As Submitted
INTRODUCTION
The University of Cambridge was empowered in 1534, by royal charter*, to print and publish anything, without special licence. In practice, this power has never been used to override ordinary copyright, and it has been invoked in modern times only in respect of the Authorized Version of the Bible and the Book of Common Prayer. The Queen's Printer, by virtue of his Royal Patent, has in theory the exclusive right to print in the English language all Bibles and virtually all Prayer Books. In practice, it seems that for at least two centuries the Queen's Printer has likewise chosen to exercise his right only in respect of standard editions of the Authorized Version and the Book of Common Prayer, apart from an attempt in 1961 - blocked by the Courts - to infringe modern copyright in respect of the New English Bible. Despite the apparent exclusivity of the Queen's Printer's Patent, the Courts have aIways upheld that the charter of Cambridge University and the much later charter of Oxford University (1632) override it, and so the two Universities have also printed the Authorized Version and the Prayer Book since the seventeenth century.
*By Letters Patent to the University of Cambridge, July 20th, 26 Henry VIII, 1534; confirmed and reinforced by Letters Patent to the University of Cambridge, February 6th, 3 Charles I,1628.
It has been sometimes thought, erroneously, that the "privilege" of Cambridge University and Oxford University has always been rooted in the exclusivity of the Queen's Printer's Patent: that the Queen's Printer is protected from competition by his Patent, and that the Universities - able to ignore the Patent by virtue of their charters - also benefit from the protection of the Patent. The case of Universities of Oxford and Cambridge v Richardson (1802) showed that under their charters, the two Universities could themselves prevent the printing and sale by others of certain Bibles and Prayer Books in England without the aid of the Queen's Printer or his Patent. Recent legal advice confirms the authority of this precedent, though the power has not been tested in modern times.
The Cambridge University printing and publishing charter of 1534 antedates not only the first royal charter's Patent of 1541, but even the basic incorporation Act of the University itself of 1571. The charter is of a different logical type from royal printing Patents. It refers to "all types of books" ("omnipodos libros"), not to any particular types of books, nor to Bibles specifically. The University charter is a general licence granted [page 2] "to advance learning" (Charles I, 1628). Mr Justice Foster remarked in 1758: "We consider the power given by [the University charter] as a trust reposed in that learned body for public benefit for the advancement of literature..." The University charter confers a right to print anything, but not a duty, and the right is not conferred for pecuniary advantage, and is not conferred on private individuals.
The Queen's Printer's Patent, on the other hand, specifically charges the Queen's Printer with the printing of Bibles and Prayer Books. The Patent confers both rights and duties, and it confers monopolistic private earning power on individuals. The Report of the Privileged Presses Committee of the Church Assembly (1964) remarked: "The patents were rather (certainly up to the time when the Eyre family purchased the patent in 1772) transactions of a pecuniary nature which brought a personal advantage to the holder of the patent over other printers in the same line of business - in fact he became a monopolist."
The last royal Printer's Patent, granted by Edward VII in 1901, refers to the King's Printer's right to "have and exercise the said Office together with all profits and privileges to the said Office in anywise belonging...". Other printers were specifically prohibited from doing anything "whatsoever whereby the profits which may accrue to our said Printers may be diminished".
There is thus little in common between the Bible-printing rights of Cambridge University and the Queen's Printer's Bible Patent. The rights of the University are secured in an ancient royal charter of a general nature, granted to a charitable body for the 'publick good', for the benefit of the nation, and for the advancement of learning and literature. The Queen's Printer's Bible Patent is a specific commercial patent, granted to private individuals, and imposing a protected duty to print Bibles and Prayer Books only, for private gain. A further difference is that the Cambridge University charter is timeless, and irrevocable. It could probably be nullified only by the granting of a general licence by the Crown to all and sundry. The Bible Patent is granted at the Crown's pleasure to named individuals, and can be determined by the Crown at any time.
It has been unwarrantedly stated in other evidence submitted to the Committee that "the Delegates of the University of Oxford, and the Syndics of the University of Cambridge... [are] desirous to be relieved of the duty they have at present to exercise the responsibility given to them by these perpetual copyrights... In any case, it is our firm belief that there is no justification whatever for maintaining these extraordinary privileges."
This evidence is inaccurate in four main respects. First, Cambridge University is not 'desirous to be relieved of the duty'. (In any case, it is not a duty except a seIf-imposed one - as we have shown - but a responsible exercise of free choice.) Second, Cambridge University [page 3] has no 'perpetual copyrights' - and it is incorrect to call the Bible privilege of the University a 'perpetual copyright'. Third, Cambridge University's Bible privilege is not at all 'extraordinary', except in the purely literal sense. It is certainly not astonishing or illogical. Fourth, there is good justification for the maintenance of the University Bible privilege.
CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY'S ATTITUDE TO BIBLE PUBLISHING
Cambridge University does not regard Bible publishing as a burdensome duty, and has no wish to be relieved of the publication of Bibles or of any printing or publishing responsibility relating thereto. The University regards with some pride its record over several centuries in the Bible printing field. The imprint of Cambridge University Press is accepted everywhere as a guarantee of printing and design quality, and of accuracy of text. Cambridge University has exercised its privilege according to the highest possible standards. The Report of the Privileged Presses Committee of the Church Assembly (1964) remarked that "the privilege has always been exercised very benevolently and has never led to exploitation of the market". The University has invested enormous amounts of money, time and energy in the production of Bibles, and more recently, its substantial investment in the New English Bible shows how great is its commitment to the Bible and its future.
The attitude of Cambridge University towards its own Bible privilege has been misinterpreted because of the confusion between its privilege and the Queen's Prnter's Patent. The University has certainly never meant to suggest or volunteer that its own Bible privilege should be abolished. It has however indicated - and this is still the University's position - that it would not oppose the abolition of the Queen's Printer's Patent, since it regards it - in the theoretical context - as an anachronistic extension of a medieval private commercial privilege. (It is unlikely that it was ever contemplated that the Patent would at any time be assigned to anything like a limited company with shareholders.)
Unfortunately, since many people have been under the impression that the University privilege definitely depended on the Queen's Printer's Patent, the University's willingness to see the abolition of the Patent has been wrongly interpreted as a desire to see its own privilege also abolished. The 1964 Church Assembly Report clearly displayed surprise that Oxford and Cambridge Universities appeared to be the only interested parties (out of a group which included two leading religious societies and the Church itself) in favour of abolishing Bible privilege; and the Report came down heavily in favour of retaining the Patent and the Universities' privilege. However, the position of Cambridge University was either inaccurately presented to the Church Assembly enquiry, or inaccurately reported. The University had agreed that it would not associate itself with the defence of the Queen's Printer's Patent as its wording then stood, but it felt that some other [page 4] licensing arrangement should be set up to limit free entry into the Bible field, in particular to preserve the accuracy of the text. It should be remembered that, at that time, the University was still smarting at the Queen's Printer's attempt to invoke the Patent to override Oxford and Cambridge Universities' copyright in the New English Bible. The Queen's Printer had also threatened to abandon the Patent, thus (he thought) removing at the same time the University's own protection in respect of the Authorized Version and the Prayer Book. This naturally led the University to feel that the Patent should be at least amended or reworded if not abolished. Both Universities publicly declared that they had no interest in its retention.
It must be admitted that it would appear that the University Presses themselves, at the time of the 1964 enquiry, were not entirely aware that their University privilege was in fact independent of the Queen's Printer's Patent. There was thus a feeling, perhaps, that the Universities should not actively defend a privilege which seemed to depend on a private commercial Patent which itself was obviously a monopoly. In the early 60's, the climate of opinion was conditioned by statutory attacks on retail price maintenance and on monopolies and restrictive practices. It was probably feared that under such circumstances any privilege, however benevolent, would be subject to criticism. The journal "British Printer" caught the flavour of the times with this comment: "Perpetual privileges with commercial undertones, whether vested in academic institutions or in family succession, are vulnerable to public pressures of a kind to which the political parties are apt to be sensitive these days." It is certainly true that at the time of the Church Assembly enquiry, the two Universities were hypersensitive about public relations and the possibility of charges of monopolistic practices, and this probably accounts for some confusion of attitude then. There is no such hypersensitivity today, and Cambridge University receives no criticism of its Bible activities. If it did, it would not be in the least embarrassed by it. Any such criticism could only spring from a complete misunderstanding of the role of Cambridge University Press in world printing and publishing. The University itself now has a much clearer view of the nature of its Press than it had ten years ago, and a later section of this statement examines the nature and constitution of the University Press in more detail.
'PERPETUAL COPYRIGHTS'
It is almost certainly inaccurate to refer to the Bible privilege of the University and to the rights held by the Queen's Printer as "perpetual copyrights". The University simply chooses to exercise a general right in favour of Bibles, and its Bible privilege - or at least its right to restrain others - probably lasts only as long as it so chooses: while the Queen's Printer's right is obviously not 'perpetual', but may be determined at any time. A more general point is that the balance [page 5] of legal opinion over the centuries has regarded the copyrights of the Bible and the Prayer Book as vesting in the monarch. The two Universities and the Queen's Printer probably have "...nothing more than authorities to exercise the right of multipying [the Queen's] copies." (The Lord Chancellor, Lord Eldon, in judgement, 1802.) It has always been held in the Courts that the copyrights vest in the Crown; either because absolute prerogative is vested in the monarch as the supreme head of the Church; or on the ground of property - in that the copyright of the Authorized Version is vested in the Crown because "it was compiled by the direction and at the expense of King James 1st". (Both arguments have been successfully used, and the question of which is the stronger has never been finally settled, although the former has generally been preferred.)
THE NATURE OF THE UNIVERSITY BIBLE PRIVILEGE
In view of what has been said of the fundamental differences between the nature of the University's Bible privilege, on the one hand, and the Queen's Printer's Patent, on the other, it will be clear that there is nothing 'extraordinary' about the University's privilege. It is not in the least surprising that an organization which exists solely to perpetuate and advance scholarship and learning for entirely unselfish motives should have been granted some special rights in the printing and publishing of works of a royal/religious/national nature, which are part of the country's tradition and heritage, and which are out of ordinary copyright. Referring to the Bible privilege in his 1802 judgement, Lord Eldon said: "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." A joint Memorandum of the two Universities in 1911 referred to: "the advantage to the public of the commitment of the care of the 'King's Books' to bodies whose scholarship, impartiality, and responsibility are not questioned." When the Joint Committee of the nine Churches met in the Jerusalem Chamber, Westminster Abbey, on 21st January, 1948, to plan the new translation of the Bible (the New English Bible), it was submitted and unanimously 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 soleIy responsible to, their respective Universities. Later, when the Universities' copyright in the New English Bible was challenged by the Queen's Printer, the Joint Committee of the nine Churches passed the following resolution on 6th July, 1961: "The Joint Committee regrets the controversy about the copyright in The New English Bible, and sympathises with the Presses in their reluctance to take legal proccedings unless they find it impossible to come to an agreement with the Queen's Printer; reaffirms its desire that the translation should not be brought within the restriction of the Queen's Printer's Patent and perpetual Crown copyright; and recalls that it was for this, as well as for other reasons, that it entrusted publication to the two University Presses alone, under the normal provisions [page 6] of the Copyright Act."
Cambridge University Press is an integral part of its University, founded on a royal charter embodied in Letters Patent several centuries old. It is essentially a self-perpetuating charitable printing and publishing trust. It is not in the printing and publishing fields to make money, but to disseminate learning. The Press is merely a department of the University, and the University itself is a charitable national asset. The nature of the constitution and management of the University Press is contained in the current formal Statutes and Ordinances of the University. Everything that is published by the Cambridge University Press is individually authorized and approved by a sixteen-strong Syndicate, appointed by the University, consisting of the Vice-Chancellor of the University or his deputy, the Treasurer of the University, Masters of Colleges, and Professors and other senior members of the University. The sixteen members of the Press Syndicate receive no remuneration for their participation in the Syndicate. The Syndicate is entirely responsible, to the University, for the operations of the University Press. No interests external to the University are involved. The name "Cambridge University Press" is simply the style under which the University of Cambridge publishes books.
The Cambridge University Press is neither a private company with private individual interests, nor a public company with shareholders. It has no corporate status or legal existence as a trading firm. It is financially disinterested: profit is not its motive. The Press must merely remain financially viable. No individual or organisation benefits financially from the operations of the Press. It does not make 'profits' in any accepted sense of the word. The University Press of course attempts to achieve an operating surplus each year from the printing and publishing of academic and educational books, Bibles and learned journals, over and above basic production costs and overhead costs: but this surplus is not distributed, but is ploughed back by the Press into further printing and publishing of educational, academic and religious works. Very many of these works actually make a loss. In a memorandum submitted by the Syndics and Delegates of the two University Presses to the Vice-Chancellors of Cambridge and Oxford Universities in 1911 it was pointed out that: "...as [the Presses] 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 publisher would undertake unless with the assistance of a subsidy." The University Press has to maintain a very delicate balance between publications that are income-producing and publications that incur losses. The operating surpluses of the Press (if achieved) are simply the source of further finance for the Press' operations - for it is, of course, unable to call on private or public capital; and the ability of the parent University itself to inject fresh funds is severely limited, particularly under present-day conditions. [page 7]
Apart from its physical output, Cambridge University Press has nothing whatever in common with commercial private or public printing and publishing companies. Its objective is the dissemination of the printed word for its own sake, and not for any person's, or any organisation's, financial reward. This is the stance that has been adopted by the Press and by its parent University since the granting of its charter in the sixteenth century. It is the stance that has been defended and upheld by the Courts and monarchs of England since 1534, against mighty commercial onslaughts. It is not merely a transient attitude: it is inherent in the structure and nature of the Press, and in its relationship with the University. Indeed the royal charter, which overrides the Patent of the Queen's Printer and gives the University its Bible privilege, in a sense confirms the special position of the University Press. It is entirely reasonable that an organisation such as the Press of Cambridge University should not be subject to a commercial patent which simply confers profit-making power on a private individual or a business, and is unrelated to modern copyright. The position of the Press in the world of books, journals and Bibles is wholly altruistic.
In view of the nature of the University Press, there is therefore nothing 'extraordinary' about the University's Bible privilege. Nor, it could be argued, would it be extraordinary if the University were to be granted special rights extending to any major work of national or traditional importance which was out of ordinary copyright - particularly if its survival was in danger. The University would be a most appropriate custodian of such rights.
It is now clear why Cambridge University is not hypersensitive about public relations, and why it has no fears regarding charges that it abuses its privileged position. Cambridge University is proud of its trust, and of the way in which it continues to discharge it. It is unfortunately doubtful whether the general public (and competing printing and publishing concerns) fully appreciate the unique nature of the University Press.
THE ADVANTAGES OF THE UNIVERSITY BIBLE PRIVILEGE
There is very reasonable justification for the maintenance of the University's Bible privilege. Cambridge University feels that some restriction of entry into Bible publishing in the United Kingdom is desirable, but it does not seek to preserve economic protection for its own commercial benefit. The University Press continues to compete successfully in the U.K. market with its commercial Bible competitors, despite the fact that these competitors tend to concentrate on the big-selling standard versions and to avoid the altar and lectern Bibles which have a high initial cost and a very extended investment-recovery period. A substantially greater variety of Bibles is provided by the University Press. In 1923, the Delegates of the Oxford University Press and the Syndics of the Cambridge University Press reported to the Secretary of State for Home Affairs: "The Presses have thought it their duty not [page 8] merely to produce such editions as could be sold at a profit, but to promote in every way the convenience of the public, and the dignity of public worship, by maintaining a very large number of editions, including the books for Church use of which the cost is heavy and the sale necessarily small."
Restriction of entry is desirable not because the market is enormously profitable and monopoly would preserve the profits, but because free entry of other competitors into what, in this country, is a declining market would probably lead to a long-term decline in the standards of textual accuracy and of printing, to a Bible-publishing scene dominated exclusively by the commercial profit-motive instead of by altruistic and/or traditional commitment, and to the ultimate withdrawal of the University Press from the Bible field in financial self-defence, as printing-numbers fell and unit costs rose. There might be a short-term drop in Bible prices, but this would be likely to lead in the medium-to-long-term to acute trouble in a shrinking market, as publishers solely inspired by the profit-motive either reduced accuracy and quality and abandoned editions for use in church, or retreated from the market. (Most of these points were well-noted in the 1964 Church Assembly Report, and even in 1802, the Lord Chancellor shrewdly commented that: "...the period may arrive when, [unlicensed competitors] having by the introduction of their editions destroyed the English establishment, and when no sufficient establishment is left here to supply these books according to the right and duty of the Crown, they may retire from it.") The USA is sometimes quoted as a country where these things have not happened, despite the absence there of any form of Bible copyright protection. However, the decline in Bible sales has not been so acute in the USA, and Bible-publishing is still quite profitable for the commercial entrepreneur. (Even so, demanding American customers still tend to turn to Cambridge for their Bibles; and Cambridge competes very successfully with commercial publishers in the USA - confirming that the University does not advocate market restriction merely to nurse an inability to compete.)
In practice, as we have seen, the Queen's Printer's Patent and the University's privilege have only been invoked in respect of the Authorized Version of the Bible, in English, without notes, and the Book of Common Prayer. The Revised Version has been regarded as outside the scope of the Patent and the privilege. The Queen's Printer and the two Universities have not restrained printing of the Authorized Version of the Bible with notes, new translations into English, extracts, or foreign language translations, or (since the mid nineteenth century) the sale of Bibles in England lawfully printed in Scotland. No legal attempt was made to suppress the major incursion of Collins into the English market, and it is probable that Collins, though tolerated, in fact still technically infringes both the Patent and the privilege.
It appears that, since the nineteenth century, no proceedings have been taken against any parties for infringement of the Patent or the privilege. Interested printers and publishers ask the Queen's Printer [page 9] for permission to print or publish, and are either licensed or refused. No legal action has been necessary. Again, in practice, it is the Queen's Printer who is asked, not the University. (Since the Queen's Printer's Patent is specific to Bibles and the Prayer Book, and contains clear prohibiting clauses, the University has been content to channel all requests to him. So, for over a hundred years, the Patent and the privilege have been deterrents, rather than bases for recurrent legal proceedings.
CONCLUSION
In general, despite its own belief that the privilege is fuIly defensible, Cambridge University feels that it is for others to recognise and appreciate the advantages of the privilege. The nation, the Churches, and Bible users must be the ultimate judges of the existence and worth of those advantages. The Report of the Church Assembly 1964 concluded: "We confidently believe that the continuance of the Patent and the privilege, which in fact apply only to the printing of the Authorised Version of the Bible and the Book of Common Prayer, is in the best interest of the Church. We accordingly recommend that the Patent granted to the Queen's Printer and the privilege enjoyed by the University Presses of Oxford and Cambridge should continue as at present."
If it were ever genuinely felt that the University's Bible privilege was against the national interest, or against the interests of the Churches or of Bible users, the University would certainly not wish to use or defend its privilege on either legal, moral, or economic monopolistic grounds. Furthermore, it would not wish to associate itself with the defence of the Queen's Prnter's Patent at any time, even if a modern legal judgement were to have the effect of overturning legal precedents and making the University's privilege clearly dependent upon the existence of the Queen's Printer's Patent. Cambridge University does not regard a commercial monopoly as the ideal basis and authority for the exercise in the national interest of University privileges in the Bible field.
However, this is not necessarily to say that the University is positively in favour of abolishing the Queen's Printer's Patent. Although the University is not happy that its own special position can appear to be linked with a privately-owned commercial Patent; and while it may appear to some - but not to all - a little strange that the Bible should be a 'commercial property' and a means of private profit-making; nevertheless, the present arrangements, though not entirely logical, work fairly well in practice. They combine rather effectively some restriction of entry into the Bible field in England with an element of healthy competition between the main participants - the Queen's Printer, Oxford University, Cambridge University and Collins. It should not be forgotten that the Queen's Printer and Collins - though admittedly in the Bible business primarily for profit - themselves have a long tradition of Bible printing behind them. An editorial in the "British Printer" in the early 60's remarked fairly: "It is only [page 10] reasonable to add, however, that any commercial benefits which may have derived from the Bible and Prayer Book monopolies have for generations past been counterbalanced by an acute sense of public duty on the part of the privileged houses... The survival of Bible and Prayer Book publishing 'privileges' may be an anachronism, but their survival is also a tribute to the responsible spirit in which they have been exercised during the past hundred years or so."
While Cambridge University does not support the general concept of 'perpetual' copyright, it does feel that some form of restriction of entry into the Bible field in England is on the whole in the long-term interests of the Churches and the Bible user, and that in the light of present-day economic difficulties and a declining Bible market, any entry into the United Kingdom market of a new major producer might have unfortunate effects. The University of Cambridge has every intention of continuing to publish the Bible and the Book of Common Prayer in the foreseeable future, as long as it is economically possible.
GEOFFREY A. CASS
Chief Executive, and Secretary to the Syndics, of the Cambridge University Press.
October 11th 1974