130 The Philosophy of Contemporary Criticism, No. XXIV. (Sept. 1, 
matter which is adverse to public mo- 
rals and policy, and that objection 
being made to the works in question, 
it became the Chancellor’s duty to as- 
certain whether there was a property 
or not, before he granted his injunc- 
tion, a point which is only to be deter- 
mined by atrial at law. In the mean 
time, the public is inundated with 
cheap editions of works, which, for 
argument’s sake, we will call dan- 
gerous. But it is to be remembered, 
that the jurisdiction of the Chancellor 
extends to the granting of an injunc- 
tion for the preservation of private 
property, and not for the protection of 
public morals. His course was there- 
fore clear, and we see nothing to re- 
prebend in his decision. But if no 
copyright be recognized either at 
Jaw, or in equity, in mischievous publi- 
cations, the consequence is, that they 
are thrown into hands always ready to 
receive and to disperse them. As a 
remedy for this, the reviewer pro- 
poses to give every man a legal interest 
in his own productions, whether they 
be meritorious or injurious; and this 
is, perhaps, on the whole, the best 
mode of reconciling the contradictions 
with whichthiscaseabounds. Although 
we coincide in this scheme, we are not 
at all influenced in our opinion by the 
anxiety displayed on the part of the 
reviewer for the liberty of the press. 
We can see reasons in its favour by 
which he is much more likely to be af- 
fected. It is sufficiently obvious how 
much more completely a work is in the 
grasp of the Attorney-General, when 
confined to the shop of an individual 
publisher, who presents a single mark 
for prosecution and intimidation. But 
we think it, on the whole, the fairest 
way to give an author a compensating 
interest in the fruits of his toils; and, 
if his labours should be hostile to the 
true interests of socicty, there are laws 
enough, and more than enough, to 
meet the evil. 
In Nazarofi’s Expedition to Kokania, 
which forms the seventh article, we do 
not remark any thing deserving atten- 
tion. Itconsists of a few pucrile ancc- 
dotes of the ambassador’s personal ad- 
ventures, with no notice of the customs 
and institutions of the people among 
which he sojourned. We cannot help 
observing, that these abridgements of 
travels, with which the Quarterly 
abounds, and is sometimes almost 
filled, (the last number for example,) 
are a very ordinary commodity, 
containing no reflections on the man- 
ners and usages of nations, but such as 
any labourer in the lower walks of 
literature might furnish. 
Thesucceeding article, De la Mona. 
chie F~ancaise, is well written; and, if 
we mistake not, we have formerly had 
occasion generally to approve the just 
and liberal views of the writer. He 
has, however, espoused, or, we sup- 
pose, conceived a strange theory of 
French character, namely, that such 
are its innate peculiarities, that they 
are unfit for the enjoyment of a free 
constitution. Now we have ourselves 
a great aversion to general conclu- 
sions on so variable and complex a 
subject as man. We should be sorry 
to pronounce on an individual from 
one or two incidents in his life; we 
should be stil! more loth to judge the 
character of a nation from a few indi- 
vidual examples; and we should es- 
teem it quite absurd, to infer from a 
few historical instances of violence, 
that any people is for ever disqualified 
for rational government: yet the latter 
is the strange conclusion of the re- 
viewer, which he endeavours to work 
into asort of system. We have before 
commented on its absurdity, and the 
unfounded assumption of permanency 
in national character. All history 
belies the conclusion: there is hardly 
a people with whose progress we are 
acquainted, that has not exhibited all 
the changes of which human nature is 
capable. Even France herself is not 
an exception. In the early periods of 
ber history, under the dominion of the 
States-General, she manifested as great 
capacity for freedom as any other Eu- 
ropean nation; and, if she subsequently 
degenerated, it may be traced to the 
degeneracy of her government, which, 
from being comparatively free, be- 
came despotic, and effected those 
changes in manners, which despotism 
always accomplishes; rendering a 
people servile and mean, while groan- 
ing under the yoke of absolute power; 
sanguinary and licentious, when that 
power is removed. To the remainder, 
except the startling non sequitur at the 
end, we have no objection. The 
laissez faire system, and superficial 
administration of M. de Calonne are 
well described, and probably might 
find a prototype nearer home. What 
is observed, too, on the distinctions 
which separated different classes, the 
Parcaux Cerfs,the hypocrisy and licen- 
tiousness of the court, is very true, and 
; cannot 
