. In the enjoyment of a double patent, the whole of England and Scotland accordingly lay open to the operations of the Englishman. The ink of the judgment of the House of Lords was hardly dry before he took steps to enforce the only point given in his favour. Watson had an agent in London, named Henry Parson, whom he employed for the sale of Bibles printed by him. Baskett brought an action to restrain the agent. It was in vain that Watson caused him to plead that the rights of both monopolists were the same, that the Treaty of Union con- ferred equal trading privileges, and that Baskett was endeavouring to increase the price of Bibles for his own profit. The Master of the Rolls decreed ' that a perpetual injunction be awarded to enjoyn the said Defendant, his agents and workmen, from im- porting, printing or vending any Bibles, New Testaments or Common Prayer Books, contrary to the Letters Patent granted to the Plaintiff.' ^ One loophole still remained for Watson. It 1 Robertson's Reports of Cases on Appeal from Scotland, i. 202. "^ A Previous View of the Case between John Baskett . . . and Henry Parson, Watson, Edin. 1720, p. 29. James Watson, King's Printer 19 was impossible, he argued, to import anything from Scotland as if Scotland was a foreign country, and besides the judgment could not apply to what was legally printed in Scotland. He accordingly advised Parson to appeal, but in the end Watson failed. ' The litigation continued until it was settled by a judgment of Lord Mansfield in favour of Baskett.' ^ Such a long course of legal proceedings necessarily involved Watson in considerable expense. In 1709 he had married, evidently as a second wife,^ Jean Smith, a lady possessed apparently of considerable means. On January 3, 171 5, he executed a bond for j^iooo sterling in her favour 'in con- sideration of several sums of money receaved from her since our marriage to the extent of ;^ 12000 Scots and of the extra- ordinary care and good management she has of my affairs and business and that she by her industry raised my means and estate since our marriage, and in implement of the contract of marriage of the spouses dated 30 Nov. 1709.' As security he offered his stock in trade and his privilege of King's Printer.* On August 23, 1 72 1, an additional bond for another £1000 was executed, because since the date of the former he had intro- mitted with £1^00 sterling 'in order to defray the expenses of discussing ane appeal at London anent my office of King's Printer,' in meeting certain debts and obligations, and ' for paying the price of the house or lodging in the Land Mercat,' 'disposed to the spouses 17 August 1720.'* In a supple- mentary instrument he assigns to his wife ' the full and absolute right ' to the office of King's Printer after his decease.^ Watson was now nearing the end of his life. Towards the close of 1 72 1 a false rumour of his decease was circulated in the London papers. In contradicting it the Caledonian Mercury declared him to be 'alive and in perfect health.' « Within a year, however, the event actually took place. Public intimation was thus made of the fact: 'Edinburgh Sept. 25. Yesternight ^D.N.B., s.v. Baskett. 2 Watson had a child buried in Greyfriars, Nov. 30, 1699 (Register of Interments : Sc. Rec. Soc. p. 673). ^Register of Deeds (General Register House), vol. 117 (Mackenzie's Office). ^Ibid. vol. 130. The bond says that the deed for the Lawn Market house is ' recorded in the Court Books of Edinburgh 9 Sept. thereafter.' Unfortunately ■ this volume, along with several others of the same time, is amissing. 6/3;V. '^Caledonian Mercury, Nov. 21, 1721. 20 W. J. Couper about II A-clock died here James Watson, His Majesty's Printer.' ^ He was survived by his wife as well as by an only son, James, and an only daughter, Elizabeth, married to John Catanach in Tarland, Aberdeenshire. By his will Watson left his wife sole executrix and legatee, his two children loyally and formally making over their interests in his estate entirely to her.* The Inventory shows that he had a good stock of books on hand and considerable debts due him from booksellers and printers throughout the country — Newcastle, Belfast, Glasgow, Perth, being named among other places. The will is dated September 14, 1722, a few days before his death. For a short time Mrs. Watson carried on the business from the well-known shop ' next door to the Red Lyon, opposite to the Lucken-booths.' She soon, however, handed over her printing rights to Brown and Mosman, who thereupon continued to publish books under the designation of Printers to the King. Watson had hardly been cold in his grave before Baskett pro- ceeded to enforce his rights in Scotland under the Freebairn patent of 17 12. He set up 'a separate printing-house in Edinburgh to the prejudice of Brown and Mosman,' but although the latter tried to drive him oiF by pleading before the Court of Session that he had never qualified under the gift, they lost their case.^ Mrs. Watson married again — this time Thomas Heriot, an Edinburgh bookseller, but died in August, 1 73 1. The newspaper notice of her death ran : ' Last Tuesday, died Mrs. Heriot, late the widow of Mr. James Watson, his Majesty's Printer, by whom she had a very considerable estate, a great part of which comes to her present husband.'* Watson prided himself, and quite legitimately, both upon what he did generally for the art of printing and upon the quality of his own work. That he was not immaculate, how- ever, is shown by the notice of errata which Dr. Alexander had to insert in his book, A Short Survey of the . . . Sovereign Princes . . . in Europe, 1 704. The list was headed : ' The Printers have so neglected to make the Amendments as the proofs and revises were corrected, that after the book was bound I was forced to write these most considerable erratas, relying still for lesser escapes on the Reader's kindness,' and contained ^Caledonian Mercury, Tuesday, Sept. 24, 1722. ^ Commissarioi of E din. vol. 88. ^Edgar's Decisions, p. 190. *^ Edinburgh Evening Courant, August 26, 173 1. James Watson, King's Printer 21 the information that ' the Printer has not greek types.' ^ In spite of such a fact, however, there is abundant evidence as to the excellence of his workmanship. Principal Lee speaks of 'his neat and carefully executed editions of the Bible — some of which have never since been excelled.' ^ In addition to the mechanical improvements he effected in printing, Watson has been credited with original literary work in two directions. He made a Choice Collection of Scottish Poems, a work which Maidment regretted he did not more fully carry out : ' He would have been at least a faithful editor and not have attempted those alterations which Allan Ramsay has taken with many of the poems in the Evergreen'^ The other is the History of Printing, 1713. The book, or at least its preface dealing with Scottish printing, is generally spoken of as having been written by Watson. It has, however, been asserted that the real author of the ' Preface ' was John Spottiswood, an Edinburgh advocate belonging to a well-known Berwickshire family, who wrote several legal treatises and taught law classes in the city. The assertion is accepted without question by Dickson and Edmond in their Annals.^ The authority for it seems to go back to the statement which George Paton, the Edinburgh antiquary, communicated to Herbert, the editor of Ames's Typographical Antiquities.^ No proof is given, and Chalmers, the author of Thomas Ruddiman, was disposed to dispute its accuracy. ' If I were to conjecture,' he said, ' I would say that I think Spottiswoode wrote the history of the foreign printers and Watson the account of the Scottish printers.'* Unfortunately for any weight that might be assigned to Chalmers's opinion, the ' Preface ' itself declares that the section of the book relating to printing abroad was written originally in French by an author who has since been discovered to have been J. de la Caille. It is improbable that 1 Cf. Edin. Biblio. Soc. Pub. i. 7. He was in possession of Greek type before he published his History of Printing. ^ Lee's Memorial, p. 187. 8 Scottish Ballads and Songs, ii. 44. It is right, however, to note that the selection has been credited to John Spottiswood. '^Annals of Sc. Printing, p. 2. ^iii. 181 5. ^MS. Collections, Relating to Scottish Printing (Advocates' Library). Chalmers has no great opinion of the preface — it 'gives a superficial and inaccurate account,' which perhaps is much too severe on the first British attempt to record the history of printing. 22 James Watson, King's Printer the true authorship will ever be satisfactorily revealed. If Spottiswood wrote it, the personification of Watson is well carried out ; no slip is made in the personal pronouns when Watson's affairs are mentioned, and there is even a sentence to the effect that ' in 1 706 Mr. John Spotiswood, advocate and professor of law brought home a neat little printing house for printing his law books. But in a little time after disposed of it.' ' W. J. COUPER. IP. 18.