stationers and Printers, a Privilegial, not Municipal company or Corporation, however their Proprieties to be individually conserved, Humbly presented to the honourable Committee for Examinations, &c.  
HAving lately (as far as I might) discerned the subtle, yet ambiguous desires of some, (not the soundest nor most able Printers) I find their pretences to be Regulation, as in order to themselves, but no way in relation to the commonwealth: And their chief ends to apply to themselves Communicatively the chiefest Copies, being the proprieties of other men. Wherefore that these innovating men should, if they would, better understand themselves, I have directed these sequels.  
1. A company Municipal is such an one which subordinately utitur regulis suis in ordine ad se; useth their own Rules and Constitutions in relation to themselves, as do Mercers, Drapers, fishmongers, &c. Also goldsmiths, braziers, shoemakers, &c. All of whom can buy, barter, sell, contract, work, &c. without any special privilege, order, or licence from any Superior, Superiors, Supervisor or Supervisors. But Printers, Book-binders, and booksellers cannot by Decrees and Ordinances (hitherto thought fit to continue) print, bind, or sell a Book (imprinted within this Nation) but by special licence and allowance; nor import from other Nations, but with like regard. And in France, Germany, Spain, and other Countries, they cannot print, but for a certain determined time, such or such a Book; nor sell, but for such a price (a convenience, which, I suppose, would be useful in this commonwealth,) especially for some Books. So that albeit the Printers, Book-binders, and booksellers, are a company which subordinately utitur suis regulis, in some things; yet they use such Rules and Constitutions in ordine ad alios, viz. Their Superiors (or rather the commonwealth) not ad se; as the forementioned Companies do; And are therefore to be accounted a Privilegial, not a Municipal company.  
2. And whereas the Printers would not only invade other men's Proprieties (thereby endeavouring to null, as much as in them lies, Meum & Tuum, and inducing, as far as may be, an example of ill consequence to this commonwealth) but they would also destroy (as I am credibly informed) Patrimonial Right; that is, that the Father of a free Stationar shall not make his Son free; and consequently that his Son shall not be capable of having or enjoying the benefit of Printing his Father's Copies; This their endeavour I conceive to be most injurious; For many a Stationar (including the Printers) have many times little or nothing to leave their Wives and Children, but their Copies: Which if they should, by the indirect device of these innovating Printers, be deprived of; then they cannot other way subsist. Moreover, why should any free Stationar be debarred from such Right, which by the Rules and Constitutions general of the honourable city of London every freeman enjoyeth; to wit, to make his Son a freeman? This I take to be a device of the Printers against Matthew Barker, and others, whose Rights they would invade. So that (in my opinion) it would be requisite, that neither the booksellers, nor the Printers, being (as I have already instanced, but privilegial, and not properly municipal) debate nor draw any Act or Acts, on their own behalf, for regulating of Printers & Printing: But that such Act or Acts be from henceforth debated by the honourable Council of State, or by such as they shall appoint, and by them drawn up and recommended to the parliament, for the regulating of Printing itself in a true Decorum, as also of all Proprieties individually. And if this of Proprieties were but exactly considered and reported, these new (and for the most part mean) Innovators, would (in all probability) desist from further troublesome soliciting the honourable Council of State, and apply themselves to be ruled and governed, as their honours, and high Court of parliament should in their Wisdoms think fit.  
If it should be said, That none ought to exercise the Art or mystery of Printing, but such as have served seven years to a Printer, in regard that Printing may be said to be a manual occupation, and consequently to be comprehended within the Act of Elis. 5. c. 4. I answer, That albeit Printing may in regard of its labour, be said to be a manual occupation; yet in regard of its END, it is a Privilegial, and not a Popular manual occupation, no otherwise then coining. And that Act of Elis. etc. intends only manual occupations popular, not privilegial; as the clauses thereof manifest. So that the privilege of Printing, or right of Copies, may reside in one or more, who are no Artists; and the performance of Printing in such only who are Artists in Printing.  
January 2. 1651. William Ball.