]82l;] 



The Philotopky of Cotemporary Critieism. 



329" 



family which now sways the sceptre of 

 the Prussian monarchy, and which 

 flourishes in the sovereign houses of 

 Hohenzollern-Hecliingen and Hohen- 

 zollern-Sigmaringen takes its origin 

 from an ancient stem of Azo, accord- 

 ing to others, from that of Guelph, 

 or as some will have it, from tlie blood 

 of Pharamond, King of West Fran- 

 conia. It appears that a Count de 

 Zollern, (Thassillon) died about the 

 year 800. One of the descendants of 

 this Count, in the ninth generation 

 (1165) named Rodolph, 2nd fiount of 

 Zollern, left two sons, one of whom 

 Frederick IV., we are told, founded 

 the present house of HohenzoUern. 

 The other, Conrad, the family of the 

 Burgraves of Nuremberg. Certain it 

 is that the Counts de Zollern had long 

 been invested with the Dignity of Bur- 

 gomaster of Nuremberg. Frederick, 

 a descendant of Count Conrad, received 

 the investiture of this Burgraviate from 

 Rodolph of Habsburg in 1274, as a 

 hereditary principality. In 1363 the 

 Emperor Charles IV^ raised Frederick 

 the Vth to the rank of a prince of the 

 empii-e. The Burgraves made several 

 acquisitions in Franconia, and Fre- 

 derick VI. bought in 1415, the elec- 

 toral March of Brandenburg, wliich 

 made him the founder of that dynasty 

 of Electors of Brandenburg, and of 

 kings of Prussia, who four hundred 

 years after the acquisition of the elec- 

 torate, have seen their power extend 

 over a great part of Germany. 



For th* Monthlii Magazine. 



THE PHILOSOPHY OF COTEM- 



PORARY CRITICISM. 



No. XII. 

 Quarterli) Review, No. 48. 



WE have often felt, in the peru- 

 sal both of this journal and of 

 the Edinburgh Review, that a middle 

 work was wanted, steering equally 

 clear of the party politics of the one and 

 of the other, but formed somewhat ac- 

 cording to their plan. In the number 

 before us of the Quarterly, we find new 

 reasons for the opinion which we have 

 here expressed ; but if there were no 

 other than (he first article, entitled 

 " the Freedom of Commerce,'' we would 

 consider it sufficient, for under the 

 garb of great candour and some ac- 

 quaintance, certainly, with the science 

 of political economy, it advocates the 

 narrow views with respect to the sub- 

 ject so often expressed by, and so justly 

 ascriljcd to, llie King's ministers. In 



the first place, it affirms that the re- 

 strictive system must be good, because 

 it has originated in the earliest ages 

 of political society, that is, when those 

 with whom it originated were in a 

 state of comparative barbarity, and be- 

 cause it is still upheld by all existing 

 governments. The " principles of re- 

 striction, exclusion, and encourage- 

 ment," says the reviewer, "occurred at 

 , periods of the earliest application of 

 'the mind to the means of advancing 

 the public wealth, and have been the' 

 rule of conduct for governments for 

 centuries past. They appear in the 

 oldest enactments of the statute book, 

 commencing with our first Edwards 

 and Henrys, were long inculcated as in- 

 controvertible, and at this day prevail 

 in every stage of society ; in China and 

 Turkey, in England, France, and the 

 United States, the most antient and the 

 last instituted ; under every form, the 

 freest and the most arbitrary govern- 

 ments alike act upon the system." 

 Now if the reviewer had been describ- 

 ing the history of any existing univer- 

 sal prejudice or superstition, he could 

 not have used terms very different from 

 these, and we should think that, any 

 mind giving its attention to this state- 

 ment respecting (he restrictive system, 

 would immediately conclude that a 

 system of such universal usage, and 

 originating in the narrow-minded po- 

 licy of barbarity, could scarcely fail to 

 be erroneous in its principles. 1 he re- 

 viewer, in fact, is sensible of this, 

 and, as he proceeds, is obliged to ac- 

 knowledge that the restrictive system 

 of Great Britain stands in need of re- 

 vision. He does not certainly make this 

 acknowledgement quite so explicitly, 

 but we gather as miich from the view 

 which he endeavours to give iu his 

 observations relative to the theory and 

 to the practical effect of the principles 

 of political economy, as they have been 

 developed in a scientific form, by such 

 speculative critics as Adam Smith and 

 that single-thoughted adversary of so- 

 cial life, and apostle of abominations, 

 Malthus. 



While the world consists, and it is 

 likely ever to do so, of separate political 

 communities, the restrictive system, 

 we apprehend, must be continued ; it 

 seems inseparable, and necessarily 

 growing out of (he natural order of 

 independent states and nations; but 

 it does not follow that therefore the 

 theoretical principles by which its 

 injuries to the interests of mankind 



are 



