131-179.xml

Title: [1820 Feb. 29 Defence of Brad.[?] ag]

Description: 1820 Feb. 29

Defence of Brad.[?] ag st Ed. Review

§. Paradoxes. 1. Tumult

1

1

1. Tumult a bad and an indictable offence as per Bill against Wolselyke[?]

§. The Reviewer’s paradoxes. 1. Tumult, in Elections a thing useful and laudable.

To employ paradoxes, whether in lieu or in support of argument is playing a high game. It marks distress upon the very face of it, it marks distress, and thereby on the part of the employers betrays if not a consciousness of the badness of his cause /his cause being a bad one/ at any rate /at the least/ an apprehension of its appearing so in the eyes of others /in other eyes/. It is thus an experiment not unattended with danger to the cause itself: no, not /nor yet/ altogether free from danger to the literary reputation of the author himself. {The higher that reputation the higher the stake thus ventured.} A paradox is an opinion to which the general opinion is opposite and not simply so but in a very high degree opposite: to /he who/ utter a paradox is therefore to set a man’s own opinion against the opinion of mankind in general, and in particular all that part to whose cognizance the controversy is expected to present itself: it is to expect that such is the force /influence/ of his authority, those before whom what he says is expected to come will /are/ upon the same ground of his authority, be ready /prepared/ to make surrender of their own reason. The higher his reputation the higher will be his authority, and the stronger the force with which at the suggestion of hope[?] it may be expected to operate against opposing reason. But the higher his /the/ reputation the greater in case of failure must be the fall: the more flagrant the paradox so employed, the deeper therefore is the game played by those /him/ who employ it

131-183.xml

Title: [1820 Apr. 19 Defence ag. Ed. Review]

Description: 1820 Apr. 19

Defence ag. Ed. Review

§. Reviewers Devices

2

2

4. Paradoxes

1. Reading, a mischievous /pernicious/ accomplishment. Mischievousness of any instrument, by which any extension is given to the number of those members of the community who are in possession of the art or faculty of reading

2. Tumult, a good thing. tumultuous proceedings at Elections, a habit favourable to aptitude of choice in the case of Parliamentary Elections

To bring paradoxes into action to employ paradox in controversy is to play a deep game, a deep, not to say a desperate one. It stakes reputation upon the task[?] It must be no ordinary reputation that can consistently with ordinary prudence thus oppose itself to reason: any ordinary reputation is liable to be shattered by it to an ordinary reputation it may be ruinous

The proposition insinuated /thus advanced/ is one of the number of those which are capable of being maintained by the most irrefutable[?] arguments. But to save time, trusting to the influence of his authority, to the influence which by the already established prepossession in his favour, the understanding of the writer may be assured of exercising on the understandings of his readers, he saves himself and them the trouble of producing the support, he leaves it without support /unsupported/.

A company /fraternity/ has on this occasion the advantage of an individual: the authority of the whole body is employed in giving support to the paradox. “We” says the august person Blackstones God upon earth who is not less truly the reservoir of wisdom than the fountain of Justice. “We” say Reviewers in general /in particular/, and those Reviewers so say they, and this, it must be acknowledged, by an unquestionable title.

JB_128_029.xml

Title: [25 Feb 1820 Defence ag t. Ed. Review]

Description: 25 Feb 1820

Defence ag t. Ed. Review. Ordo and Rudiments

Title proposed 26 May 1819

Corruption worn Corrupted

or

Observations on /Mischievousness of/ the Disenfranchisement of Rotten

Boroughs

as at present carrying on

to which is /are/ […?]

Apology for Boroughmongering

{and

Defence of the Ballot

against the

Edinburgh Review. }

§.1. Motives to that publication

§.2. Character and Object of the article in the Review.

§.3. Probandum Reviewers real sentiments accord with the Author’s

§.3. Elements of Radicalism here defended against the Reviewer –

1. Secrecy of Suffrage

§.4. Universality of Suffrage

§.5. Equality of Suffrage

§.6. Annuality of Suffrage

Inserenda Quere?

§.6* Election evils obviated by the proposed system. Reviewer’s plan for depretiating

them.

§.7. Reviewer’s paradoxes – distress indicated by them.

1. Insinuated mischievousness of reading

Occasion – Universality

Motives 1. discrediting a signal collateral use of the proposed efficient cause of

table[?]. 2. Reading unsuppressible a beneficial substitute to suppressible meetings

§.8.2. Usefulness of Tumult.

Occasion Security[?] of suffrage

Motives.

§.9. Reviewers reticences with their indexes

1. Stile of interests the true ground. Opposition of interests between the people and

their existing representatives.

2. ( (Continue the re enumeration.) The efficiency of corruption requires not any

correspondent act act.

3. Terrorism is more mischievous than corruptive.

§ 1. Inserenda less[?] in the delay Intermediate answer in […?] by Reform Bill

§.2. Inserenda. Affections of some of the Reviewers more generous than they dare

state[?] for fear of their party –

Fascinating quality of good company and good cheer.

§. Reviewers semi-liberal semi-popular. Here motives for avoiding matter of Church of

Englandism & Chrestomathia. Swear not, & Sponge[?] of Actions.

Reviewing […?] – and avoiding the […?]

§. Neology. J.B. Care[?] of Reviews[?] across to its ‘ frappant. Ed. Rev.

What is their object. If we […?] ourselves[?], what else? If […?]-[…?] radical reform

will accomplish it – so no moderate reform – no Whig reform will accomplish it

Aspect […?] decoy[?] in […?] of security in a reform Corruptive […?] is relative

good – a […?] also of the mischief of terrorism