Editing Statute of Anne (section)

===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}}