e　the　rudest　industries；　objects　of　consumption　and　exchange；　governed　consequently　by　all　the　laws　of　commerce　and　political　economy。　　Now；　the　first　of　these　laws　is　the　equipoise　of　functions；　that　is；　the　equality　of　associates。
  5。　M。　Wolowski　indulges　in　sarcasm　against　the　petitioners　for　literary　property。　　〃There　are　authors；〃　he　says；　〃who　crave　the　privileges　of　authors；　and　who　for　that　purpose　point　out　the　power　of　the　melodrama。　　They　speak　of　the　niece　of　Corneille；　begging　at　the　door　of　a　theatre　which　the　works　of　her　uncle　had　enriched。　。　。　。　　To　satisfy　the　avarice　of　literary　people；　it　would　be　necessary　to　create　literary　majorats；　and　make　a　whole　code　of　exceptions。〃
  I　like　this　virtuous　irony。　　But　M。　Wolowski　has　by　no　means　exhausted　the　difficulties　which　the　question　involves。　　And　first；　is　it　just　that　MM。　Cousin；　Guizot；　Villemain；　Damiron；　and　company；　paid　by　the　State　for　delivering　lectures；　should　be　paid　a　second　time　through　the　booksellers？that　I；　who　have　the　right　to　report　their　lectures；　should　not　have　the　right　to　print　them？　　Is　it　just　that　MM。　Noel　and　Chapsal；　overseers　of　the　University；　should　use　their　influence　in　selling　their　selections　from　literature　to　the　youth　whose　studies　they　are　instructed　to　superintend　in　consideration　of　a　salary？　　And；　if　that　is　not　just；　is　it　not　proper　to　refuse　literary　property　to　every　author　holding　public　offices；　and　receiving　pensions　or　sinecures？
  Again；　shall　the　privilege　of　the　author　extend　to　irreligious　and　immoral　works；　calculated　only　to　corrupt　the　heart；　and　obscure　the　understanding？　　To　grant　this　privilege　is　to　sanction　immorality　by　law；　to　refuse　it　is　to　censure　the　author。　　And　since　it　is　impossible；　in　the　present　imperfect　state　of　society；　to　prevent　all　violations　of　the　moral　law；　it　will　be　necessary　to　open　a　license…office　for　books　as　well　as　morals。　　But；　then；　three…fourths　of　our　literary　people　will　be　obliged　to　register；　and；　recognized　thenceforth　on　their　own　declaration　as　PROSTITUTES；　they　will　necessarily　belong　to　the　public。　　We　pay　toll　to　the　prostitute；　we　do　not　endow　her。
  Finally；　shall　plagiarism　be　classed　with　forgery？　　If　you　reply　〃Yes；〃　you　appropriate　in　advance　all　the　subjects　of　which　books　treat；　if　you　say　〃No；〃　you　leave　the　whole　matter　to　the　decision　of　the　judge。　　Except　in　the　case　of　a　clandestine　reprint；　how　will　he　distinguish　forgery　from　quotation；　imitation；　plagiarism；　or　even　coincidence？　　A　savant　spends　two　years　in　calculating　a　table　of　logarithms　to　nine　or　ten　decimals。　　He　prints　it。　　A　fortnight　after　his　book　is　selling　at　half…price；　it　is　impossible　to　tell　whether　this　result　is　due　to　forgery　or　competition。　　What　shall　the　court　do？　　In　case　of　doubt；　shall　it　award　the　property　to　the　first　occupant？　　As　well　decide　the　question　by　lot。
  These；　however；　are　trifling　considerations；　but　do　we　see　that；　in　granting　a　perpetual　privilege　to　authors　and　their　heirs；　we　really　strike　a　fatal　blow　at　their　interests？　　We　think　to　make　booksellers　dependent　upon　authors；a　delusion。　　The　booksellers　will　unite　against　works；　and　their　proprietors。　　Against　works；　by　refusing　to　push　their　sale；　by　replacing　them　with　poor　imitations；　by　reproducing　them　in　a　hundred　indirect　ways；　and　no　one　knows　how　far　the　science　of　plagiarism；　and　skilful　imitation　may　be　carried。　　Against　proprietors。　　Are　we　ignorant　of　the　fact；　that　a　demand　for　a　dozen　copies　enables　a　bookseller　to　sell　a　thousand；　that　with　an　edition　of　five　hundred　he　can　supply　a　kingdom　for　thirty　years？　　What　will　the　poor　authors　do　in　the　presence　of　this　omnipotent　union　of　booksellers？　　I　will　tell　them　what　they　will　do。　　They　will　enter　the　employ　of　those　whom　they　now　treat　as　pirates；　and；　to　secure　an　advantage；　they　will　become　wage　laborers。　　A　fit　reward　for　ignoble　avarice；　and　insatiable　pride。＇1＇
  ＇1＇　　The　property　fever　is　at　its　height　among　writers　and　artists；　and　it　is　curious　to　see　the　complacency　with　which　our　legislators　and　men　of　letters　cherish　this　devouring　passion。　　An　artist　sells　a　picture；　and　then；　the　merchandise　delivered；　assumes　to　prevent　the　purchaser　from　selling　engravings；　under　the　pretext　that　he；　the　painter；　in　selling　the　original；　has　not　sold　his　DESIGN。　　A　dispute　arises　between　the　amateur　and　the　artist　in　regard　to　both　the　fact　and　the　law。　　M。　Villemain；　the　Minister　of　Public　Instruction；　being　consulted　as　to　this　particular　case；　finds　that　the　painter　is　right；　only　the　property　in　the　design　should　have　been　specially　reserved　in　the　contract：　so　that；　in　reality；　M。　Villemain　recognizes　in　the　artist　a　power　to　surrender　his　work　and　prevent　its　communication；　thus　contradicting　the　legal　axiom；　One　CANNOT　GIVE　AND　KEEP　AT　THE　SAME　TIME。　　A　strange　reasoner　is　M。　Villemain！　　An　ambiguous　principle　leads　to　a　false　conclusion。　　Instead　of　rejecting　the　principle；　M。　Villemain　hastens　to　admit　the　conclusion。　　With　him　the　_reductio　ad　absurdum_　is　a　convincing　argument。　　Thus　he　is　made　official　defender　of　literary　property；　sure　of　being　understood　and　sustained　by　a　set　of　loafers；　the　disgrace　of　literature　and　the　plague　of　public　morals。　　Why；　then；　does　M。　Villemain　feel　so　strong　an　interest　in　setting　himself　up　as　the　chief　of　the　literary　classes；　in　playing　for　their　benefit　the　role　of　Trissotin　in　the　councils　of　the　State；　and　in　becoming　the　accomplice　and　associate　of　a　band　of　profligates；_soi…disant_　men　of　letters；who　for　more　than　ten　years　have　labored　with　such　deplorable　success　to　ruin　public　spirit；　and　corrupt　the　heart　by　warping　the　mind？
  Contradictions　of　contradictions！〃　　Genius　is　the　great　leveller　of　the　world；〃　cries　M。　de　Lamartine；　〃then　genius　should　be　a　proprietor。　　Literary　property　is　the　fortune　of　democracy。〃　　This　unfortunate　poet　thinks　himself　profound　when　he　is　only　puffed　up。　　His　eloquence　consists　solely　in　coupling　ideas　which　clash　with　each　other：　ROUND　SQUARE；　DARK　SUN；　FALLEN　ANGEL；　PRIEST　and　LOVE；　THOUGHT　and　POETRY；　GUNIUS　｛？？？｝；　and　FORTUNE；　LEVELING　and　PROPERTY。　　Let　us　tell　him；　in　reply；　that　his　mind　is　a　dark　luminary；　that　each　of　his　discourses　is　a　disordered　harmony；　and　that　all　his　successes；　whether　in　verse　or　prose；　are　due　to　the　use　of　the　extraordinary　in　the　treatment　of　the　most　ordinary　subjects。
  〃Le　National；〃　in　reply　to　the　report　of　M。　Lamartine；　endeavors　to　prove　that　literary　property　is　of　quite　a　different　nature　from　landed　property；　as　if　the　nature　of　the　right　of　property　depended　on　the　object　to　which　it　is　applied；　and　not　on　the　mode　of　its　exercise　and　the　condition　of　its　existence。　　But　the　main　object　of　〃Le　National〃　is　to　please　a　class　of　proprietors　whom　an　extension　of　the　right　of　property　vexes：　that　is　why　〃Le　National〃　opposes　literary　property。　　Will　it　tell　us；　once　for　all；　whether　it　is　for　equality　or　against　it？
  6。　OBJECTION。Property　in　occupied　land　passes　to　the　heirs　of　the　occupant。　　〃Why；〃　say　the　authors；　〃should　not　the　work　of　genius　pass　in　like　manner　to　the　heirs　of　the　man　of　genius？〃　　M。　Wolowski's　reply：　　〃Because　the　labor　of　the　first　occupant　is　continued　by　his　heirs；　while　the　heirs　of　an　author　neither　change　nor　add　to　his　works。　　In　landed　property；　the　continuance　of　labor　explains　the　continuance　of　the　right。〃
  Yes；　when　the　labor　is　continued；　but　if　the　labor　is　not　continued；　the　right　ceases。　　Thus　is　the　right　of　possession；　founded　on　personal　labor；　recognized　by　M。　Wolowski。
  M。　Wolowski　decides　in　favor　of　granting　to　authors　property　in　their　works　for　a　certain　number　of　years；　dating　from　the　day　of　their　first　publication。
  The　succeeding　lectures　on　patents　on　inventions　were　no　less　instructive；　although　intermingled　with　shocking　contradictions　inserted　with　a　view　to　make　the　useful　truths　more　palatable。　　The　necessity　for　brevity　compels　me　to　terminate　this　examination　here；　not　without　regret。
  Thus；　of　two　eclectic　jurists；　who　attempt　a　defence　of　property；　one　is　entangled　in　a　set　of　dogmas　without　principle　or　method；　and　is　constantly　talking　nonsense；　and　the　other　designedly　abandons　the　cause　of　property；　in　order　to　present　under　the　same　name　the　theory　of　individual　possession。　　Was　I　wrong　in　claiming　that　confusion　reigned　among　legists；　and　ought　I　to　be　legally　prosecuted　for　having　said　that　their　science　henceforth　stood　convicted　of　falsehood；　its　glory　eclipsed？
  The　ordinary　resources　of　the　law　no　longer　sufficing；　philosophy；　political　economy；　and　the　framers　of　systems　have　been　consulted。　　All　the　oracles　appealed　to　have　been　discouraging。
  The　philosophers　are　no　clearer　to…day　than　at　the　time　of　the　eclectic　efflorescence；　nevertheless；　through　their　mystical　apothegms；　we　can　distinguish　the　words　PROGRESS；　UNITY；　ASSOCIATION；　SOLIDARITY；　FRATERNITY；　which　are　certainly　not　reassuring　to　proprietors。　　One　of　these　philosophers；　M。　Pierre　Leroux；　has　written　two　large　books；　in　which　he　claims　to　show　by　all　religious；　legislative；　and　philosophical　systems　that；　since　men　are　responsible　to　each　other；　equality　of　conditions　is　the　final　law　of　society。　　It　is　true　that　this　philosopher　admits　a　kin