The Nuthead Press • William and Dinah Nut head

Maryland,"¹ signed it as of July 25, 1689, and transmitted the original or
a manuscript copy of it to London for the information of the King in whose
name and interest their subversion of the government had been undertaken.
A perusal of the document makes clear the fact that it was intended not
only as a justification of their proceedings in the eyes of King and Council,
but even more as a means of explaining their usurpation and gaining sup-
port for it from the people of Maryland.

To make effective their purpose of gaining adherents it is evident that a
wide local distribution of the "Declaration" would have been regarded as
desirable by the Associators, and nothing could have been more natural than
that they should have turned to the printer who was established in the vil-
lage where they had ensconced themselves and demanded his services in
the interests of their propaganda. This much is assumption. No copy re-
mains of the "Declaration" as printed by William Nuthead of St. Mary's
City to demonstrate that the Associators pursued the course which has been
suggested, but that such an edition of it was actually published is rendered
almost certain by the circumstance that later in the year 1689, one Randal
Taylor, a London publisher, issued an edition of the Maryland "Declara-
tion"² which bore as its colophon the following succinct statement: "Mary-
land, Printed by William Nuthead at the City of St. Maries. Re-printed in
London, and sold by Randal Taylor near Stationers Hall, 1689." While it
is true that frequently through the ages books have been issued bearing
false or misleading imprints, there has never been adduced a reason for be-
lieving that the London edition of the Maryland "Declaration" belongs in
that category. William Nuthead was an actual person living in St. Mary's
City in the year 1689, and in the same year a London publisher declared in
a work licensed by an authorized official that this William Nuthead had
printed the original edition of the work in question. It is axiomatic that the
statement of an imprint is to be accepted as true unless reasons can be urged
for believing it to be false; otherwise imprints would possess no significance,
and long ago would have fallen into disuse.

Formerly the claim that Maryland printing began in the year 1689 was
not allowed because no Maryland printed copy of the "Protestant Decla-
ration" could be produced as evidence in support of it, and although even

¹ Original signed document in PubUc Record Office, London. See Cal. State Papers, A. & W. /., 1689-1692, No.
290. Copy of original published in Archives of Maryland, 8: 101.

² The full title of the "Protestant Declaration," as printed by Randolph Taylor in London is as follows: The Dec-
laration of the Reasons and Motives for the Present Appearing in Arms of their Majesties Protestant Subjects
in the Province of Maryland. Licensed, November 28, 1689. J. F. [Colophon:] Maryland, Printed by William
Nuthead at the City of St. Maries. Re-printed in London, and sold by Randal Taylor near Stationers Hall, 1689.
For additional facts concerning it, see under the above title in the bibliographical appendix.

[5]