Editing Statute of Anne (section)

==Background==
With the introduction of the [[printing press]] to [[Kingdom of England|England]] by [[William Caxton]] in 1476,{{sfn|Streibich|1976|p=55}} printed works became both more common and more economically important. As early as 1483, [[Richard III of England|Richard III]] recognised the value of literary works by specifically exempting them from the government's [[Protectionism|protectionist]] legislation.{{sfn|Hauhart|1983|p=545}} Over the next fifty years, the government moved further towards economic regulation,{{sfn|Hauhart|1983|p=546}} abolishing the provision with the [[Printers and Binders Act 1533]] ([[25 Hen. 8]]. c. 15), which also banned the import of foreign works and empowered the [[Lord Chancellor]] to set maximum pricing for English books.{{sfn|Robinson|1991|p=59}} This was followed by increasing degrees of censorship.{{sfn|Abrams|1985|p=1135}} A further proclamation of 1538, aiming to stop the spread of [[Lutheran]] doctrine, saw [[Henry VIII of England|Henry VIII]] note that "sondry contentious and sinyster opiniones, have by wrong teachynge and naughtye bokes increaced and growen within this his realme of England", and declare that all authors and printers must allow the [[Privy Council of England|Privy Council]] or their agents to read and censor books before publication.{{sfn|Robinson|1991|p=59}}

===Stationers' Company===
[[Image:The Stationers' Company Mark.png|thumb|250px|The Mark of the [[Stationers' Company]], who held a monopoly on the right to copy from 1556 until 1695]]
This censorship peaked on 4 May 1557, when [[Mary I of England|Mary I]] issued a [[royal charter|royal warrant]] formally incorporating the [[Stationers' Company]]. The old method of censorship had been limited by the [[Second Statute of Repeal]], and with Mary's increasing unpopularity the existing system was unable to cope with the number of critical works being printed. Instead, the royal warrant devolved this power to the company.{{sfn|Robinson|1991|p=60}} This was done by decreeing that only the company's publishers could print and distribute books. Their Wardens were given the power to enter any printing premises, destroy illegal works and imprison anyone found manufacturing them.{{sfn|Hauhart|1983|p=546}} In this way the government "harnessed the self interest of the publishers to the yoke of royal incentive", guaranteeing that the company would follow the rules due to the economic monopoly it gave their members.{{sfn|Abrams|1985|p=1136}} With the abolition of the [[Star Chamber]] and [[Court of High Commission]] by the [[Long Parliament]], the legal basis for this warrant was removed, but the Long Parliament chose to replace it with the [[Licensing Act 1662]].{{sfn|Abrams|1985|p=1137}} This provided that the company would retain their original powers, and imposed additional restrictions on printing; [[Queen's Messenger|King's Messengers]] were permitted to enter any home or business in search of illegal presses. The legislation required renewal every two years, and was regularly reapproved.{{sfn|Hauhart|1983|p=547}}

This was not "copyright" as is normally understood; although there was a monopoly on the right to copy, this was available to publishers, not authors, and did not exist by default; it only applied to books which had been accepted and published by the company.{{sfn|Streibich|1976|p=60}} A member of the company would register the book, and would then have a perpetual copyright over its printing, copying and publication, which could be leased, transferred to others or given to heirs upon the member's death.{{sfn|Patterson & Joyce|2003|p=914}} The only exception to this was that, if a person tried to make a copy of a copyrighted material and warned the owner of the copyright (i.e. the printer), and the owner did not reprint it within six months, then this person could continue with the printing (provided that the author of the material did not object), giving a "[[wikt:ratable|ratable]]" part of the profits to the owner of the copyright. This did not mean, though, a loss of copyright ownership, but a provision to allow other presses the right to reprint books that were unavailable.{{sfn|Holdsworth|1920|p=844}}{{sfn|Arber|1875|p=43|loc=folio 6, article 5}} Authors themselves were not particularly respected until the 18th century, and were not permitted to be members of the company, playing no role in the development or use of its licences despite the company's sovereign authority to decide what was published.{{sfn|Streibich|1976|p=59}} There is evidence that some authors were recognised by the Company itself to have the right to copy and the right to alter their works; these authors were uniformly the writers of uneconomical books who were underwriting their publication.{{sfn|Robinson|1991|p=63}}

The company's monopoly, censorship and failure to protect authors made the system highly unpopular; [[John Milton]] wrote ''[[Areopagitica]]'' as a result of his experiences with the company, accusing Parliament of being deceived by "the fraud of some old patentees and monopolisers in the trade of bookselling".{{sfn|Rose|2009|p=133}} He was not the first writer to criticise the system, with [[John Locke]] writing a formal memorandum to the MP Edward Clarke in 1693 while the Licensing Act was being renewed, complaining that the existing system restricted the free exchange of ideas and education while providing an unfair monopoly for Company members.{{sfn|Rose|2003|p=78}} Academic Mark Rose attributes the efforts of Milton to promote the "bourgeois public sphere", along with the [[Glorious Revolution]]'s alterations to the political system and the rise of public [[Coffeehouse|coffee houses]], as the source of growing public unhappiness with the system.{{sfn|Rose|2009|p=136}} At the same time, this was a period in which clearly defined political parties were taking shape, and with the promise of regular elections, an environment where the public were of increasing importance to the political process. The result was a "developing public sphere [which] provided the context that enabled the collapse of traditional press controls".{{sfn|Rose|2009|p=137}}

===Lapse of the Licensing Act===
[[File:Locke-John-LOC.jpg|thumb|left|[[John Locke]], whose close relationship with [[Edward Clarke (1650–1710)|Edward Clarke]] led to the repeal of the Licensing Act]]
The result of this environment was the lapse of the [[Licensing Act 1662]]. In November 1694, a committee was appointed by the Commons to see what laws were "lately expired and expiring [and] fit to be revived and continued". The Committee reported in January 1695, and suggested the renewal of the Licensing Act; this was included in the "Continuation Bill", but rejected by the House of Commons on 11 February. When it reached the House of Lords, the Lords re-included the Licensing Act, and returned the bill to the Commons. In response, a second committee was appointed – this one to produce a report indicating why the Commons disagreed with the inclusion of the Licensing Act, and chaired by [[Edward Clarke (1650–1710)|Edward Clarke]]. This committee soon reported to the Commons, and Clarke was ordered to carry a message to the Lords requesting a conference over the Act. On 18 April 1695, Clarke met with representatives of the Lords, and they agreed to allow the Continuation Bill to pass without the renewal of the Licensing Act.{{sfn|Deazley|2004|p=1}} With this, "the Lords' decision heralded an end to a relationship that had developed throughout the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries between the State and the Company of Stationers",{{sfn|Deazley|2004|p=2}} ending both nascent publishers' copyright and the existing system of censorship.{{sfn|Deazley|2004|p=2}}

[[John Locke]]'s close relationship with Clarke, along with the respect he commanded, is seen by academics as what led to this decision.{{sfn|Deazley|2004|p=2}} Locke had spent the early 1690s campaigning against the statute, considering it "ridiculous" that the works of dead authors were held perpetually in copyright.{{sfn|Alexander|2010|p=19}} In letters to Clarke he wrote of the absurdity of the existing system, complaining primarily about the unfairness of it to authors, and "[t]he parallels between Locke's commentary and those reasons presented by the Commons to the Lords for refusing to renew the 1662 Act are striking".{{sfn|Deazley|2004|p=4}} He was assisted by a number of independent printers and booksellers, who opposed the monopolistic aspects of the Act, and introduced a petition in February 1693 that the Act prevented them from conducting their business.{{sfn|Alexander|2010|p=19}} The "developing public sphere",{{sfn|Rose|2009|p=137}} along with the harm the existing system had caused to both major political parties, is also seen as a factor.{{sfn|Robinson|1991|p=66}}

The failure to renew the Licensing Act led to confusion and both positive and negative outcomes; while the government no longer played a part in censoring publications, and the monopoly of the Company over printing was broken, there was uncertainty as to whether or not copyright was a binding legal concept without the legislation.{{sfn|Hauhart|1983|p=547}} Economic chaos also resulted; with the company now unable to enforce any monopoly, provincial towns began establishing printing presses, producing cheaper books than the London booksellers. The absence of the censorship provisions also opened Britain up as a market for internationally printed books, which were similarly cheaper than those British printers could produce.{{sfn|Alexander|2010|p=21}}

===Attempts at replacement===
The rejection of the existing system was not done with universal approval, and there were ultimately twelve unsuccessful attempts to replace it.{{sfn|Rose|2009|p=138}} The first was introduced to the House of Commons on 11 February 1695. A committee, again led by Clarke, was to write a "Bill for the Better Regulating of Printing and the Printing Presses". This bill was essentially a copy of the Licensing Act, but with a narrower jurisdiction; only books covering religion, history, the affairs of the state or the law would require official authorisation.{{sfn|Deazley|2004|p=7}} Four days after its introduction, the Stationers' held an emergency meeting to agree to petition the Commons – this was because the bill did not contain any reference to books as property, eliminating their monopoly on copying. Clarke also had issues with the provisions, and the debate went on until the end of the Parliamentary session, with the bill failing to pass.{{sfn|Deazley|2004|p=10}}

With the end of the Parliamentary session came the first general election under the [[Triennial Act 1694]], which required the Monarch to dissolve Parliament every 3 years, causing a general election. This led to the "golden age" of the English electorate, and allowed for the forming of two major political parties – the Whigs and Tories. At the same time, with the failure to renew the Licensing Act, a political press developed. While the Act had been in force only one official newspaper existed; the ''[[London Gazette]]'', published by the government. After its demise, a string of newspapers sprang into being, including the ''Flying Post'', the ''[[Evening Post (London)|Evening Post]]'' and the ''[[Daily Courant]]''. Newspapers had a strong bias towards particular parties, with the ''Courant'' and the ''Flying Post'' supporting the Whigs and the ''Evening Post'' in favour of the Tories, leading to politicians from both parties realising the importance of an efficient propaganda machine in influencing the electorate.{{sfn|Deazley|2004|pp=12–13}} This added a new dimension to the Commons' decision to reject two new renewals of the Licensing Act in the new Parliamentary session.{{sfn|Robinson|1991|p=66}}

Authors, as well as Stationers, then joined the demand for a new system of licensing. [[Jonathan Swift]] was a strong advocate for licensing,{{sfn|Robinson|1991|p=67}} and [[Daniel Defoe]] wrote on 8 November 1705 that with the absence of licensing, "One Man Studies Seven Year, to bring a finish'd Peice into the World, and a Pyrate Printer, Reprints his Copy immediately, and Sells it for a quarter of the Price&nbsp;... these things call for an Act of Parliament".{{sfn|Deazley|2004|p=32}} Seeing this, the Company took the opportunity to experiment with a change to their approach and argument. Instead of lobbying because of the effect the absence of legislation was having on their trade, they lobbied on behalf of the authors, but seeking the same things. The first indication of this change in approach comes from the 1706 pamphlet by John How, a stationer, titled ''Reasons humbly Offer'd for a Bill for the Encouragement of Learning and the Improvement of Printing''. This argued for a return to licensing, not with reference to the printers, but because without something to protect authors and guarantee them an income, "Learned men will be wholly discouraged from Propagating the most useful Parts of Knowledge and Literature".{{sfn|Deazley|2004|p=33}} Using these new tactics and the support of authors, the Company petitioned Parliament again in both 1707 and 1709 to introduce a bill providing for copyright.{{sfn|Robinson|1991|p=67}}