Was he connected with Caxton and the Westminster press? Without a shadow of doubt I say, No! Mr. E. Scott, of the MS. department in the British Museum, has indeed strung together a number of surmises to show that the Schoolmaster was employed by Caxton, and that all the books without date or place hitherto attributed to Westminster were really printed at St. Albans. But internal evidence is against any such gratuitous assumption. There is nothing in common between the two printers in any of their habits or customs except the possession of Caxton’s No. 3 type. This is the only one of Caxton’s types used outside his own office (for W. de Worde, his successor in house and business, must not be regarded as a separate printer). Caxton employed it from his arrival in England in 1477 till 1484, when it makes its last appearance in the headings of “Æsop,” the “Order of Chivalry,” and “The Golden Legend.” In 1485 Caxton obtained a new fount, similar in shape and character, and from that time the old No. 3 disappears to make way for the new and smaller type No. 5. This being more suited to the taste of the day, we find the larger and worn fount passing over to the country press of St. Albans, where the Schoolmaster first uses it in 1486, being the identical year in which its successor appears in Caxton’s “Royal Book.” We may here observe that after the stoppage of the St. Albans’ Press the same fount finds its way back again and is seen in W. de Worde’s reprint, in 1496–97, of the two English St. Albans books. But the discovery of a copy of Caxton’s Boethius in the old Grammar School at St. Albans, and the numerous fragments of old books extracted from its covers, are quoted as confirming the idea. Yet the book itself and all these fragments were from Westminster, not a single one being from a known St. Albans book, and they included the Caxton “Chronicles,” 1480, the “Dictes,” 1477, and the still earlier “Life of Jason;” so that we had better at once remove the whole Westminster press, dated and undated, to St. Albans, if such an argument is to have any force. These fragments, indeed, can only point to the fact that the copy of Boethius was bound in the printing office, as was commonly the case with the books from Caxton’s press. Again, Mr. Scott draws attention to the fact that a page of the St. Albans’ Book, 1486, has been copied by a contemporary writer on to the blank leaves of one of Caxton’s earliest books. ’Tis true; but this copying of part of one book into another, printed ten years before, has no typographical bearing whatever. Lastly, the name Causton appears in an old St. Albans’ Register of the early part of the fifteenth century. But this, again, means positively nothing. Caxton’s name was not at all uncommon; there were Caustons or Caxtons in nearly every English county, and I have quite a long list of them.