OLIN 
 
 Z 
 
 151 
 
 C85 
 
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/cu31924029497892 
 
The Royal Philosophical bocieiy of Glasgow. 
 
 upon her therefrom, in conser|uence of whicli tlie Mures were 
 apprehended and put upon ti'ial. 
 
 There are no scenes in Scotland more peaceful than the green 
 vales of South Ayrshire, the banks of bonny Doun, and the 
 richly wooded Girvan valley. TJie dwellings of those who 
 enacted the bloody deeds told in this long history of violence are 
 standing to this day, some still inhabited by lairds of the old- 
 families ; others, roofless and storm-beaten, have been deserted 
 for roomier modern mansions. The traveller may find himself 
 wistfully musing on the dulness of the reign of security, sighing 
 for the jingle of plate-armom' and the bray of the trumpet to 
 walcen these sleepy woods, for the gleam of steel and flutter of 
 pennons to brighten yon dusky hill brow. But, on second 
 thoughts, he will probably realise how much pleasanter it is, on 
 the whole, that country gentlemen should be able to move about 
 in safety, without each a clump of spears behind him, and with 
 no weightier defence than a tweed suit ; and better for the 
 tenants that they should not be liable to be compelled to assist 
 their landlords in every enterprise, whether "bodcn in efFeir of 
 war" or equipped conveniently for "privat murther," on pain of 
 forfeiture of all their goods, not to mention their lives, as was 
 the case with luckless James Bannatyne. 
 
 Mrs. Anderson and fli,e Royal Frer<i(jative hi Print uiy. 79 
 
 Mrs. Anderson and the Royal Preroijatire in Printing. 
 Bv the Bev. W. J. Coupeh, M.A. 
 
 ul befoie the Historic; 
 
 March, 1917.] 
 
 A\'omen have never taken a prominent part in the business of 
 printing and publishing. Several names of women do indeed 
 occur in the lists of Scottish printers, but for the most part these 
 ■were forced into the business so as to carry on, for the good of 
 their families, work abandoned by their deceased husbands. 
 Tims during the seventeenth century, we have the widow of 
 Boliert Waldegrave acting for a short time as his successor in 
 England. The widow of Andre Hart is so designated in the 
 imprint of one book — the Edinburgh University Theses Philoso- 
 jihieo' of 1631, which as a student the famous Archbishop 
 Leighton helped to defend. In the following year she un- 
 succcssfulh- opposed the granting of the office of King's Printer 
 to Bobert Young on the ground "as not onlie tending to hir 
 prejudice in particular, bet being contrarie to all equitie and 
 justice, that anie stranger should have the gift of sole printing to 
 his Majestic in this Kingdorae." ' The Glasgow Town Council 
 in 16-1:7 continued to "the relict of umquhile George Andersone, 
 printer, and his bairnes swa long as they continow in printing in 
 the towne " the pension which they had originally bestowed upon 
 their first printer.- For four years the widow of George 
 Mosman carried on the business of her late husband, the General 
 Assembly even permitting her, by a special resolution, to remain 
 their printer until her death in 1712. 
 
 In a different class stands the lady who is known both by her 
 maiden name of Agnes Campbell and by her married name of 
 ]Mrs. Anderson. Ostensilaly acting on behalf of the heirs of her 
 late husband, Andrew Anderson, she was really the person who 
 took over the business and .pri\ ileges he left behind him when he 
 (lied in 167G, and carried them on with unsurpassed adroitness 
 
 Haur, i. ■2'A'.). 
 
and extraordinary energ\' for tlie next forty years, with tlif 
 exception of a short period about IGDl when .lames Hamilton, 
 •who was probably the husband of one of her grandchildren, 
 appears to have been in charge.'' llor only son does not seem to 
 have possessed much ability of his own, and allowed liis mothei- 
 to have most of her own way. In the imprints of the books tlie 
 firm produced, her identity is often obscured under the general 
 title of the "Heirs and Successors of Andrew .Xnderson," but 
 there can be no doubt whom her contenij)oraries thouL;ht the 
 leading spirit of the combination. It was she who came in for 
 all the hard words they were forced to use ; it was she who with 
 relentless activity prosecuted rivals before the competent autliori- 
 ties and against whom they tried to retaliate. It was she who 
 heaped up riches, and it was she who clung to the position even 
 unto old age. In one imprint slu' is designated " Printeress to 
 his most Sacred Majestic," and the title assigns her her true 
 status for many j-ears. That she was a woman of excellent gifts, 
 of dogged perseverance, and not troubled with minute scruples, 
 the following paragraphs will show. It is hard to imagine what 
 ■ ht have become had she chosen anotlier walk of life. 
 
 Agnes Campbell was the daughter of James Campbell, a 
 merchant bui'gess of Edinburgh as appears from the fact that it 
 was in right of this descent that her liusband was afterwards 
 admitted a burgess of the same city on July 1, IGGS."^ On June 
 26, 1656, she married Andrew Anderson, the son of Glasgow's 
 first printer, and himself at that time carrying on the same 
 business in Edinburgh. A year later they removed to Glasgow 
 on the invitation of the Town Council. For the next four years 
 ice was in the western city, from which the)' 
 returned to the capital in the summer of 1661." Mrs. Anderson's 
 domestic life in Edinburgh was not without its severe afllictions. 
 
 ' Answers For James Anderson and Agnes Campbell his Mother to tlie 
 int Exhibite against them before the . . . Privy Council (British 
 Museum). 
 
 * Edin. Town Counc. Minutes, under date cited. It has been erroneously 
 stated that her father was Archibald Campbell of Ramshorne. 
 
 ' Extracts Kecords Burgh Glasgow, 1G30-62, p. 4G3. 
 
 Mrs. Anderson and the Roycd Prerogative in Printing. 81 
 
 She buried children in 1664, 1668, 1672, and 1674, there being 
 two in the second j^ear named. Her husband died in 1676." So 
 far as can be ascertained she was left with one son, James, who 
 survived till at least 1692. Two of her grandchildren, who may 
 have been the daughters of this James, married, one William 
 Hamilton, who is described in Mrs. Anderson's will as " of Little 
 Earnock," near Hamilton, the other John Campbell, who is 
 designated in the same document " corrector of the said defunct 
 her press." ^ 
 
 When her husband, Andrew Anderson, whom King Charles 
 II. had made King's Printer for Scotland, died, he had been a 
 printer in Edinburgh for a second term lasting fifteen years, and 
 in that time had earned a somewhat mixed reputation as a 
 craftsman. A fulsome eulogy on a single sheet without a 
 printer's name, that appeared immediately after his death, spoke 
 of him as beins; one — 
 
 "who knew Printings Law 
 Kv'n unto every Title, Point and Character," 
 
 and declared that "None in his Art could match him in this 
 Nation," but tlie source of the verses is too apparent, and their 
 assertions are aliundantly contradicted by the actual products of 
 his press. His death, however, was a heavy blow to his widow, 
 for it threw upon her the charge _ of an extensive business, her 
 children being young and "unfitt for the management of such a 
 Work." Much of the tenacity with which she claimed and 
 defended her rights can be explained on the ground that she was 
 conserving her own and her children's property, thus handed 
 over to her care. " 
 
 Apart from the many conflicts with her fellow-tradesmen, 
 which her patent as King's Printer brought Mrs. Anderson, it 
 also involved her in several minor troubles. Booksellers and 
 stationers resented the jiermission granted her to import paper 
 free of duty, " and the grievance was none the less real although 
 she afterwards pleaded that the annual value of what she brought 
 
 « Jies;. of Burials, Greyfriars Church, Edin. (Sc. Record Soc), p. 20. 
 '' Bann. Misc., ii. 284. 
 
 * She had warehouses in the College of Edinburgh, in the Fish Market, and 
 at the Cross. 
 
 ° Fountainhall's Decisions, i. 10. 
 
 VOL. XLVIII. F 
 
The Rtiiinl rhilu--;orjliic(d Such'tii of (iJd.^joi. 
 
 into tlie countiy did not exceed £20.''° The patent also gave 
 its holder immunity from watcliing and Avarding tlie city. 
 Apparently the magistrates did not think iliat the privilege 
 extended to her employees, for more than once they had to appeal 
 for exemption. The signatories to their iirst i)etition, dated 
 April 16, 1078, numbered sixteen, ^yhich shows a workshop 
 of considerable extent. It is noteworthy that tln'ee of them 
 afterwards became piinters on their own account, and that 
 another, Alexander Cunningham, probabh' migrated to Glasgow, 
 where he was doubtless employed in the ollice of liobert 
 Sanders. 11 
 
 After nearly five years of widowhood, IMrs. Anderson, on 
 March 22, IGSl, married Patrick Telfer, another Edin1)urgli 
 merchant, and thereby involved herself in considerable litigation. 
 If he were the same Patrick Telfer, "merchant bui'gess "f 
 Edinburgh," wlio more than once came before the Privy Council 
 on account of some extraordinary proceedings at Falkland, hi; 
 was "proprietor and possessor of the lands of Jliltoune, ]Myre- 
 side, and other lands and tenements in and about Faulkland." ' - 
 His union with jStrs. Anderson brought her serious financial 
 
 trouble' almost immediateh'. By anti-nuptial contracts her 
 tocher amounted to 10,000 merks (Fountainhall says "poinids"'), 
 and she had sought t(j restrict her husbaiul's interest in the 
 property of herself and her children to that sum. But Telfer 
 fell into debt and his creditors sought to seize all his wife's goods 
 in settlement of their claims upon him. INIrs. Anderson resisted 
 and ultimatel}' won her case before the Court of Session.* Tlie 
 trouble, however, did not end with the decision of the law courts, 
 and in the long run J[rs. Anderson in 1()1)3 had to appeal to 
 Parliament itself to release her. In her supplication she declared 
 that for a long time she had been " vexed and disquieted by 
 processes.'' These had fallen upon her in spite of the fact that in 
 her marriage contract she had "used all possible precaution 
 to secure the printing House, or any lieneilto tlK^reof, from her 
 said second Husband or his Heirs as well as his Creditors, 
 according to the best advice of the Kingdom." iShe ui-ged that 
 
 A/'C. / 'V:'. L t'llh 
 
 "her Husbands misfortune had carried along with it a greats 
 prejudice to that publick Work as well as to her and her 
 chihh'cn," and that the annoyance could be ended onl^v by the 
 special intervention of Parliament. >Shc therefore a.sked that she 
 might be empowered to act independently of her husband in all 
 matters connected with her printing business, because "the 
 petitioners long exiierience and practice had rendered her 
 management of that work necessary." Telfer ac<iuiesced in the 
 application and Parliament granted its pi'ayei-.i '■ This arrange- 
 ment was rigidlv carried out, because Telfer's name does not 
 appear in his wife's business, and t(j the end, when it is men- 
 tioned, she is referred to as the 'relict of Andrew Anderson." 
 In one or two of the Privy Council cases the name of lier second 
 husband is associated with hei's, but its insertion was probably 
 merely a legal prcx-aution. 
 
 Considi'rable dilUculty surrounds the (piestion of the origin, 
 legalitv, and exercise of the monopoly which the Crown claimed 
 in ]irinting. Not only in Scotland, but elsewhei'e the royal 
 pi'erogati\e to almost exclusive jurisdiction in the trade was 
 assumed from the beginning. The history of Scottish printing 
 starts with a roval grant bestowed on two Edinburgh citizens, 
 aiul o\er and over again the Ciown either by itself or through 
 Parliament, asserted its sole authority over the printing and 
 publication of books and all kinds of paj)ers. Thomas Davidson, 
 Scotland's third i]rintcr, received permissicm to print the Acts of 
 Parliament, and it was therefoi'c reasonable that when the 
 volume was issued in 1511 he should designate himself " regius 
 impressor,'' or, as he names himself in Bellenden's translation of 
 Boece's VJironirli's, " prentar to the Ivyngis nobvll grace." But 
 even on the latter book apiicar the words "cum privilegio." The 
 \VY\- arbitrariness with which the claim was aiJiiarentlv exercised 
 
 helped to demonstrate that it was considered beyond dispute. 
 Robert Lekpreiiik, even although he was in 1.5(18 constituted 
 King's Printer for twenty years, was nevertheless pursued at law 
 for having in 1.574: printe<l a poetical tract without a licence, 
 and was imprisoned, besides suH'eriiig other penalties for his 
 
The Royal Philosophirnl Society of Glasyow. 
 
 misconduct. Robert Waldegrave was made King's Printer in 
 1590, and within tliree weeks of the date of the grant, Zachary 
 Pont was appointed " chief imprentare within his hienes reahne." 
 
 of printing was iritfir regalia, that the King was tlierefore the 
 ultimate authorit}' within tlie Kingdom, and that he could 
 exercise his powers in any way he pleased. When the struggle 
 over the exact extent of the Anderson patent was at its height, 
 the holder of the office argued before the Lords of Privy Council 
 that it was intar regalia "being founded in jure rnminuni, and 
 it was never questioned that his Majesty had the sole power 
 to appoint and discharge printing at his pleasure, the power of 
 printing not falling under any municipal law, it being inherent to 
 the croune as being a matter that so much couccrnes the publick 
 peace and tranquillity of the nation, neither was it ever heard 
 that any printed without expres warrand from his Majesty or his 
 antecessors, who granted the samen expreslj' to cities and uni- 
 versities and other persones, without whose authoi'ity they could 
 not print." '-■^ It is true that in 1570 Robert Lekpreuik, while 
 still King's Printer, had to find surety that he would not " prent 
 bulvis ballettis or ony ^\■ark of consequence without the licence of 
 the prouest and counsale " of Edinburgh. ' ■'' It is also true that 
 Aberdeen Town Council took active supervision over the i-ights 
 and duties of the printer to their city. In 1667 John Forbes, 
 the younger, who then occupied the office, and was the only 
 printer in the town, complained to the magistrates that a certain 
 chapman was underselling Jiim. They ordered the intruder to be 
 rebuked, and all otlu-r chapmen forbidden to "bring hom or sell 
 any pamphlets oi' litle bool^s (|lk the petitioner can afFoord, he 
 alwayes selling the same at ane ordinarie valow." ^ " Forbes 
 grounded his petition on, among other thhigs, the fact that the 
 magistrates' " predicessors had done the same before." Five 
 years later the Magistrates defended their client when he M'as 
 attacked for what ^\'ere alleged to be encroachments on the 
 Anderson patent on the ground that their licence was sufficient.^ " 
 
 ' *' /vV^. yVvV'. Conn., iii. vii. 31. 
 
 1 ^' Dickson and MAmonA'i Jinials of Sc, Pn'ii/iiig, p. 20.3. 
 ' " Aberdeen Council Register, Iv. 66 — ijuoted in Edmond's Aberdeen 
 Printers. 
 
 " Edniond : o/. cil., p. xlvi. 
 
 J//-.V. Audersou and the Royal Prerogative in Printing. 85 
 
 They even rebuked Forbes him.self in 1683 for printing an 
 offensive pamphlet, and determined " withall that in tyme 
 comeing that he print no pamphlets or books without the 
 magisti'ats and councell's authoritie thereto, and inspection takin 
 thereof." i » It is also true that Edinburgh Town Council as late 
 as the beginning of the next century claimed that no newspaper 
 could be published in the capital unless its projectors had their 
 sanction and licence, i"-' but how these bodies acquired the riglit 
 to act in this manner is unknown. No evidence seems to exist 
 to lead to the conclusion that they obtained it by grant from the 
 Crown. It is also true that Cromwell on July 8, 1657, conferred 
 on the University of Glasgow the I'ight to print Bibles in any 
 language "with all sortes of buikes relating to the faculties of 
 theologie, jurisprudence, medicin, philosophic, philologie, and all 
 other buikes whatsumever, the same being ordoured and privi- 
 ledgcd to the presse be our .said Universitie." -" But the times 
 of the Commonwealth were .so exceptional that no conclusion can 
 safely be based on the Protector's action. On the other hand, 
 the General Assembly asserted its inherent claim to print what it 
 thought necessai'y, and by the authority it frequently gave to 
 print, as well as by the careful supervision it exercised over certain 
 printed books, regularly proclaimed its supremacy in its own 
 
 ^■^ Extracts Records Jhir^^h Abercl., ltU3-1747, p. 3U.3. 
 
 '-' Q.ow'pttts, Ediiilmrgh Periodical Press, i. 92, &c. 
 
 - " Coutt's ///j/. Univ. Glasgow, p. 135. 
 
 -'Tiiat the authorilies did not always acquiesce in tlie clainj is apparent 
 from llie following quotation from An Historical Relation of the late General 
 Assembly, London, 1691 [by Dr. John Cockburn, an i:piscopalian], p. 7. He 
 speaks of the Presbyterians "always catching at the Power of the Magistrate ; 
 whose Priviledge it is in this Kingdom to license Books, and in their Licences 
 to grant the Monopoly of them. This Privilege was affirmed by the General 
 Meeting ; For they order'd an old Treatise of ruling Elders to be reprinted by 
 the Heirs o{ Andre-iu Andeison,tmA discharged any other to meddle therewith ; 
 This is the P'orm of their Licence word for word. The General Meeliiii; of 
 Ministers and Elders of tliis churcli Jiave appointed this Treatise of Ruling 
 Elaers and Deacons to be Printed by tlie Heirs of .Vndrew Anderson and none 
 other. Extracted by JOH.N Sl'ALDi.\G, Clerk. This was a small beginning, 
 however the Privy Council thought fit to take notice thereof, and to give a 
 check to these encroachments on the Civil Power, and therefore order'd the 
 Copies to be call'd in, and the Licence to be torn away ; so that after the first 
 day all the Copies were sold without the hnpriinatur ; and two Friends of 
 mine were forced to pay a triple rate for one with the forementioned Licence." 
 
But however indefinite the source of the ro3'al prerogative may 
 have been, it was seldom used in any really oppressive way, until 
 Charles II. made Andrew Anderson King's Printer for Scotland. 
 Printers other than the one selected for royal favour were 
 allowed under certain ill-defined regulations to pui'sue their craft, 
 and were liable to prosecution only if they transgressed. But in 
 the benefits it conferred and the power it bestowed, the Anderson 
 patent exceeded all kindred instruments of the past."- We are 
 told that it was obtained " for payment of a composition in 
 Excheijuer and other weighty reasons." The sum that passed 
 into the treasury of the impecunious Charles must have been of 
 considerable amount to secure such far reaching rights and 
 privileges from him. It practically put all printing in Scotland 
 at the uncontrolled disposal of Anderson. Ho and his heirs, 
 partners and assignt^es, were created "Masters, Directors, and 
 Regulators of his Majesties oflice of Printing" in Scotland. The 
 patent made them supervisors of everything printed within the 
 kingdom. They were empowered to erect presses where they 
 pleased, and commandeer any printers they required for them. 
 No one who was not a trained printer could undertake w<irk 
 by himself or by others, however qualified, without the patentee's 
 .sanction. Licence was also needed before any apprentice could 
 be bound to any master. The patent, in fact, ■v\-as wide enough 
 to cover " all and sundry bookes or papers of anie language 
 learned or vulgar," and it made its holder supreme and sole 
 judge and master of the whole business of printing throughout 
 the kingdom. Little wonder that some booksellers imniediately 
 protested to the Privy Couiicil on the ground that the patent 
 contained "diverse powers heretofore unheard of, much less 
 practised, to the utter subversion and destruction of that 
 manufactory and mine of a number of families, to the publick 
 prejudice of the whole Hedges," and that James Watson, looking 
 back on the transaction forty }'ears later, when there had been 
 ample time to estimate its consequences, said that Anderson's 
 monopoly had been "a dead stroke" to the art in Scotland. 
 
 Printiii"' in Scotland was at the time confined to three towns, 
 but outside of the capital production was not great. Aberdeen 
 and Glasgow had only one printer each. During Mrs. Anderson's 
 
 -- The terms of tht- ratification of the patent are given at length in .-/<■ 
 of Pari. (Thomson), viii. 'JOti. 
 
 Mrs. Anderson and the Royal Prero<jat 
 
 reign, Campbeltown and Maybole appeared on the list of places 
 where printing was done, but in each case the operation was 
 merely accidental and confined to a single print. A pseudony- 
 mous printer — Andrew Hepburn — dated one pamphlet from 
 Gla.sgow, but there is sufficient evidence to show that the imprint 
 is false in the locality it names. "^ Leith had long since ceased 
 to have printing establishments, the necessity for them having 
 passed away with the political conditions that had called them 
 into existence there. St. Andrews and Stirling, whose names 
 formerly occupied honourable positions in imprints, had equally 
 degenerated. In Edinburgh itself the offices were mainly run by 
 those who had been trained in Mrs. Anderson's own establish- 
 ment or had come directly from the continent, and never 
 exceeded half-a-dozen at a time. Mrs. Anderson, therefore, had 
 a comparatively restricted area over which to exercise control. 
 In her elTorts to maintain her a.scendency distance was her chief 
 obstacle, for it was difficult to supervise what was going on in 
 .Aberdeen and Glasgow in those days of undeveloped travelling 
 facilities. It is a matter of surprise that the situation did not 
 bring secret presses into being in some of the more remote and 
 
 a certain activity in illicit printing, but Scotland never took 
 kindly to the plan, and her illicit printing is very small, except 
 perliaps at the period of the Jacobite rebellions. It is true that 
 during certain of her political crises many prints appeared 
 without the authority of a printer's name upon them, but these 
 probably came from estal^lished presses, and not from presses 
 specially set up in secret for their production. At any rate 
 nothing of the kind appears to have been attempted as a 
 corrective to Mrs. Anderson's powers, even although the general 
 political situation for many years, not to speak of the stringency 
 of the monopolist's rights, seemed to invite it. 
 
 The widow, who was now, in the minority of her children, 
 practically Kings Printer, was not slow in showing how she 
 construed her privileges, and how she intended to enforce them. 
 Her first step was to obtain what amounted to a confirmation 
 of the patent. On October 12, 1676, less than four months 
 after the death of her husband, she approached the Privy Council 
 showing specimens of three editions which the deceased printer 
 
 ■= "A Bogus Printer," Glasgow Herald, June '21, 191.S. 
 
The Royal Philosophical Society of Glasgotv. 
 
 had prepared, and asking that tlie whole trade in Bibles in those 
 sizes should be restricted to her and her son as his heirs, and that 
 all should be prohibited from importing or selling similar Bibles. ' ^ 
 It was the beginning of a campaign against all rivals. On 
 March 6, 1G77, she attacked Robert Sanders of Glasgow. He 
 was accused before the Privy Council of producing books, the 
 right of printing the majority of which by any printer had never 
 before been questioned. Sanders maintained a bold fi'ont, and 
 refused to acknowledge that he had stepped beyond his rights. 
 Ill respect, however, that he failed to "depone upon the lybell " 
 against him, the Council held that he had confessed his fault, 
 and ordered him to be confined within the Tolbooth of 
 Edinburgh, "to remain there untill further order and decernes 
 and ordains him to obtemper the act of counsel of the seventh 
 of September 1672 in all poynts.""" His imprisonment, 
 however, was short, because within a month he -was at liberty, 
 and had resumed his illegal printing as if nothing had happened. 
 Mr.s. Anderson had, accordingly, succeeded technically, but it 
 was a victory in name only. Within a year Sanders, at the 
 request of the Privy Council's Committee of the West itself, was 
 issuing proclamations, a form of print that came directly under 
 the Anderson patent."'' The excuse they gave that Edinburgh 
 was too far distant, does not seem adequate. It was the first 
 real blow at the monopoly and proved that, however extensive 
 might be the privileges claimed and granted, there was still in 
 the country a power sufficiently strong and independent to set 
 them aside without being exposed to penalties for so doing. 
 
 On June 20, 1678, Mrs. Anderson made test of the -validity 
 of another provision in her patent, viz., the right of those not 
 trained to the art to engage in printing. She affirmed that 
 "Gideon Shaw, bookbinder, and several others, his partners in 
 Edinburgh, who are printers not yet bred to the art of printing, 
 have of late brought home printing presses and journeymen 
 printers from abroad," and had begun to print without her 
 consent, and had enticed some of her workmen to leave and 
 "print what books they please." She founded her complaint on 
 the fact that she could not be answerable to the Council for the 
 
 ■ " Ibid. , p. 
 -"/*/</., p. 
 
 Priv. Couit.. 
 , p. 141. 
 
 Records of Gh 
 
 due carrying out of the duty laid upon her by her patent "if 
 liersones at ther owne hands sett up presses and print what 
 papers tliey jileas without owning the Kings Printer." Her 
 request to the authorities, accordingly, was wide, being no less 
 than a warrant to search for "unwarrantable jiresses or printing 
 houses latelie sett up in the toune of Edinburgh, and close up the 
 tioors of the same." The Council evidently liesitated to take this 
 extreme stej), for they cited the accused printer.s t(_) appear before 
 them and in the meantime ordered them to stop printing.-' 
 Apparently Mrs. Anderson was triumphant, for although the 
 Kegister of the Privy Council has no further reference to this 
 particular matter, Eountainhall records under date, July 14, that 
 the "Council at the instance of the relict of Andrew Anderson 
 . . . discharged the other presses in Scotland for printing, except 
 such as acknowledge her." It is evident, however, that the 
 printers were not disposed to take the decision tamely, because 
 Fountainhall adds, "whereof redress is sought." -^ 
 
 On March 6, 1680, Sanders was again haled before the Privy 
 Council for repeating his former offence. He confessed his fault, 
 and among other penalties had to find caution against further 
 infringements. The proceedings would have been ordinary but 
 for the intervention of the Lord Clerk Register. He came 
 forward with a representation that "the printing of acts of 
 Parliament and convention of Estates belongs to him as a 
 privilege inherent in his office and further secured by a special 
 gift from his Majesty which could not be prejudiced by 
 Anderson's gift"-^a view which the Lords of Council duly 
 approved. It was an important exception, for the printing of 
 these very acts had been assigned to Anderson in his gift, and 
 their removal from his i)rerogative meant pecuniary loss as well 
 as a distinct curtailment of his privilege.-'' That Mrs. Anderson 
 was not disposed to accej)! the Council's interpretation of her 
 rights is shown by the fact that she actually proceeded to print 
 these very documents. Their productiim had by this time been 
 officially assigned to David Lindsay and his partners by the 
 Clerk Register. On November 17, 1681, Lindsay pursued 
 Mrs. Anderson for interfering with his rights, because she and 
 
 ^ " Decisions, i. 10. 
 
 = » Reg. Priv. Couii., iii. vi. 418. 
 
her son and spouse had "presumed to reprint and sell the 
 Confession of Faith," which he evidently regarded only as an 
 act of parliament, and " to reprint with a view to sale " acts of 
 Parliament, "to the complainer's great prejudice and the abuse 
 of the lieges by incorrect printing " — which was an unkind cut to 
 those who contended that their monopoly was meant, and fitted, 
 to prevent that very calamity. The Lords of Council found that 
 Mrs. Anderson and her partners "have done wrong in printing 
 the Acts of Parliament, old and new," and ordered all copies to be 
 confiscated and delivered to the present Clerk of Piegister, who is 
 ordained " to cause burn the saids copies that no public use be 
 made thereof." At the same time they discharged all others 
 from ever printing such acts.-'" 
 
 The case against Sanders had another important sequel. On 
 
 June 25, 1680, Mrs. Anderson appealed to the Privy Council to 
 
 help her in compelling two of her apprentices, David Kauisa^-and 
 
 John lieid, to return to her to complete their apprenticeship. 
 
 The}' asserted that they had been released verbally, and tlie 
 
 Council decided that she .should be put on oath to deny their 
 
 statement. She declined the ordeal, and judgment went in 
 
 favoiu' of tlie ajiprentices. ■'" Probably on the strength of this 
 
 decision Reid set up in business for himself, But his misti-ess 
 
 was not yet done with him. She again appealed to the Privy 
 
 CJouncil and demanded that his liouse should be shut u]i. 
 
 Because he could not, or would not, in the meantime provide 
 
 caution not to print patent books, he was denounced rebel on 
 
 December 4, 1680. On December 16, he was apprehended and 
 
 lodged in the Tolbooth of Edinburgh. Pieid, however, presented 
 
 a bill of suspension on the ground that he had now found 
 
 sufficient security, and was liberated on January 6 after an 
 
 imprisonment of nearly threfe weeks.-'*- The case came before 
 
 the Privy Council on February 1, 1681, when Eeid argued that 
 
 the decreet of March 6 could not apply to him, because he had 
 
 not then been cited, and had therefore had no opportunity of 
 
 offering any defence. Taking a broader line still on the general 
 
 (]uestion, he argued that he was a duly trained printer, and had 
 
 tlie right to exercise his calling, for the patent "never intended 
 
 ' A\;». Priv. C, 
 
 I s Dei'isioiis, I. 104. 
 
 ' A'ei^. Priv, Council 
 
 ■irgh, vi. 150, 155, 
 
 to centre the benefit of the art of printing in any single indi- 
 vidual, but to allow all who are competent to exercise the art so 
 long as they secure that nothing be issued from their press 
 deleterious or derogatory to his Majesty's authority and the laws 
 and religion of the nation." Unfortunately judgment was not 
 pronounced on this most interesting assertion, because the Lords 
 found that after all Reid had still a term of his apprenticeship to 
 serve, and ordered him to close up his press until he had fulfilled 
 his obligations, with the warning that when he had finished his 
 term he must print nothing obnoxious to the Anderson patent.'*'* 
 The struggle between Mrs. Anderson and Eeid did not end 
 there. Apparently Reid deserted his service before he completed 
 the legal term of his apprenticeship, for he had set up his press 
 
 ImMiBUBKBraiWI 
 
 his late mistress raided his workshop and cai-ried olf types and 
 founts of types found there. When the case again came before 
 the Council she based her complaint on the fact that Eeid was 
 acting contrary to his undertaking, but he replied that he had 
 the necessary permission from her son, and if she founded on other 
 sections of her patent, ho ui-ged that these had been modified out 
 of existence by the grant made to David Lindsay. The Council 
 merely put Eeid under caution that he would print nothing that 
 was unlicenced and referred the case, quoad ultra, to the civil 
 courts.-*^ Eeid appears to have retaliated by breaking into his 
 former mistress's premises and recapturing the material taken 
 from him. For this he was cast into prison on a charge of theft 
 and br(jught before the magistrates of Edinburgh, but the Court 
 of Session took the case into their own hands,'*" with what result 
 has not been discovered. 
 
 Naturally such a situation could not continue. The whole 
 printing industry of Scotland was threatened with strangulation, 
 and at last the i)rinters took serious action. About the end of 
 1C80, the craftsmen in Edinbui-gh appealed to the Court of 
 Session for declarator of their privileges as freemen, but 
 apparently they failed to attain their desires. They were 
 accordingly driven to lay their grievance before the throne itself. 
 James Watson says that by way of petition, John Eeid informed 
 
 °° A'ei;. l^riv. Conn., iii. vii. 3."i. 
 
 ■■'^ Jhid., iii. viii. 
 
 '" Fountainhall's Dedsions, i. 245, under date Nov 23, 1683. 
 
the Duke of York, who had come to Scotland as Lord High 
 
 Commissioner for his brother the King, " of the Persecution and 
 
 Oppression he and others of his Implo3anent had undergone thro' 
 
 the Extensiveness of Mrs. Anderson's gift." " '' Whether Watson 
 
 is ri"ht in prominently identifying Reid with the movement or 
 
 not cannot be ascertained, but certain it is that Robert Sanders 
 
 of Glasgow did approach the Duke and the Estates of Parliament 
 
 to complain of the hardship involved in the exclusive terms of 
 
 the monopoly. Watson indicates that this took place in the 
 
 year 1680, but the date is probably some months later. ■^' The 
 
 Andersons replied vigorously that they had both voluntarily and 
 
 by agreement allowed encroachments upon their rights, and that 
 
 there was therefore no real cause for complaint. They urged 
 
 that careful supervision of the whole printing trade of the 
 
 kinsdom was necessary, or some ill-disposed persons ''would 
 
 import and reprint these scandalous and seditious books whereof 
 
 they have most gain and advantage," and they named "the 
 
 League and Covenant, Jus Populi, Naphtali, and the Uke."'*** 
 
 The whole attitude of Mrs. Anderson showed a curious blindness 
 
 to the servile position to which her claims reduced respectable 
 
 and skilful workmen, and to the positive injury she was doing to 
 
 the intellectual progress of the country. By this time, however, 
 
 the eyes of the authorities were opening to the serious state of 
 
 alFairs the monopoly was creating. It was encroaching on the 
 
 resources of the country, because money which might have been 
 
 retained within it was finding its way abroad to pay foreign 
 
 printers for producing Scottish books. The closing words of the 
 
 ratification of the original grant to Anderson by the Privy 
 
 Council reserved to them the right of modifying its terms—" It 
 
 is alwayes heirby Declaired that this present Ratification shall 
 
 nowayes be prejudiciall to any acts of Councill maid anent the 
 
 ordering of the said gift." '^^ The Council acted on the powers 
 
 they thus held. 
 
 ■'" Watson's Preface to the Prin/ers of Scotland, p. 14. 
 
 "It was probably before the autumn of 1682, for in that year Sanders 
 bought part of the monopoly, and so had no need to proceed atjainst Mrs. 
 Anderson. The first book, in which he places his new title of "One of 
 His Majesties Printers," is dated 1682. 
 
 »- Spoltiswoodc Miscellany, i. 308. An account of these Covenanting publi- 
 cations is given by Dr. Hay Fleming in the Original Secession Mag., xiv. 
 (new Series) 401, &c. ; .\v. .35. 
 
 ^'> Acts of Pari. (Thomson), viii., p. -20: 
 
 Mrs. Anderson and the Royal Prerogative in Printing. 93 
 
 The extent of the victory gained by the printers can be best 
 judged from the terms of a patent as King's Printer granted to 
 David Lindsay on ]S"ovember 23, 1682, some months before. He 
 had shown the kind of workmanship he was capable of producing 
 in the Acts of Parliament which he had printed under the order 
 of Murray of Glendoick. The grant to him was based on several 
 grounds. As if to traverse the very reason on which the 
 Andersons founded their claim, it declared that it " agrees little 
 with justice and the sound policy of the realm that one monopoly 
 should absorb the whole business of printing," and that "it is 
 apparent to us that the heirs of the deceased Andrew Anderson, 
 at one time our printer, are in no way sufticient for the number 
 of books that require to be printed."'" Lindsay's gift also 
 declared that it was made in view of the former gift, and (which 
 is the important point) decided that the privileges of the 
 Anderson patent did not extend beyond those contained in the 
 grant to Evan Tyler, who had been King's Printer under Charles 
 1. Mrs. Anderson had not allowed the new gift to pass the 
 Exchequer unopposed, but it was confirmed on the broad 
 principle that "Andrew Anderson's gift contained exorbitant 
 clauses restraining the liberty of Printing," and the phrase is 
 interesting as being spoken at the very time when such pressure 
 was being put upon the religious freedom of the country. It 
 was on these lines that the dispute between the King's Printer 
 and her fellow-craftsmen was settled. The patent was held to 
 include only what had been included in Evan Tyler's patent, 
 over which no overt opposition had arisen. The printers' victory 
 was not quite complete, but the Anderson instrument was 
 rendered largely innocuous, and they regained some measure of 
 liberty in producing the current literature of their day.''^ 
 
 Mrs. Anderson had been so offensive in the methods by which 
 she had enforced her monopoly that she could expect little mercy 
 when she was discovered infringing the printing rights of 
 another. That interesting event took place in 1684, when she, 
 along with Robert Sanders, was pursued for pirating the cele- 
 brated Aberdeen almanacs of John Forbes. The northern 
 
 *» Lee's Memorial for Bible Soc, App. p. 61. 
 
 *i Friction between Mrs. Anderson and the other printers did not, however, 
 come altogether to an end. During the next twenty years several conflicts 
 took place. 
 
printer's complaint was very bitter : in the Jfnrinern Everlnnthui 
 Almanack for 1683, he said that Mrs. Anderson had not only 
 reprinted his pamphlets, but had asserted on them that they 
 were printed in Aberdeen, "which is a most notorious untrueth," 
 and had " impudently affixed thereto some Lynes in the End, of 
 Dcrell Rhyme, whereby she would have me to patronise her 
 base Execrations." With the consent of the Aberdeen magis- 
 trates, from whom he derived his authority, Eorbes invoked the 
 aid of the Privy Council, and their decision was altogether in his 
 favour. Printers must be unlike ordinary people if there was not 
 jubilation in several Scottish otHces.*'- 
 
 The Kevolution of 1688 must have caused Mrs. Anderson 
 some flutterings. That political upturn reversed so many 
 
 ;ns that she must have been 
 in some perplexity as to what events might mean for herself. It 
 was one of the charges brought against James II. in the Claim of 
 Ilight that he had allowed the dissemination of Popish books 
 "by a gift to a Popish printer designing him Printer to His 
 Majesty's Houshold, Colledge and Chapped, contrary to the 
 Laws." The Anderson patent might not bo so flagrant an abuse, 
 and perhaps the modifications it had undergone rendered the 
 dominant party more lenient towards it, but Mrs. Anderson must 
 nevertheless have breathed more freely when no definite action 
 was taken. That the authorities themselves hesitated is plainly 
 shown by the fact that when on November 21, 1690, they gave 
 her a proclamation to print, they declared that "albeit the heir 
 of Andrew Anderson print the proclamation of Council ... it 
 shall be no homologation of his right or gift to be their Majesties 
 printer."'-^ It is difficult, therefore, to understand why she 
 herself should have raised questions over her position. For some 
 time after the Kevolution she and her son declined to qualify 
 themselves for office by taking the necessary oaths. Tliey 
 allowed the last day for doing so to elapse, and then the Privy 
 Council took steps against them. On the date cited above, they 
 called upon tliem to appear before them "to answer for their 
 luu-ing exercised the said oflice of their Maties printer without 
 qualifying themselves." In certain "Answers" the Andersons 
 
 Dcf!sw/is, i. 273 ; E 
 0. Soc-., iii. 41. 
 
 Printers, p. 
 
 21 rs. Anderson at 
 
 prepared, they pleaded that "only persons in PubKck Tru.st, 
 either Civil or Military," were called upon to take the formal 
 oath, and that the office they held could not be considered to 
 come within the description, seeing that they could print only 
 what the Government gave them to print. They, however, 
 expressed their willingness to subscribe both oath and certificate, 
 if the Privy Council decided that their contention was wrong. ■'•' 
 It is evident that the Privy Council were satisfied with the 
 pleadings, for when the process was called, "Mr. Hugh 
 Dalrymple who acts as Kings Advocate in absence of his brother, 
 the jNIaster (jf Stair, boin absent, and the defenders being 
 personally compearing with Sir John Stewart, their advocate, 
 the process ^\•as lett fall." ' " From which it would appear that 
 the contention of the Andersons was held to be good. At a 
 later period a somewhat similar situation arose when "Mosman 
 and Brown, printers in Edinburgh, pursued John Baskett, the 
 Engii.sh King's Printer who also held a share in the Scottish 
 olfice, on the ground that he was not qualified to act in Scotland 
 becjiuse he had not taken the oaths of allegiance and assurance 
 prescribed by the Acts of 1693. The courts, however, decided 
 in his favour and declared that the procedure was unnecessary.'"' 
 
 Contempf)rary testimony to the po-^-erty of Mrs. Anderson's 
 printing is uniform ; praise of it is confined to her own state- 
 ments. As late as 1701 she affirmed in a petition she presented 
 to the Privy Council that " she hes so far improven the art of 
 printing in this Kingdom, That her printing house is equall and 
 perhaps exceeds any printing house in England, and the 
 Encouragement of her work tends very much to the maintenance 
 of a great manj- families."'"' The witness of rival printers may 
 be suspect, but James AN'atson charactei'ised two works which 
 she produced and on which she evidently prided herself — Pool's 
 
 ' AVv', Prw. Conn., Nov. 21, 16!)0. 
 ' Edgar's Decisions, p. 100. 
 ■ Eee's Memorial, App. p. 65. 
 
The Kdjjal I'hilosojjJiicnJ Socictt/ of GlaKfjoiv 
 
 Annolritmw and Flavel's Works — as "voluminous blotches."'" 
 Neutral evidence is to lie found in a Letter to a Jlemher of 
 Assemhhj concern inii the edvcritioii of children. The writer found 
 an ohstacle to their training in "the seandaiously erroneous 
 printin,!,' vf all manner of schoolbooks wjuitsoever, which are 
 printed here in Scotland, whether Latin or English, even from 
 the Shorter Catecliisni to the classic authors and grammar 
 upwards."''' On en(|uiry he discovered that the "relict of 
 Andrew Anderson " was practically the chief and only culprit. 
 "To pick and cull out all the errata of her grammars and classic 
 authors," he says, "would make a volume apart." 
 
 With the exception of what Sanders might print in Glasgow 
 under his share in the patent, Mrs. ^Vnderson had the monopoly 
 of Bible printing in Scotland. If a monopoly had a pertinent 
 defence at all it was here. The plea of the authorities was that 
 the sacred volume should be as free from blemishes as human 
 care could secure, and they created the monopoly to make tliat 
 certain. The fact that tln-ee months before the date of his grant 
 Anderson had been fined for a most inaccurate issue of the 
 Scriptures and ordered to withdraw it from circulation did not 
 promise well for the future, and the augurv was more than 
 fulfilled. A series of ]->ibles was issued from tlie Anderson press 
 the inferiority of which can hardly bi> surpassed. Principal Lee, 
 an acknowledgc'd expert in this dt'partment, agreed that "two or 
 three of the earlier editions of Andrew Ander.son and his heirs 
 are respectable in tlieir appearance," but it is apparent that 
 others were so bad as to suggest that no proofs were ever taken 
 and that the stock of type was altogethei' inade([uate to the 
 strain put upon it. The fact that the gross carelessiu'ss and 
 culpability of her otlice was more than once attacked in the 
 matter of Bible-printing, Mrs. Andersoji countered with an 
 extraordinary plea. In 1088 tlie printers of Edinburgh petitioned 
 
 ^BHtPmffTfiMl 
 
 wrote that she " prevail'd with the .Magistrates of Edinburgh to discharge my 
 Working for some time ; and in 1701 obtain'd a Warrant from the Privy 
 Council on a false Representation, to .shut up my W^ork-Ilouse. But upon 
 a full Information given in by me to the Lords of Privy Council (wherein all 
 the Printers in Edinburgh concurr'd) and a debate in the Presence of their 
 Lordships, she was so well e.xpos'd, that slie made no Attempt afterwards of 
 that Kind "—Pn-facc, p. IS. 
 
 tlie Privy Council for leave to jirint Bil)les on tlie ground of the 
 numerous errors in the monopoly co])ies. To ])i-ove their case 
 tliey j)roduced w long list of errata. ]\Irs. ..Vnderson's defence, 
 not formulated till a (jiiarter of a eentrirv later, was "that tliey 
 liad fraudulently put one of :\lrs. Andersons Titles to a ]5ible 
 printed in Holland, that thty miglit load Mrs. Anderson witli 
 the errors of a Foreign Impression." ■'■ » A similar attempt to 
 discredit her, .she maintained, Mas l)olstere<l up by t!ie same 
 infamous means. "They had corrupted an Englishman, who 
 Mas one of jMrs. Anderson's Sei-vants, and worked olT the Bibles 
 at tlie Press, to talce out some M-ords and ]iut in others in sc\eral 
 places; and in other Places to dro]) A\'ords entirely out, afttr 
 the last Pievisc of the Copy, in order to Defame and Accuse 
 ^Irs. Anderson of iMTors in Printing: wliich crime, and the 
 I'erscins wlio Corrupted liim, tlic ^'illain eonfess'd at the Callows, 
 when for soiiie sm.-dlcr Crimes lie came after\\-ards to be llang'd 
 in ]']iigland." " ' The tali; is a tall one, and much more of the 
 same nature is reipiired to explain almost tJie whole of the w(a'k 
 t!iat left her press. Xot only sn, but the cliarge of fraud recoils 
 111! her own head. Prineiiial J>ee illiislrates the title-oau-es of tM'o 
 
 inteil 111 r-ilin 
 
 tlio charge or traud reci 
 (rates the title-pages of t 
 (1 tlie other profi'ssedly 
 
 indoii. The frami' in whieli 
 
 ame jiress and that ^Mrs. Ande 
 Iv lirinted liooks under co\er 
 
 had attempted to sell her liaillv prnitt'd books under co\er of a 
 more rivspcctablc name. 
 
 The olliee cjf printer to tlie I general Assembv fell \'acaiit in 
 Ki'.lO, and i\lrs. Andi-rson made ajiplieation for the post in virtue 
 of her gift from the King tcj print all public acts and ]>ro- 
 <-lam:itions. The ^Vssemblv, howex'er, took its own A'iew and 
 appointed another lMlinl)urgli ]ii-inter, George IMosmaii. Tlie 
 anonymous autlior of the unfriendly llt.<l<irlc(it Behitiau j)roi'esses 
 to be puzzled at tlie appointment. He savs that ]\Irs. Anilerson 
 
 aiKJiivmous author or toe 
 
 " mi"ht have ((("icrved such a fa\oiir irom them 
 
 heretofore Favoured their Party, and allowed them the use of her 
 Press for publishing their Pamplilets, and even such as durst not 
 lie well avowed. But eitlier because they M'ould have a I'L-inter 
 of their own distinct from the Kings, or that thev would not 
 siiew kiiulness to her, mIio had accession to the guilt of the late 
 
98 The Royal Philosophical Societi/ of Glas'joiv. 
 
 Reigns, by printing their sinful! Acts and Proclamations; for 
 one or both of these lleasons they denied her the Favour." '' ^ 
 The Privy Council duly confirmed the action of the Assembly, 
 but the writer of the Relation goes on to tell how Mrs. Anderson 
 applied to them for liberty to print such acts of the Assembly as 
 received civil sanction, and says that in spite of the strenuous 
 opposition of Lord Crawford, she gained her point. It is possible 
 that Mrs. Anderson was passed over because of her hesitation in 
 taking the oath of allegiance. There is no evidence, however, that 
 she was of Jacobite sympathies, for she took care on more than 
 one occasion to repudiate the fallen house, although James Watson 
 tried later to fix the stigma of disloyalty upon her. In 1713 he 
 denounced her to the Government as "a woman who printed 
 the seditious Reviews of Defoe, . . . containing unparalleled 
 reproaches against the Queen and her present ministers, and who 
 lately printed the seditious Seasonable Warnin;/ ; a woman who 
 notwithstanding of her vast riches would not allow one candle to 
 be put up in her windows on the Queen's birthday on February 
 last tho' her house be in the chief part of the city." ' •* On the 
 death of Mosman's widow in 1712 Mrs. Anderson obtained the 
 office over the heads of three other candidates, and her success 
 then was probably due to the fact that she alone bad capital 
 enough to acquire Mosman's stock which was -valued at £3300 
 Scots. She kept up her reputation for inaccurate printing by 
 misspelling her own name in the first imprint she issued for her 
 new employers ! 
 
 It was not the age of great writers, and the Anderson press 
 printed little or nothing that connects it with the world of 
 literature. It is interesting, however, to know that through 
 Mrs. Anderson Scotland can claim a first share in the publi- 
 cation of Defoe's famous Review. 
 
 The Review was begun in February, 1703, and in October, 
 1706, Defoe was sent to Scotland to promote the Union between 
 the two kingdoms. The distance of the author-editor from 
 London made publication there difiicult, and in the spring of 
 1709 Defoe transferred the first printing of the journal to the 
 care of ^Irs. Anderson at Edinburgh. The first Scottish number 
 
 Kecoixl Offict 
 
 Jfrs. Anderson and the Royal Prerogative in Printing. 99 
 
 is dated March 25, 1 709, the corresponding re-issue for London 
 being dated April 5, — an interval suflicient for a copy to 
 reach London and to be re-set there. 
 
 Mrs. Anderson's answer to Watson's charge that in printing 
 the review she had spread sedition seems conclusive. She 
 replied that the authorities were evidently of a different mind, 
 for " the Author of that Paper having in the Paper itself 
 oftentimes declar'd himself ready to Answer any Charge 
 against him ; and the Paper being first printed in London, 
 without the Government showing any dislike to it, she humbly 
 suggests she was sulliciently Authorised to Reprint it, seeing 
 had not the Government had a differing opinion of that Paper, 
 from what this Advocates pretends, the Author had not then, 
 and still continu'd to publish it in London, and in the Face 
 of the Law, and not receiv'd the least trouble about it." 
 Watson also held up the Revieiv as a specimen of the bad 
 workmanship her office produced, but her reply is equally con- 
 vincing. There might be typographical errors, she urged, but 
 "it is well known the author being in that Year in Edinburgh, 
 Corrected every Paper himself." This prior publication of the 
 Revieiv could not have continued longer than a year because 
 Defoe was summoned back to London in March, 1710. 
 
 The monopoly -which had caused such heart searching among 
 the Scottish printers fell to expire on May 12, 1712. After 
 the experience they had had of its operations, it was not to 
 bo expected that they would submit to its renewal to its holder 
 without some effort to prevent it. It is impossible to suppose 
 that mere patriotism prompted opposition. The monopoly had 
 a money value, as was abundantly clear from the foi'tune which 
 Mrs. Anderson had accumulated," and tliat was undoubtedly 
 attractive, but at least one of the aspirants for the favour 
 did claim to be moved by national interests. As early as March, 
 
 ;ig to her InvL-nlory (Baiiii. 
 r, Os. ed. Scots. Watson s 
 
1" 
 
1711, James AN'atsoii, by far tlie most notahlc pi-intcr of his 
 day ill Scotland, approaclieil llobert FrtH-baini, an ICdiiiliurgii 
 bookseller, \\lio A\'as a year or two later to become notialoiis 
 
 as tho Pretender's printer during tlie insurrection of the "l"i," 
 with the proposal that the latter should aiiiilv for the post of 
 
 icing's Printer. Freebairn consi'iited, but suggested the ci 
 operation of Jolni ISaskett, the King's I'l'inter for P^nglanc 
 Tho joint application was successful, and on .Vugiist ] 
 
 11, tlio partners secured the patent."'' 
 
 Tho watcliful and resourceful ]Mrs. jVndeison liad not bee 
 caught napping. It is certain that early in 1711 she w: 
 making an attempt to secure tho oflice for the two men \\li 
 liad iiiai-ried her granddaughters, and wlio, James Watso 
 asserts, "knew nothing of printiii"'." She entered into up''< 
 
 tiations with Paskett and won o\"er I'reeliairn to her si. 
 Watson liarl no scruple in asserting in a iMemorial sent 
 him to the <Jovernment in connection with the case, tl 
 jNlrs. ^Vndersoii had descended to the most improix^i' means 
 elFcct her i)ur|)ose. "On the L'9th of danuarv 1171 ''1" he s:i 
 
 "Jlrs. Anderson sent .Mi'. Campbell (who is married t(j hei 
 grandcliilil) to a, merchant in J-^ilinliurgh, a friend of iMi, 
 Freeliairn's, desiring him to tell ]\Ir. I'reebair-n that iMr. p.askett 
 
 :\Ir. Freeh 
 
 and she were in good understanding, and that if ]\ir. Freebairn 
 would go into their me;isures, they would exclude, and ruin 
 James Watson, and that i\[r. I'reebairn should have i) or (iOt! 
 lil). Ster. ill a compliment."'"' A\'hether this was brilierv or 
 not, I'^-eehairn forsook \\'atvon and entered into combination 
 with IMrs. ..Vndei-son and her partner. 
 
 It would be tiresome to go minuteh' into the struggle that 
 ensued. Pefore anytliing could lie done, the patent secured bi- 
 "Watson I'enuired to be repudiated. ]\lrs. Anderson and her 
 friends succeeded in oljtainiiig adverse opinions reg.'irding its 
 •\alidity from the Lord Ailvocate among others. On tlie strength 
 of these reiiresentatlons I'l-eebairu and Baskett obtained another 
 grant, dated Decemlier .-^, 1 7 M. The ca.se was carried to the 
 law courts and \A'atson \m>ii continuously. Jlrs. Anderson had 
 continued to print Pibles as if she still held the otlice of Kings 
 I'rinter. Watson obtained a judgment restraining her. Mean- 
 
 iriends sue 
 
 J-f)-s. Andernon and tlie PunjaJ I'rurnrjntlce in Prtntiinj. 101 
 
 time Freebairn had joined tlie Pretender and liad thereby 
 forfeited his olHce under tho Crown. This gave Mrs. Anderson 
 the opportunity .slie was anxious to liave. Along with Baskett, 
 she apiilied for a new patent, which they secured on July C, 1716. 
 Tlie Scottish courts, however, refused to declare Watson's right 
 to a third share in the 1711 patent illegal, and tlie strange 
 siiectaele aros(^ of two liolders of tlie same otlice, each assertiii"- 
 royal warrant for liis claims. During the next forty years the 
 situation became more complicated, and the office liad strange 
 vicissitudes. It was divided and subdivided, its' parts reckoned 
 
 111 tractions and passing from 
 
 ither, until it is 
 
 st impossible to follow its bewildering and kaleidoscopic 
 
 liberty of the 
 
 ss was seusi 
 
 mutations. ihe rivalry and uncertainty, howe\er, liad some 
 good ell'ects. Scottisli printing was largely released from the 
 unnatural restrictions that liad hampered its pn^igress and the 
 liberty of the jiress was sensibly increased. It is unlikely that 
 licriodical literature would lia\e expanded as it did in the early 
 part of tlie eighteenth century had the stringency of Mrs. 
 Anderson's monopoly even in its modified form lieen maintainec" 
 As late as 1(399 Captain Donaldson, v>lio had just made a 
 striking ad\'aiice in journalism liy starting his Ed'mliiiryh Gazelfe, 
 complained that she had cndeavoui-ed to restrain liis freedom 
 of action in placing its production with another firm, but he 
 successfully resisted her attempts to coerce him with her patent. ^ " 
 On July 21, 1716, less than three weeks after her triumph, 
 3[rs. Anderson died,'"'* and with lier decease all the bitterness 
 that had distressed book production in Scotland for nearly 
 ]ia!f-a-ceiitiiry disapjieared. Her grandchildren did indeed 
 continue the lawsuit against Watson, but his ihial victory in 
 the Plouse of Lords in 1718 seems to have taken all desire for 
 further contention from them. The after fate of their printin 
 house is ditlicult to trace. Some arrangement seems to have been 
 made for its transfer to other hands, for George Chalmers records 
 tliat ail Edinburgli merchant entered into an agreement with 
 certain partners " in ^Mrs. Anderson's printing house " to print a 
 book for him ■"'•' — whicli indicates tliat tlie Anderson family had 
 ceased to have a concern in the business. Several books were 
 
 ' Couiier's Ediiilnii-'h I'crio 
 
 Ilisl. S.:ol. J'liiitii!', MS. in Auvocalc^' Lil 
 
102 The Royal PhilosojMcal Society of Glasgoiv. 
 
 printed by the "Successors of Andrew Anderson.""" In 
 1720 the stock of books and paper, which had belonged to 
 Mrs. Anderson, was sold by warrant of the Commissary of 
 Edinburgh and in 1726 her paper mill at Penicuick was also 
 exposed for sale by order of the Lords of Council and Session. 
 The rights conferred upon her by the patent of 1716 were 
 apparently allowed to lapse, and as late as February 28, 1728, 
 James Davidson was appointed printer to the City of Edinburgh 
 in place of the successors of Andrew Anderson. No one carrying 
 the name of Anderson was left to continue the traditions of the 
 family, and accordingly a cognomen which had taken a chief 
 place in the history of Scottish printing for nearly a century 
 dropped out of existence. 
 
 »" Overlnres Concerning Kirk Sessions and FresbyUrics, tran smiled by the 
 Commission of the General Assembly to Presbyteries. It was complained that 
 the issue of these Overtures was so delayed that sufficient lime was not left for 
 their adequate discussion by the Presbyteries (/)//•. Anderson's Letters upon the 
 Overtures, pp. 1-6). The reply was made that the fault lay with the printers, 
 the reason being that " Mrs. Anderson's Printing-house was since her Death 
 not so well provided with Servants." {A Letter eoneerning the Overtures, 
 p. 35). 
 
 Professor John Ferguson. 
 
 Professor John Ferguson, M.A., LL.D., F.R.S.E., F.S.A., London 
 and Scotland. By Professor John M. Thomson, LL.D., F.R.S. 
 
 [Read before the Society, 28th March, 1917.] 
 
 John Ferguson, Emeritus Professor of Chemistry in the 
 University of Glasgow, whose death occurred on the 2nd of 
 November, 1916, after an official connection with the University 
 covering a period of nearly half a century, was born at Alloa 
 in Clackmannan-shire on the 23rd of January, 1837. His 
 family, originally from the east country, removed at an early 
 date to Glasgow, where liis father settled as a merchant. 
 Apparently he died when Ferguson was comparatively young ; 
 and when tlie writer of this notice first became acquainted with 
 the family it consisted of Ferguson, an only sister, and their 
 mother, to whom they were deeply attached, and for whom he 
 always expressed in later life feelings of gratitude for her 
 sympathy and assistance in his early education. She was a 
 somewhat remarkable woman — a regular type of the old Scottish 
 mother, possessing a strong face with character written in every 
 line. 
 
 Although John Ferguson matriculated at the University in 
 1855, this was not his first introduction to the institution which 
 ultimately became his " Alma Mater," as in a paper, " Memoirs 
 of the Old College," read to the old College Club some short 
 time ago he says, " There is hardly a time I can remember when 
 I did not know the Old College, for even as a mere child I was 
 often taken to the Hunterian Museum, and thus became familiar 
 with its wonders, though their value could make no appeal." 
 It is interesting to think that the last official position he held in 
 the University, that of Honorary Curator of the Hunterian 
 Library, brought him at the close of his official career into still 
 closer relation with that building and its treasures which had 
 captivated his youthful fancy. 
 
 John Ferguson underwent his school education at the old 
 High School of Glasgow, then situated between John Street and 
 Montrose Street, immediately behind the Anderson College in 
 
Cornell University Library 
 
 Z151 .C85 
 
 Mrs. Anderson and the royal preroaativi 
 
 3 1924 029 497 892 
 
 olin Over