The end of press licensing in 1695 is a reminder that an important freedom can develop without a single grand declaration establishing it. It isn't a reason to think Britain has no legal protection for free expression today.
We do have legal protection, including Article 10 as incorporated through the Human Rights Act. It is qualified, rather than absolute. The interesting question is how legal rules and political habits work together to keep expression free.
Ending permission before publication
Licensing required approval before material could lawfully be printed. Milton's Areopagitica, published in 1644, argued against that prior restraint. It didn't immediately persuade Parliament to abandon the system.
The licensing legislation eventually lapsed in 1695. That was an important change, although it didn't remove every legal restriction or end prosecutions for what people published. Nor should a political decision not to renew a law be reduced to nobody remembering to fill in a form.
The broader lesson is that freedom developed through particular struggles, decisions and institutions. It wasn't delivered complete in one moment.
Legal protection still needs defending
A law matters. So does how authorities use their powers, how institutions respond to controversial opinions and whether people feel able to question restrictions.
A formally protected freedom can be weakened by an accumulation of decisions, each presented as a narrow exception. Equally, not every restriction amounts to the end of free speech. We need to examine what it prohibits, why and whether the protection against abuse is adequate.
Britain's arrangements differ from America's, but neither country can make the argument disappear by pointing to a document. Courts interpret protections, legislators make rules and the public has to decide what it is willing to defend.
The historical point I want to keep is that a freedom's survival shouldn't be taken for granted. We inherited institutions and legal protections built through conflict and compromise. If we think they matter, we need to understand how they work well enough to recognise when a proposed change would weaken them.