Preamble I have endeavoured, in reproducing Geoffrey Cass's 50-page letter below, throughout to imitate the layout, typographical (typed) style and to reproduce any tics, mistakes, omissions etc. that feature in his original. The penchant-turned-mania for underlining (especially in the next file Appendix A) is Cass's own, and the antique, often barmy spellings in the ancient quotations are as in the originals. I have also resisted the frequently fierce temptation to comment on his numerous errors or leaps of logic and on his various lapses of rigour and style, deciding it best to let his submission speak entirely for itself. I would, however, remind readers who are taking this journey that whatever may or may not be true (or in 1975 have been true) of Cambridge University Press also needs to be true, now, of Oxford University Press, for it is upon the following document, notwithstanding Cass's own acrid disclaimers, that OUP's tax-exemption ultimately rests. - A. M.

[original page numbering, forwards]

HEADING:
CUP logo with the legend: The right of the University Press to print and sell all manner of books was granted by Henry VIII in Royal Letters Patent of 20 July 1534
HEAD OFFICE
CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS
THE PITT BUILDING TRUMPINGTON STREET CAMBRIDGE CB2 1RP
Telephone (0223) 58331 Cables unipress cambridge england Telex 8176256
Chief Executive and Secretary to the Syndics Geoffrey A. Cass
Publishing Division: Managing Director Philip E. V. Allin
Publishing Division: Publisher Michael H. Black
Printing Division: University Printer Euan H. Phillips
Printing Division: Managing Director Harry Myers

Head Office: Financial Director Peter R. Hodgson
Head Office: Director - Group Projects Colin F. Eccleshare

At foot of page:
Publishing Division
Cambridge Head Office & Editorial and Production As above
Printing Division All Departments University Printing House Shaftesbury Road Cambridge CB2 2BS

GAC/AP

21st November 1975

Dear Mr Mashiter,

I promised that I would write to you to outline the basis of the University's claim to charitable exemption for its Press. The assembling of our submission is a laborious process, and we are unlikely to complete it for several months. I felt that, under the circumstances, it would be courteous to (a) outline at some length the nature of our case, in a preliminary statement, and (b) let you see why preparation was taking so long.

I believe that Binder Hamlyn [accountants] advised you early this year that an enormous amount of research was being carried out into the history and constitution of the University and of the University Press. I notice that in your letter of 23rd May 1975 to Binder Hamlyn you acknowledged this, but said:

"... I think the crux of the matter is - what does the Cambridge University Press do at the present time. It is I think, principally concerned with printing and publishing for the outside world. Even though the activity is specialized and devoted to the production of works of learning, the activity extends beyond the purposes and objects of the University. Thus, except insofar as the activity is concerned with work for the internal use of the University, the activity must ba regarded as being in the nature of a trade and exemption under Section 360(1)(e) Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970 is not available having regard to the precise requirements of that Section."

The 1940 decision clearly accepted that the Press was devoted to the production of works of learning. The advancement of learning itself (not to mention the advancement of religion) is well accepted as charitable. So that there are good grounds for assuming that - even if it were not part of Cambridge University, which is a charity in its own right - Cambridge University Press (if it had a corporate status of its own) could successfully seek designation as a charity and obtain tax exemption in its own right (considerably more easily than, for instance, the Incorporated Council of Law Reporting - see a later section of this letter.) However, Cambridge University Press is part of Cambridge University, which possesses its own charitable status. So we have the absurd anomaly that a trading arm of an accepted charity is [page 3] subject to tax on the grounds that the trade is not part of the charity's prime purposes - even though the object of that trade is itself charitable. The final irony is that Cambridge University is a charity surely because it advances learning and education, in accordance with the second of the four main categories of charitable objects outlined by Sir Samuel Romilly in Morice v. Bishop of Durham, and by Lord Macnaghton in Pemsel's Case: and of course it advances religion, which is an additional qualifying category.

It is not of course possible for us retrospectively to reconstruct fully the position adopted by the Commissioners. They may have had in mind the acceptance of dissemmination of knowledge through works of learning within the University through the Press's trade as coming within the primary purposes of the University or they may have dismissed dissemination of knowledge altogether as a prime purpose, and regarded the production of books for use within the University as not a trade at all but a purely mechanical facility to assist the education of the University's own undergraduates - which they perhaps regarded as the only prime purpose of Cambridge University. I will assume that the latter was not the case, that the Commissioners did not see the ancient University of Cambridge as an 'undergraduate processing factory', and that the Commissioners used a definition of prime purpose which confined the dissemination of knowledge within the walls of Cambridge. (Whichever view we take of the Commissioners' position, it does not affect the relevance of the evidence we shall present.)

To sum up, the Commissioners denied the University charitable exemption for its Press by defining the Press's activities as outside the objects of the University. To be more precise, the ground chosen by the Commissioners from which to deny the 1940 claim - and indeed the only issue raised by the Commissioners - was the geographical destination of these works of learning. That is to say, they argued that the printing and publishing of works of learning for use within the walls of Cambridge qualified for exemption, but the printing and publishing of works of learning for use outside the walls of Cambridge did not.

The Commissioners clearly derived this distinction and this decision from some definition of the purposes and objects of Cambridge University. I suggest, with respect, that the whole issue of exemption does not depend on what Cambridge University Press does at the present time. Cambridge University Press does today exactly what it has always done for 441 years. The whole crux of the matter is the definition of the University's primary purposes which was used by the Commissioners in arriving at their decision.

One might rephrase that last sentence and say that the crux of the matter was the assumption negatively made by the Commissioners about what was not among the University's primary purposes - for there was in existence at that time no concise and readily-available [page 4] definition of the objects of Cambridge University which the Commissioners could have consulted. The purposes of a 700 year old institution such as Cambridge University are rather like the British constitution. There is no single statutory document to which one can refer. There are however 700 years of documented history which can be researched, and this is what the University has been engaged in doing. As you may imagine, it is a mammoth task.

However, commonsense and historical research alike confirm that the definition which we can deduce must have been used by the Commissioners is totally without foundation. The University cannot conceive where or how the Inland Revenue obtained such a definition. In no single legal, constitutional, royal, parliamentary, or university document has it ever been stated during 700 years, that the objective of Cambridge University is to propagate knowledge within the geographical confines of Cambridge itself. The reverse is the case. Since the thirteenth century, the University's duty to disseminate learning worldwide has been constantly stressed in Parliament, by the Crown, and by the Courts, as well as in innumerable university documents. And the role of the University's Press in carrying out this duty has been repeatedly emphasized since 1534 in countless legal and state papers.

It is possible that, because the University did not appeal against the 1940 decision, the Inland Revenue have assumed the University's acceptance of the erroneous definition of its purposes that was implied at that time. Nothing could be further from the truth. The University was in effect advised by its Q.C.'s (sic) in 1940 that there was no way in which it could lose its case if it appealed. It is minuted in the University records that the University withdrew from the case for "patriotic reasons", as it was felt to be in some curious way unseemly to spend time seeking tax exemption when the country was fighting a war against Germany. The implied definition of the University's purposes was as fallacious then as it is today. No evidence bearing on this issue was ever submitted, although Counsel of course was aware of the available evidence.

It is only fair to say that, when I look today at the evidence submitted by the University in 1940, I am not altogether surprised at the decision reached by the Commissioners. They were not, in my opinion, given a fraction of the evidence which should have been submitted to them. I also believe that the University was excessively self-denying in refraining from appealing and from submitting the massive dossier of evidence which would have overwhelmingly proved its case. (In a university, 700 years of history is naturally exceptionally well-documented,)

The University's prime duty to disseminate knowledge throughout the world (not, for the 'internal use of the University') has always taken precedence over all other objectives throughout the University's 700 year history. This is why (as we shall see below), even as long ago as 1534, the whole subect of the University's printing and [page 5] publishing was deemed important enough to be embodied in a Royal Charter.

The University was quick to recognize the role of, first, the manuscript, then - later - the printed book, as the store of knowledge, as the tool of learning, and as the instrument of dissemination of knowledge. In medieval times, before the advent of printing, the ancient universities and religious houses were the unchallenged repositories of knowledge. It was quickly realized that if that knowledge were ever to reach the outside world, it could only do so by means of the laboriously hand-written book. The central role of the book as the primary instrument of the dissemination of learning was underlined by the way in which jurisdiction was sought by, and granted to, the University over the writers, transcribers, binders, illuminators and stationers. (First granted by Hugh de Balsham, Bishop of Ely, in 1276: confirmed by Edward III in 1353: by Richard II in 1393: and by the "Barnwell Process" in 1430.)

Thus, almost exactly 700 years ago (and 200 years before the invention of printing), we find the writers, transcribers, stationers (booksellers), and binders entirely under the protection of the University, enjoying the same privileges as the Scholars of the University, subject only to the laws of the University, not of the Town. The University even supplied the stationers special gowns, as a distinctive mark of office. The University could not function properly without the book-producers, and - more importantly - could not exchange or transmit knowledge without books.

The invention of printing provided a much more efficient method of conserving and disseminating knowledge: and the printed book was able to reach an almost infinitely greater proportion of the population. The fundamental importance of this to the University was very swiftly appreciated, as was the need to secure control of this new and powerful tool of knowledge-dissemination. The University always jealously guarded its close control over books, first, because books were the prime means of disseminating and storing knowledge, and second, because it regarded firm supervision over the nature and quality of what was produced as of paramount importance.

Since at least as early as 1384, books produced in the University by the writers and transcribers, for sale anywhere, had to be approved by the Chancellor of the University and the Doctors.

In 1534, following the invention of printing, the University's powers over its printing and publishing activities were further strengthened by Henry VIII, at the suit of Cardinal Wolsey. Its position was deliberately re-inforced relative to its bitter commercial competitor, the Stationers' Company. In Royal Letters Patent of 20 July 1534, under the Great Seal of England, Henry VIII granted the University the following charter:- [page 6]

"Henry VIII, by the grace of God King of England and France, defender of the Faith, and Lord of Ireland, To all to whom these present letters may come, greeting. Know ye that we of our special grace, and by our certain knowledge and mere motion, have granted and given licence, and by these presents grant and give licence, for ourselves and our heirs, to our beloved in Christ the Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of our University of Cambridge, That they and their successors for ever may, by their writings under the seal of the Chancellor of the said University, from time to time assign, appoint and in perpetuity have among them, and perpetually remaining and dwelling within our aforesaid University, Three Stationers and Printers or Sellers of Books, both aliens born outside our obedience and natives born within our obedience, having and holding houses both leased and owned. These Stationers or Bookprinters, assigned in the aforesaid manner, and any of them, shall have lawful and incontestable power to print there all manner of books approved or hereafter to be approved, by the aforesaid Chancellor or his deputy and three doctors there; and also to exhibit for sale, as well as in the same University as elsewhere in our realm, wherever as they please, all such books and all other books wherever printed, both within and outside our realm, approved or to be approved (as aforesaid) by the said Chancellor or his deputy and three doctors there."

"What more appropriate monument then [page 15] could be erected to the memory of Pitt than this building, the chief purpose and object of which is to send forth to the world the Word of God."

He continued:

"My Lord, the edifice with which you have adorned this University, and the illustrious name it bears, will add a fresh stimulus to our exertions in the dissemination of truth, the extension of science, and the advancement of religious knowledge; and I humbly trust that nothing will ever issue from these walls but such works as may conduce to the furtherance of these important objects."

For centuries the University has used its Press to diffuse knowledge and learning throughout the world. The history of the printing and publishing functions of the University has been utterly consistent with their origins. Cambridge University has never been inward-looking and history totally refutes the absurd suggestion that the University's dissemination of knowledge and religion, whether through its printing and publishing or through any other medium, was confined within the walls of Cambridge.

The 1852 Royal Commission on Cambridge University reported:

"The University is a great national institution: invested with important privileges by the favour of the Crown and the authority of the Legislature. It exercises a most extensive influence on the education of the higher and middle classes of the community, and consequently on the intellectual, moral, and social character of the nation."

"The long-continued influence of literary and philosophical examples upon the sentiments and conduct of societies."

"It is one of the noblest duties of a university to advance knowledge, and to diffuse it not merely among those who can attend the daily lectures - but far and wide."

Also in 1891, Dr Butler, the Master of Trinity College, Cambridge, in his speech when his term of office as Vice-Chancellor of the University came to an end, referred to:

"the efforts made by the University to extend its means of usefulness beyond its own borders".

"But we do need as our Head one who can understand and sympathize with the ever new developments of University work, whether these arise from advancement of knowledge or from the zeal of those who would carry some share of that knowledge to every part of our land."

"bodies comparatively isolated, handing down to a few an abstruse or an unprogressive learning." ... "They claim to be interpreters to the nation of the bearing of ancient life and thought upon all time. They claim to be among the leaders of modern science, and to be teachers to the nation of its endless discoveries."

"Lead us to believe that in your Grace we shall have again a Head capable of understanding and ready to extend the influence of the University on national life." [page 17]

When Field Marshal Smuts was installed as Chancellor of Cambridge University in 1948, the then Vice-Chancellor went even further in stating that:

"Our University belongs not to Cambridge only or to Britain, but to the Commonwealth and the world."

"One of the most important modern developments, implying a whole new principle of academic responsibility towards the community at large has been taken up by the two senior Universities of their own accord, not from any suggestions made by the former Royal Commissions or owing to compulsion by Parliament."

The Commission was referring then, in 1922, to extra-mural lectures - "Professor Stuart's original idea of a peripatetic university affording systematic education of a university type in liberal arts and sciences to busy adults".

Yet on the 31st January 1908, fourteen years earlier - the Minutes of the Syndics of Cambridge University Press report a discussion by the Syndics on a "Scheme of Scholarly Volumes on Literary and Scientific Subjects". The Syndics intended:

"that the series should include subjects which in this country at any rate have not been so treated hitherto, and in the case of such stereotyped subjects in literature and science as must be included, to avoid as far as possible the hackneyed method of dealing with them."

"advocate the production of volumes which should be only small text books or primers for beginners, but think that authors should be instructed to aim at presenting certain aspects of literary and scientific subjects in a form acceptable to the ordinary educated man."

"above all, the writers should have it [page 18] impressed upon them that the treatment must be such that an educated man unfamiliar with the special subject should be able to understand it."

"A university has three functions to perform. It has to conserve knowledge; to advance knowledge; and to disseminate knowledge. It falls short of the full realization of its aim unless, having provided for the conservation and advancement of knowledge, it makes provision for its dissemination as well."

"The educational influence of our national Universities is not only inseparable from, but dependent upon, their actual importance as seats of research and learning. I rejoice to think that at Cambridge no difference on this head prevails between those who favour recent developments of our educational activities and those who look more or less askance at them. The researches and studies single-mindedly pursued inside and outside our laboratories and libraries by resident members of this University and by students and scholars whom this University has trained, form the chief motive element in its intellectual life, and the most potent factor of its national and international significance. Nor have I any hesitation in adding my belief that the Press, as a main [page 19] agent in making the results of these researches and studies known within and beyond our local limits, will in future become of more importance than ever as an organic branch of our academical activities."

It is naturally difficult for anyone outside the University, and unfamiliar with its long history, to appreciate what an integral part of Cambridge University its printing and publishing activities have always been: how inextricably they have been linked with the life and purposes of the University. It is perhaps unfortunate that there are also other publishing imprints in existence, with the word 'university' in their title, which have little or no connection with a university. The chairman of the Hodder group said recently, in connection with the group's phasing out of the University of London Press and English University Press imprints:

"Another minus is that it nowadays feels uncomfortable to use the U.L.P. and E.U.P. imprints when we have no formal link with either the University of London nor any other English university. And neither name is ideal for our big overseas publishing programme."

When one considers the antiquity of the origins of the Press, this is hardly surprising. How many other organizations can demonstrate such a lineage? And how many have remained constant to their ancient objectives for over 440 years? The Royal Charters quoted above are doubly potent. Not only do they carry the warranty of royalty and of the law of the land: they were granted at a time when not merely the Press, but the whole University was founded. In what other epoch of an institution's history would one look for statements of its 'prime purposes'? [page 20]

The Royal Charters have consistently been upheld by some of the most distinguished judges in British legal history, right into the twentieth century. The opinion of three Counsel in 1901, on the validity of the University's BibIe printing privilege ran:

"We think also that under their Charters the two Universities can of themselves, without aid from the King's Printers, prevent the printing and sale of Bibles and Prayer Books in England by unauthorized persons. It was... decided a hundred years ago in favour of the Universities in Richardson's case." ... "any Court is most unlikely to reverse the emphatic opinions of Lord Eldon and Lord Ellenborough which have been acted upon for nearly a hundred years."

Twenty years later at the time of the founding of the American Branch of the University Press, the United States authorities demanded proof of the legal existence of the University of Cambridge as owner of the Press and were eventually satisfied by the transmission of a photographic facsimile of the Act of Parliament (13 Elizabeth Cap. 29) by which the incorporation of the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge was confirmed in 1571.

The very natures of these issues - the publication and sale of Prayer Books and Bibles all over the country; the formation of a marketing branch in the U.S.A. - clearly underline the fact that the extra-mural activities of the Cambridge University Press have consistently been regarded as an organic and beneficial part of the University. Cambridge printing has always been viewed in the way the Vice-Chancellor and Heads of Colleges viewed it in 1583, when they wrote to Lord Durleigh to defend Thomas Thomas against the attacks of the Stationers' Company. They referred to printing as:

"the auntient privilege graunted and confirmed by divers Princes... to the great benefitt of the vniversitie and advauncement of Learning."

"The Press has pursued its usual course of beneficent activity." [page 21]

THE OBJECTIVES OF CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY

The evidence I have presented above makes it clear beyond any shadow of legal doubt that the trade of University Press is exercised in the course of the actual carrying out of a primary purpose of the University. However, so far I have deliberately concentrated on key items of historical evidence which specifically prove that the trades of publishing and printing for the world outside Cambridge are so exercised and also are a primary purpose themselves. It hardly needs to be pointed out that it makes no sense - either in law or commonsense - to talk about printing and publishing to disseminate knowledge within the limits of one university city. If the advancement of learning, education, and religion, through the dissemination of knowledge and religion by the printing and publishing of books and Bibles is a prime purpose of Cambridge University, the question of whether that dissemination should be carried out inside or outside Cambridge is scarceiy one that can seriously be raised.

However, the evidence presented above comprehensively proves a number of propositions:

(1) the advancement of learning and education in the widest sense, including the dissemination of knowledge beyond the confines of the University itself, is, and always has been, a primary purpose of the University

(2) the advancement of learning and education is, and always has been a primary purpose of the University, and the general dissemination of knowledge is a necessary part of that charitable object. (See also the later section of my letter concerning the Council of Law Reporting Case.)

(3) The actual printing and publishing, for world markets, of scholarly and religious works, has in any case been a primary purpose of the University throughout its history. (The history of the Press within the University is itself ample evidence of this.)

For instance, we find in the Paper Duty Act of 1711, the following:

"Provided always and be it enacted by the Authority aforesaid that for the Encouragement of Learning soe much money as shall from time to time be paid for the Duties granted by this Act for any Quantities [page 22] of Paper which during the Continuance of the said Duties shall be used in the printing any Bookes in the Latin Greek Oriental or Northern Languages within the Two Universities of Oxford and Cambridge or either of them by Permission of the Vice-Chancellors of the same respectively shall and may be drawne back and repaid."

(a) The purpose - "the Encouragement of Learning"

(b) Recognition by Parliament of the trade of printing as an integral part of Cambridge University

(c) Recognition of the academic nature of the printing

(d) Acknowledgement of the fact that the Vice-Chancellor of the University had to approve the books printed

(e) The importance of the activity implicitly acknowledged. (It warranted an actual Act of Parliament)

(f) Relief from the paper tax.

"... by virtue of the Letters Patent bearing date the 20th day of July in the 26th year of the reign of King Henry the VIII, and the Letters Patent bearing date the 6th of February in the 3rd year of the reign of King Charles I, the Chancellor, Masters, and Scholars of the University of Cambridge are INTRUSTED with a concurrent authority to print Acts of Parliament and abridgements of Acts of Parliament within the said University upon the terms in the said Letters Patent."

"I thought it would be agreeable to you, to know the Issue of the Cause, between the King's Printers and the University of Cambridge, as far as concerns the Proceedings in our Court: and have therefore inclosed our Opinion.

"The Words underlined were thrown in, by way of an Intimation to the University, that we consider the Powers, given by the Letters Patent, as a trust reposed in the learned Body, for public Benefit, for the advancement of literature, and not to be transferred upon Lucrative Views to other hands. I hope [the University] will always consider the royal Grants in that Light."

An identical view was adopted by Lord Eldon, the Lord Chancellor, in 1802, when he gave Judgement on the University's attempt to restrain the Richardsons from printing Bibles ["the copies belonging to the King"] for sale in England:

"The construction put by Courts of Law upon these Letters Patent [the 1534 Charter] is that, notwithstanding the generality of the terms, giving that power or right, whatever it is, they give [the University] the faculty of multiplying the copies belonging to the King; and no objection as to the generality of the terms bas been held to affect the validity of these powers."

"... my opinion is that the public interest may be looked to upon a subject the communication of which to the public in an authentic shape, if a matter of right, is also a matter of duty in the Crown, which are commensurate. The principle of the law is that this duty and this right are better executed and protected by a publication of Books of this species in England, by persons confided in by Letters Patent under the Great Seal of England."

The way in which the University's purposes were taken as common ground between all thinking men is perhaps best exemplified by a further instance.

The inauguration of H.R.H. Prince Albert, as Chancellor of Cambridge University took place at Buckingham Palace on the 25th March, 1847. Mr Philpott, the Vice-Chancellor (who was attended by Lord Lyndhurst, High Steward of the University, Mr Goulborn and Mr Law, Members of Parliament for the University, thirteen Heads of Colleges, the Commissary, Public Orator, Registrary, members of the Caput, Proctors, Scrutators, Esquire Bedels, and about 130 members of the University Senate, addressed his Royal Highness as follows:

"It is my duty to present to your Royal Highness the letters patent of the office of Chancellor of the University of Cambridge, into which your Royal Highness has been elected by the Senate."

"Your Royal Highness is well acquainted with the nature and the objects of the institutions amidst which we live, and of which we conceive we may be justly proud. Your Royal Highness knows that the foundations of them were laid many centuries ago; that they were destined to maintain and spread the principles of Christianity and civilization."

"... if indeed any change whatever could be made [to the Press] without destroying the efficiency of an establishment, which, for the purposes of the University and its Colleges must neccesarily be kept up on a considerable scale."

"the management of one of the most important of the agencies which [the University] has at its command for this very purpose."

"... which for my part I consider fundamental: that it is the duty of the University to utilise the Press for the publication of contributions, as such, to the advancement of science and learning."

"... increasing and intensifying the active interest of the University in an extremely important part of its work, which directly affects some of the highest and widest of the purposes which the University desires to serve."

"The Universities have regarded their Charters as carrying with them responsibilities, in some respects onerous, including the obligations to supply the Authorized Version in its most accurate form, and to promote by means of their Presses the interests of Biblical and other good learning."

"the supply to all buyers and sellers, large and small, of all manner of complete, accurate, and cheap editions of the Bible and Prayer Book, both in their popular forms and in those needed for official and ceremonial use; the co-operation of authorized printers [Cambridge and Oxford] with the Societies, large and small and of all complexions, desirous of circulating books for charitable and religious purposes; the maintenance throughout the English-speaking world of an identical Bible, and throughout the Church of EngIand and her daughter Churches of an identical Prayer Book; the advantage to the public of the commitment of the care of the 'King's Books' to bodies whose scholarship, impartiality, and responsibility [page 26] are not questioned; the benefits arising to education and learning through the agency of the University Presses."

"It remains to estimate in accordance with the request of the Secretary of State the probable effect of new authorizations or the relinquishment of the rights of the Crown upon the Universities themselves and their resources for the promotion of learning through the agency of their Presses."

"The Universities have built up great organisations for the production and sale, not only of the 'King's Books', but of books that promote the general cause of education and learning."

"... as they do not work for private profit they are able to devote year after year considerable sums to important works which are not immediately remunerative or not remunerative at all, and which no other publisher would undertake unless with the assistance of a subsidy.

"In these ways the activity of the Presses has increased and is increasing, and there can be no doubt as research becomes every day more vigorous and more specialized the demands upon the Presses for their assistance in publishing its results must grow and multiply."

"... coupled with the responsibility attaching to the authorization of the Crown, and their close connexion with the other activities of the Universities for the furtherance of education and learning ... the Presses have have discharged their obligations faithfully and to the public advantage."

"it would be necessary as a matter of public policy to provide in some way or other for the promotion of science and learning which is now effected without State aid or cost to the public by the activities of the University Presses."

"It shall be the duty of a [Professor etc.] to devote himself to the advancement of knowledge in his subject, to give instruction therein to students, and to promote the interests of the University as a place of education, religion, learning and research."

"publications have redounded very greatly to the credit of the University of Cambridge as a place of education and research."

"It is of the utmost importance that these should be encouraged and enabled to give considerable time to research and to the furtherance of knowledge by publication or otherwise."

"promote teaching and research in Criminal Science and the publication of the results of such research."

"promote teaching in African subjects, and to promote research in these subjects and the publication of the results of such research."

"in collaboration with the Faculty Boards concerned to promote teaching in international studies, and to promote research in these studies and the publication of the results of such research."

"in collaboration with the Faculty Board concerned to promote teaching in Latin-American subjects, and to promote research in these subjects and the publication of the results of such research."

"It has again and again been pointed out by the friends of research, that organisation and encouragement are idle unless the publication of valuable results is guaranteed; and in the past, scholars in this country, and not in this country only, have looked to the Presses of Oxford and Cambridge to do the work which in Germany was carried out by Academics subsidized by Government for this purpose."

"to co-operate with outside bodies in the encouragement of research in [Criminal Science, African Subjects, International Studies, Latin-American subjects]."

In considering the importance of purposes other than teaching, in Cambridge University, it is impossible to overestimate the significance, not only of research, but of the publication of research. The 1922 Commission Report commented: [page 29]

"During the last century the Science Schools at Cambridge have acquired a position which it is no exaggeration to say is unique in the history of Science. They have been the centres of fundamental research in almost all branches of science."

The Appendices to the 1922 Commission Report contain a Memorandum submitted by an Oxford University Committee of twenty-three senior members of the University on the needs of research. The opening paragraph says:

"It is now generally recognized that knowledge cannot stand still and that unless it is continually being enlarged in various directions, teaching - for lack of the new material which it is the province of research to gather - must suffer."

"Publication is the necessary sequel to research. Results and discoveries perish with their authors unless they are placed on record."

"But the British Academy is without endowment, the learned societies are almost without exception in straitened circumstances: and it is therefore to the Universities that we must look for the assistance which is needed..."

"We recognize that the value of the research done often depends on its publication."

"It seems ineredible that while such elaborate and expensive arrangements are made for the promotion of research - salaries, low teaching commitments, research grants, sabbaticals, great libraries - the whole responsibility ceases at the moment when that research is ready to reach an audience."

"The point worth bearing in mind is that in higher education generally and particularly in the universities, a high proportion of the bill supports research. If that research is not published, or if there is no encouragement to undertake it in the first place because of the difficulty, uncertainty, and expense of publication, the greater part of the research budget is thrown away."

The results of research, critically important though they are, are only one form of knowledge. Cambridge University Press prints and publishes at every educational and academic level, in both book and journal form. It disseminates education and learning over a wide spectrum of knowledge. It should be remembered that the Universities Act of 1877, which set up Statutory Commissioners with powers over University statutes, comprehensively charged those Commissioners to act:

"with a view to the advancement of art, science and other branches of learning."

"to have regard to the interests of education, religion, learning, and research."

"We use the word research to cover not only [page 31]

(i) the actual study and collation of new material, or the working out of special scientific problems, but also

(ii) the promotion of thought and learning in the widest sense."

"A University can only flourish if it is a seat of learning, as well as a school for undergraduates. Its teachers must be men of learning, absorbing and utilizing, by steady research, the new material which constantly becomes available throughout the field of knowledge, and themselves contributing to the supply of such material, according to their abilities."

"Any divorce between teaching and research would, in our judgement, be detrimental to the highest interests of the University in its dual capacity."

"The assumption that research and teaching are inextricably related activities is inherent in the present system of 'dual support' for university research."

"The University has two main functions to perform. It must provide the best possible teaching for [its students]... and it must also make provision for the advancement of knowledge."

"... we should regard it as a misfortune if the stipend or dividend of a Fellow were considered as a payment merely for teaching."

In general then, the country - in the shape of the Crown, Parliament, and the Courts - has always taken the University's prime purpose to be the advancement of learning and knowledge in the widest possible sense. History clearly shows that Cambridge University itself has throughout been concerned with the advancement of learning in the noble, global sense - rather than in the sense of educating its own scholars. The history of the University is utterly consistent on this point. [page 32]

It therefore follows that - even if it had not been the case (which it is) that the actual activity of printing and publishing works of learning and Bibles for world consumption is proven by history to be a prime purpose of Cambridge University - the dissemination of knowledge, learning, and religion through the trade of printing and publishing works of learning and Bibles for world consumption would clearly be a necessary part of the University's prime object of advancing knowledge, learning and religion in the wide sense that is also proven by history to have been the University's goal.

Indeed, at this point, if one pulls together the seven hundred years of the history of Cambridge University, the definition of the University's prime purposes which emerges is something like the following:

The acquisition, advancement, conservation and dissemination of knowledge in all subjects; the advancement of learning, education, research and religion; and the advancement of literature and good letters.

"Universities are multi-purpose organisations"

INCORPORATED COUNCIL OF LAW REPORTING v ATTORNEY-GENERAL AND THE COMMISSIONERS OF INLAND REVENUE (Click for Cass's extracts or for the complete case).

It seems only reasonable to call your attention to this case. The Incorporated Council of Law Reporting had applied for registration as a charity in 1966. The Charity Commissioners refused the application in 1967, and the Council appealed under Section 5(3) of the Act of 1960, joining as parties the Commissioners of Inland Revenue and the Attorney-General. Foster J. allowed the appeal on 1st December 1970. The Commissioners of Inland Revenue Appealed against the decision and the [page 33] appeal was heard by Russell L. J., Sachs L. J., and Buckley L. J. in the Court of Appeal. The appeal was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused.

The primary object of the Incorporated Council was:

"The preparation and publication, in a convenient form, at a moderate price, and under gratuitous professional control, of reports of judicial decisions of the superior and appellate courts in England."

The judgements in this case make very interesting and relevant reading. The Council of Law Reporting was of course seeking registration as a charity, whereas Cambridge University is already a recognized charity. However, the issues involved in the case were very similar, although Cambridge University's case for exemption of its publishing and printing activities must, I think, seem to any eye infinitely stronger.

Many of the points at issue were identical: dissemination of knowledge by publication; gratuitous professional control; the unselfishness and unselfregarding nature of the activity; the non-profit-making aspects, with members or directors forbidden to benefit; the ploughing back of all profits into the activity; charges for the publications made on a commercial scale; consideration of the circumstances in which an old institution came into existence; and worldwide sale of publications. Another similarity lay in the Council's delay in submitting its case! (It was founded in 1870).

Two points of similarity with this case are particularly worth noting. "Gratuitous professional control" is precisely what the Syndics of Cambridge University provide. Russell L. J., in his judgement, remarking that the publication of reliable reports of judicial decisions was beneficial to the community, added:

"and all the more so if the publication be supervised by those who by training are best qualified to present the essence of a decision correctly and to distinguish the ephemeral from the significant."

The judges also emphasized the importance of 'non-profit-making': the impossibility of members or directors gaining private benefit, and the 100% ploughing-back of profits into the activity. Russell L. J., for instance, declared:

"The element of unselfishness is well recognised as an aspect of charity, and an important one. Suppose on the one hand a company which publishes the Bible for the profit of its directors and shareholders: plainly the company would not be established for charitable purposes. But suppose an association or company which is non-profit-making, whose members or directors are forbidden to benefit from its activities, and whose object is to publish the Bible: equally plainly it would seem to me that the main object of the association or company would be charitable - the advancement or promotion of religion."

The general relevance of the case really needs no explanation. I have added an Appendix to this letter which contains the appropriate extracts from the judgements of the three judges. Suffice it to say that I believe these extracts, taken in conjunction with the evidence presented in this letter, show quite plainly that there is no possibility that the 1940 decision of the Commissioners would be upheld in court. They also suggest that the publishing and printing activities of Cambridge University would not only fall under the second and third heads of charity established by the preamble to the Charitable Uses Act of 1601 ("the Statute of Elizabeth I"), but also under the fourth head as well. It seems clear therefore that if Cambridge University Press had corporate status of its own (which it has not), it could obtain registration as a charity, and then secure exemption from tax. It would, however, be absurd (as well as constitutionally impossible in the case of Cambridge University Press) for part of an existing charity to seek separate charitable status solely to secure tax exemption for eminently charitable activities which are in any case prime purposes of its parent charity - which itself qualifies as a charity under the same charitable heads.

OTHER UNIVERSITY PRESSES

Naturally, the Inland Revenue will be considering Cambridge University's case on its own merits. However, it is not unreasonable to consider what the general implications might be of exempting Cambridge University Press from tax. [page 35]

It is not an exaggeration to say that the case of Cambridge University Press is quite unique, and that there is a substantial body of evidence to support that contention. There is only one other large university press in Great Britain - namely, Oxford University Press. The Oxford University Press is two or three times bigger than Cambridge University Press, and its character and the nature of its operations are radically different.

[Here a revealing note evidently intended for internal sight only was in error inserted into the first photocopy I was sent, obscuring some of Geoffrey Cass's original text underneath. I reproduce the note below in maroon and then return to Cass's text, provided on request by a second photocopy. - A. M.]

Our legal advisers have stated that it is vital for us to differentiate ourselves in evidence from Oxford. (We encountered the same problem in the U.S.A., where Oxford's more commercial publishing and its status as a private company were serious handicaps to Cambridge's case.)

I happen to believe that a strong case could be made for tax-exemption for Oxford University Press, however it would have to be a quite a different case from the one which Cambridge University is able to present, which is considerably stronger.

The Waldock Report on Oxford University Press (May 1970) stated:

"even the Cambridge Press, it must be underlined, differs substantially from the Oxford Press in the range and size of its business. Oxford has large and important publishing departments in London and New York, as well as at Oxford, and also engages in local publishing on a small scale in a number of other territories. Cambridge publishing (editorial and production), on the other hand, is confined to [i.e. generated from] Cambridge itself."

The Waldock Report on Oxford University Press itself reported that all Cambridge proposals for publication:

"are brought to the Cambridge Syndics for their consideration and decision... Through the years the policy of the Cambridge Syndics has been to publish original works of learning and education, textbooks from secondary school level upwards, learned journals and Bibles and Prayer Books."

"Other University Presses differ from that of Oxford in having a more restricted philosophy of University publishing... other University Presses limit themselves to what they commonly refer to as 'scholarly publishing'."

The Waldock Committee commented:

"... the role played by the Delegates as a body is less active than might have been expected."

"We were told that it is not the practice for a Delegates' meeting, whether circulated beforehand or laid on the table, to include full reports on the books for consideration at that meeting... An individual Delegate therefore will know about a proposal only what is said at the meeting at which a decision is taken about it."

"We understand that it is the practice of the Cambridge University Press for reports to go out in full to all members of the Syndicate, and we found the same practice usual at the University Presses we visited in the U.S.A."

The Waldock Report remarked that the full Board of Oxford Delegates was shielded from the financial affairs of the Press by the 'Finance Committee' - a sub-committee of the Delegates: [page 37]

"In short the Delegates, by custom if not by resolution, have divested themselves of their powers over a very large area in favour of the Finance Committee. The accounts of the O.U.P. group as a whole are seen only by the Finance Committee and not by the full Delegacy, and no minutes of the proceedings of the Finance Committee go in the briefest form to the Delegacy."

"The Oxford Delegates who are not members of the Finance Committee never even obtain a sight of the Press's annual accounts."

The Waldock Report commented:

"Our investigations have given us the impression that in the past the work of the different departments has not always been fully co-ordinated and that the Press has in some degree been operated as a collection of related businesses rather than as a single closely articulated group."

"upon the pre-eminence of the Press's function as international publishers."

"... one of striking the correct balance between the role of the Press, as the Press of this University and its role as a national and international publisher responsible not only to the University but to the world of learning at large."

Cambridge's publishing and printing operations are limited ones, designed specifically to serve the prime purposes of the University. Oxford University Press, for instance, has a great paper mill, run as a separate commercial operation. [page 38]

All these significant differences between Cambridge and Oxford have always caused Oxford University Press to have a totally different taxation status in the U.S.A. Cambridge University Press American Branch (not incorporated) has always been fully tax-exempt in the United States. Oxford University Press (significantly, incorporated as a private company) was challenged on its overall tax status, and had, I understand, to concede taxability on its Bible sales, in order to preserve tax-exemption on its other activities. An attempt by the Internal Revenue to tax Cambridge University Press on its Bible sales failed - even though Cambridge University Press and Oxford University Press jointly published the New English Bible in America. (I believe Oxford has once again changed the nature of its incorporated status in the U.S.A.). The much more commercial orientation of Oxford in the United States counted heavily against it. A relatively small percentage of the books published by O.U.P. New York are scholarly or academic.

To sum up, Oxford University Press has over the years moved from being a 'true' university press to become more of a general international publishing house. The control of the University over its operations - particuilarly over its editorial policy, - is quite loose, and it does not concentrate solely on scholarly, educational, and religious publications as Cambridge University Press does. It is of course non-profit-making: it is owned by a charity: and sections of it are certainly engaged in advancing learning. However, in the last year or so it has apparently been reducing its scholarly publishing - particularly of academic and research monographs at a time when Cambridge University Press has been expanding still more in this field in response to the acute needs of the academic community.

The Presses of these two great Universities have developed along very different lines over the centuries. The evidence quoted here all lies in the public domain, and most of it is embodied in The Waldock Report. It is possible of course that there may have been changes at Oxford since that Report was published in 1970. If necessary, a much more detailed memorandum could be submitted to demonstrate the fundamental differences between the two Presses. The factual differences are such as to permit the Inland Revenue to allow our claim without necessarily at the same time being obliged to acknowledge that the Oxford University Press is in an identical position.

The nature of Cambridge's operations is defined by the strict view which the University has always taken of its Press. Tight control by the University over what is printed and published, and over the general business operations of the Press, reflects the University's deep concern for the carrying out of its prime educational purposes. It would be inconceivable for Cambridge University to publish many of the titles in the Oxford list. The will of the Syndics of Cambridge University Press is sovereign in every aspect of the operations of the University's Press. That will has been exercised to ensure that Cambridge University Press consistently complements and extends the University's other activities in the advancement of learning, education and religion.

The Waldock Report commented: [page 39]

"Cambridge University Press... is still a smaller organisation with a less varied output."

"The development of the [Oxford Press] has not followed a coherent 'master plan'."

"The Committee does not suggest that O.U.P. should seek to expand indefinitely in every field of publishing."

"The major point is that it would be shortsighted of the University to restrict the growth of O.U.P. under the terms of some arbitrary policy decision."

"Clear policy decisions will be needed from the Delegates and must be made plain to their staff in all the businesses and branches - perhaps more plain than it seemed to the Committee that the views of the Delegates had always been made in the past."

THE TAX POSITION OF CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS AMERICAN BRANCH

As we have, seen, the University's unincorporated Branch of its Press in the United States of America is exempt from all American tax. There is therefore the irony that the Branch in a foreign country is exempt, while the parent organisation in its home country is not, although it is an integral part of a recognized charity in the home country.

In the U.S.A.

"Income from a university press would be exempt in the ordinary case since it would be derived from an activity that is 'substantially related' to the purposes of the university."

[S. Rep. No. 2375. 8th Cong., 2nd Sess.107 (1950)]

"The innovative entry by charities into a wide variety of business undertakings, including the production of such items as food products, and the operation of theaters, oil wells and cotton gins."

The U.S. Treasury regulations provide that:

"A university press is considered a related trade or business if operated primarily as an integral part of the educational program of the university, but it is an unrelated trade or business if operated in substantially the same manner as a commercial publishing house."

[Treasury Regulations 1. 513-2(a)4]

"is to further the purpose for which the [University] is granted exemption."

[Treasury Regulations 1. 513-2(a)4]

It is a fact that no American university press is taxed. Cambridge University Press American Branch is larger than any American University Press, and it has to compete with the American university presses, such as Chicago, Harvard, Yale, Princeton etc., in the American academic market. Yet although the Press's American Branch is free from U.S. tax, its income is taxed when it is transmitted back to England. [page 41]

It is faintly amusing that the Press of the ancient University of Cambridge can obtain exemption for its publishing activities in the United States of America yet does not possess such privileges in Great Britain; and that a foreign country can perceive for tax purposes, and act upon, fundamental features of an organisation which remain unrecognized in its native land.

THE OUTPUT OF CAMBRIDGE UNIVERRSITY PRESS

The catalogues of the University Press speak for themselves. I enclose with my letter copies of:

(1) Books - The 1975 Complete Catalogue and Index

(2) Bibles and Prayer Books - The 1974 Bibles and Prayer Books Catalogue

(3) Learned Journals - The 1976 Journal Catalogue

The chairman of a major commercial academic publishing house commiserated with one of my senior colleagues last week, saying: "Thank God we don't have to publish all those books you publish. Still, at least you don't have to pay tax."

On being informed that the Press did have to pay tax, he exclaimed:

"Good grief. Then you do have the worst of all worlds."

In general, it has always been the case that a substantial proportion of the books published by Cambridge University would not be at all attractive to a commercial publisher. The printing numbers would be too small, and the financial return insufficient (or the financial loss, too great.) Normally, a commercial publisher - even an academic one - looks for a first printing quantity of at least 3000 copies, and probably much more. In the case of Cambridge University Press: [page 42]

60% of New Books have printing numbers of under 2500 ccpies

29% of New Books have printing numbers of under 1500 copies

62% were published more than 5 years ago

26% were published more than 15 years ago

17% were published more than 25 years ago

10% were published more than 35 years ago

It is not therefore surprising that an analysis made of the books in the 1973 Catalogue showed that no less than 1,159 titles each produced less than £100 gross income in 1973. This would be totally unacceptable today to a commercial publisher.

To recapitulate then, nothing is passed by the University Press Syndics which is not a genuine contribution to knowledge, learning and education. When one considers that the Syndics are all University academics, unpaid for their governing services, this is perhaps not very surprising. Accordingly, the publishing motives of the University Press are entirely different from those found in any commercial publishing house. The prime concern of the Syndics is the scholarly quality of the manuscripts which are presented to them. No manuscript which is really worth publishing is turned down for financial reasons. A commercial publisher may also seek scholarly quality, but his overriding concern is for the financial return. He may express it in terms of profit margin, or gross income, or return on investment - but in the end, money will win the day. Cambridge University Press is concerned not with profit but with viability - so that it may continue to achieve its primary publishing purposes.

At the meeting of the Press Syndicate on the 16th May 1975, it was reported that:

"Other publishers were restricting their new book production in genera1 and were tending not to accept monographs at all. The Press regarded the publishing of such books as one of its prime duties and was actually expanding in this area." [page 43]

"The primary objectives of the University Press are those of the University itself.. The Press does not exist to make operating surpluses for their own sake. Profit is not one of the Press's motives. The financial operating motive of a University Press is progressive viability, not profit. This is needed solely to enable the Press to achieve its primary objectives as outlined above. An impoverished Press, still less a bankrupt Press, cannot continue to serve the world of 1earning adequately. This emphasis on progressive viability is particularly vital in today's economic conditions. Throughout the last two years, commercial publishers have systematically withdrawn from specialized academic publishing because it has ceased to be financially profitable. Even Oxford University Press, under cash pressure, has had to reduce its output. Cambridge virtually alone has been able to expand its academic publishing because of its financial strength and viability. Cambridge University Press uniquely serves the world of learning and education. It still operates fundamentally within the terms of the University's royal charter of 1534."

"Our primary objective is our publishing policy. Our necessary secondary objective of progressive financial viability demands that we 1ay all possible stress on cash resources, not on 'accounting profit'. Profit has no relevance for the Press, except in the sense of 'cash produced from operations', which is not of course profit in the accounting sense. Commercial managements need and use profits for several reasons:-

(1) To justify the payment of a dividend to ordinary shareholders or owners

(2) To justify payments to debenture and preference shareholders

(3) To deter (or attract) takeovers

(4) To measure and justify the organisation's profit-making capacity

(5) To justify management's profit-related rcmuneration (where this operates) [page 44]

(6) To keep the share price high, for a variety of reasons (some related to the above)

(7) To create personal profit-making 'track records' for career and esteem purposes

(8) To justify borrowing and capital issues

(9) To provide a statutory basis for taxation calculations.

It is eminently clear that reasons (1) to (7) do not concern the University Press at all. It does not exist to make money or to distribute it. It cannot be taken over and it has no share-price. Its management are not interested in profit as such, and the measurement of profit-making capacity is only relevant where profit is a main concern. In a University Press it is not. The remuneration of the management is not linked to profit or to sales. The Press can borrow on its record of cash generation and asset-growth. The Press of the University is in every respect a non-profit-making, charitable trust, discharging a fundamental charitable objective of its parent University - itself a charity."

"The university press publisher has as his objective the publication of the maximum number of good books this side of bankruptcy."

PRINTING

Cambridge University Press has of course a Printing House. This is a sizeable unit, employing nearly 500 staff. It was built by the University in 1963, and all printing operations were transferred to it from the block behind the Pitt Building where they had previously been located.

The new Printing House is the latest in the long line of printing facilities which have served the University since 1534. Its main purposes are: [page 45]

(1) To print and bind the books, Bibles, and learned journals which are published by Cambridge University Press

(2) To print and bind publications for the internal use of Cambridge University

(3) To print examination materials for Cambridge University and for other universities

In the event of insufficient academic work being available from all sources to keep the resources of the Printing House fully utilized, the University Printer is able to ask the Chief Executive of the Press formally for permission to look for commercial work. If the under-utilization of plant looks like being serious, the permission is granted - specifically on a temporary basis - on the understanding that academic work will be substituted as soon as it becomes available. In practice, the latter provision is rarely used. Total printing turnover in 1974 was £2,145,482. The breakdown of this was as follows:

[page 46] The first four items account for 81% of the total and consist entirely of work for Cambridge University or for other strictly academic bodies - the vast majority of whom are either universities or charitable institutions, such as the Royal Society.

The heading, Other Customers' Printing, comprised 173 separate printing orders of which only 8 were non-educational.

The heading, Other Customers' Binding, comprised 286 separate binding orders of which only 53 were non-educational.

The heading, Sundry Print/Jobbing Work, comprised 141 separate orders, of which only 26 were "commercial" orders. (Very many of these orders were from Colleges or University departments.)

In total, 97.5% of the grand turnover of the Printing House in 1974 was academic or educational work and 80% was for Cambridge University itself. This was an admirable achievement during a time of recession in academic publishing, and was fully consistent with the University's objectives for its Printing House.

The Printing House exists primarily as the instrument for the dissemination of knowledge by its parent University. Its secondary purpose is to serve the world of learning in general. The Printing Division of the Press is uniquely able to tackle any complex or specialized scientific and academic printing. The quality of the printing is unsurpassed: and it is as efficient as any commercial printer. That is why, currently, the press is able to bear the burden of the publishing of research and specialized monographs at a time when others in this country are jettisoning it for purely commercial reasons.

The Press's altruistic continuity of interest is one of its great strengths, and one of its greatest attractions for learned societies and educational and academic institutions. The Cambridge University Press Printing Division is motivated by its duty to the world of learning, and does not feel able - like a commercial printer - to alter the character of its work simply for financial reasons. In times of economic stress. It does not flit in and out of printing markets in order to satisfy shareholders or bankers. This altruistic continuity of purpose was recognised and valued by, for instance, the Joint Committee of the Nine Churches in 19th January 1948 in connection with the production of the New English Bible, when it was accepted that:

"If commercial firms of publishers, with responsibilities to shareholders, were brought in, they would inevitably approach the work in a different spirit from the University Presses which are part of, and solely responsible to their respective Universities." [page 47]

The Printing Division of the Press has a difficult wicket on which to bat. In times of recession, commercial printers quote unrealistically low charges for academic work, in order to keep up their volume of production. But complex and scientific printing work, carried out at loss-making prices, very quickly ceases to be attractive to commercial printers when simpler and more lucrative work again becomes available. When they withdraw, Cambridge University Press still has to be there to provide the continuity of service so acutely needed by the academic and scientific community.

The Printing Division of the Press is an intrinsic part of the supportive structure of the world of learning. The distinctive character of the Press is well illustrated by its willingness to take the lead in investigating the possibility of production savings with its printing clients. The Press is well aware of the financial problems facing learned societies and educational and academic institutions, and is particularly well-equipped to consider these problems from every aspect. It regularly does so: and at this moment is involved, for instance, in discussions with the Royal Society about reducing their printing costs.

The public-spirited attitude of the Press - and particularly of its Printing Division - was vividly revealed just after the last war, when scientific printing and publishing was totally unattractive to commercial organisations. I will not labour it here, but I attach as an Appendix to this letter Lord Zuckerman's account of the Cambridge University Printer's unselfish efforts to help the scientific world during the difficult post-war years. Of particular relevance is Lord Zuckerman's reference to the University Press's:

"subordinating considerations of financial return in order to do a national good. There were others we know all too well, who were prepared to serve the nation - and who I am sure in the end did - but not if it meant they had to subordinate their personal monetary interests, and where commercial interests in the end lead to the imposition of additional costs on the members of the scientific societies and libraries."

It goes without saying, of course, that the Printing Division of Cambridge University Press is entirely under the control of the Syndics of the Press. The Syndics are particularly concerned to maintain the integrity of the operations of the Printing House, and to ensure that it continues to serve the University's objectives. [page 48]

CONCLUSIONS

Since 1534, which was only shortly after printing itself had been invented, the Press of Cambridge University has complemented and extended the research and teaching activities of the University by making available, worldwide, through its printing and publishing, an extensive range of scholarly books, learned journals, and Bibles. Throughout history, every single publication has been individually authorised and approved by the University and carries the imprint of the University of Cambridge. The Press is controlled by the press Syndics - a representative body consisting of 16 senior members of the University - masters of colleges, professors, and fellows - who receive no remuneration for their participation on the Syndicate. The nature of the constitution and management of the Press is embodied in the current Statutes and Ordinances of the University. All the senior executive officers of the Press are M.A.s of Cambridge University, members of Cambridge colleges, and members of the University Regent House. The Press has no separate corporate status of its own: it is merely a part of the University. All Press property and all Press funds are owned by the "Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of Cambridge University". The Press Syndicate is entirely responsible to the University for the operations of the Press. No interests external to the University are involved. The name - "Cambridge University Press" - is simply the style under which the University of Cambridge prints and publishes. The Press is non-profit-making. All funds generated by the Press are not distributed in any way, but are wholly ploughed back (100%) into the further printing and publishing of educational, academic, scientific, and religious works. Cambridge is the only major University Press in the world today - with the possible exception of Princeton University Press - which is wholly devoted to scholarly and religious works. It has not, like many others, digressed into the fields of general non-fiction, fiction, children's books and the like - which tend to be much more profitable, but which do not at all directly served the world of learning or discharge the fundamental obligations of a university.

In the academic and educational 'purity' of its approach to printing and publishing, in its total control by the University, in its altruistic orientation to the world of learning, and in the antiquity of its traditions, the Press of Cambridge University is quite unique - even among the world's university presses.

The continued taxation of the University's printing and publishing is a glaring anomaly in taxation history, although the University must take more than a fair share of the blame for having failed to present its full case adequately. I do not know why the case for exemption was not pressed after the war ended. But the case has always been the same. When I joined the Press as Chief Executive in 1972, from a commercial publishing house, the very first thing that struck me was the wholly [page 49] charitable nature of Cambridge University Press's operations. I was literally astounded to learn that the press was subject to tax, and I began to consider the re-submission of the case.

I believe I have provided more than sufficient evidence in this letter to demonstrate that there is no possibility that the courts would uphold the 1940 decision of the Commissioners. I am certain that the Inland Revenue will find that their legal advice will confirm this. My only regret is that the Commissioners were not given this vital evidence at the time.

This letter is not our formal submission: but there seems to me to be no reason nevertheless why it could not provide a basis for an Inland Revenue decision to exempt the Press, at this stage. Our formal submission, when completed in the spring, is likely to be several hundred times bigger than this letter. Yet the complete dossier of evidence and historical documents will, in the main, merely re-inforce each of the key points of this letter a hundred times over. I have extracted, for this letter, the crucial items which would determine the case.

The University has every intention of going to the House of Lords, if that should prove necessary: but is it not possible for commonsense to prevail? I understand that the position is very flexible while the University is dealing with the District Inspector. Could not a great deal of time, money, and effort be saved - which I am sure the Inland Revenue, as well as the University, could more profitably use in these difficult times - if exemption was quietly conceded to what is, by any test that has been or could possibly be devised, a charitable operation?

I look forward your reaction, and would be delighted to meet yourself or any of your colleagues at any time.

Yours sincerely,

Geoffrey Cass

T. Mashiter Esq.
HM Inspector of Taxes
Cambridge 1
Brooklands Avenue
Cambridge CB2 2DT

[page 50] "Forasmuch as learning hath antiently had this spetiall favour and priviledge, that upon any occasion of grievance, or complaint offered unto the Two Universities of this Realme, whensoever they have made their immediate recourse to the King or his Councell for speedie redresse and for avoyding length and charges of suit in an ordinary legal proceeding of Justice, they have never beene refused, but allwayes gratiously accepted."

From an Order of the Lords of the Privy Council, in favour of the Vice-Chancellor of Cambridge University, October 21st 1612. Confirmed by Decree of the House of Lords, May 12th 1647.