The result was an enormous flood of printing, most of it worse than ever. An examination of the publications of the time shows that everything that would go on a press was dug up and utilized. We find in use old type and blocks which had formed part of the stock of Wynkyn de Worde and Pynson. As soon, however, as Parliament got well seated in power it proceeded to deal with printers along the old lines. In 1643 it reënacted the decree of 1637 with the important modification that the number of printers was not limited. In 1649 sixty printers in London and the two university towns gave the bonds for good conduct required by law as a requisite to carrying on the business. It will be remembered that the decree of 1637 limited the number in London to twenty, with one in each of the universities. This act called forth one of the noblest pieces of literature in the English language, Milton’s “Areopagitica,” or plea for unlicensed printing, in which Milton brings all the resources of his great learning and matchless literary skill to the defence of the freedom of the press. The plea, of course, fell on deaf ears for the time, but it remains one of the jewels of English literature. The Parliamentary government held the act as a weapon which could be used in case of need. It was strictly enforced with regard to political and religious books and newspapers. It seems to have been very little enforced outside these limits. When Cromwell took the reins of power as Lord Protector of England he enforced the press laws very strictly. Cromwell was a masterful man and was not disposed to permit criticism of his person and government or discussion of matters of public policy upon which the government had decided. On the death of Cromwell there followed a period of political uncertainty during which the enforcement of the act was relaxed, only to be renewed at the accession of King Charles II in 1660. Shortly after the accession of King Charles a group of the best printers unsuccessfully petitioned for the incorporation of a Company of Printers as distinguished from the Stationers. They alleged that the Company of Stationers was controlled by the booksellers and that they cheapened printing and impoverished the printers, that the Company of Stationers was so large that only old men could attain to the dignity of masters or wardens, and that only once in ten or twelve years was it possible for a journeyman printer to become a master printer. They claimed that a new Company would free the printing industry from these shackles, that it would improve the quality of printing, and that it would secure for the government better supervision of the output of the press. This last was probably a bait to the hook. The petition was not granted, however, and things went on in the old fashion.