Editing Statute of Anne (section)

===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}}