Star.
London, England, 1830-07-20 00:00:00

LITERARY INTELLIGENCE.

The Quarterly Reviews are different from those which a pike,
monthly, not only in time of appearance, but in their charac.e;
They arc not, properly speaking, reviews of books, but collections ut
treatises on the subjects of new books. They commenced with the
Ediriburyh—the first twenty volumes of which display more spe.
chums of accurate reasoning, and original thinking, than, perhaps
any twenty volumes in any language. The Quarterly soon ap.
peered, and became a most powerful rival. The Edinburgh los:
its spirit, as its original authors were drawn aside to politics and
other pursuits. For some time, its rival preserved the ascendancy, and
indeed may still be said to preserve it; for, although the Edin-
burgh frequently shows vigour, it is not so uniform, and indulges,
ocanionally, in disquisition on obscure points of Scottish jurispru-
dence, ani other and lore, which is not taking to the general
reader, however ably argued. The political views of the Quarterly
Review and Edinburgh Review, it is well known, have always been
opposite: the latter grew tame when the Whir got into power ;
and it seldom reaches its original vigour.--The Brestmineter Re-
view has had the merit, ever shire its commencement, although its
short history has not been unchcquered, to preserve a boldness of
research, and freedom of investigation, far beyond both its pre.
decessors. Its writers let the plough go deep into the soil, and turn
up the ground fearlessly. The last number is a fine exhibition ot
this character. The first article on the Ballot, in our opinion, can-
not be perused without producing conviction. We shall attempt an
analysis, or abridgment, of this essay ; at the same time premising
that, although all in the author's language, the language is ofter.
mutilated, for the sake of brevity.
This article is destined to the consideration of the ballot alone.
Its utility is so clear that, to prove it, appears useless. As matters
stand at present in England, in determining our preference of th,
secret, or open mode of voting, the real question is thin—whether
the people who vote, should really have the choice of the member,
or only go through the mummery of voting; while the power of
choosing should really be by others. It may be—indeed
it is sometimes affirmed—tat the is the proper result; that the
majority of the Parliament ought to be chosen by afew of the most
powerful and wealthy men in the kingdom. Allowing this monstrous
assumption for the moment, why do we not abolish the fraudulent
pretence which we now uphold ?—lf it be affirmed that the fraud
is good because, though the people should not have the security for
good government in their own hands, it is useful to let them dank
they hare it :—we answer that all such delusion has become vain.
There is a new element among the principles of society. The art of
printing exists, and its inimitable effects produce not merely a
change, but a complete revolution in the art of governing mankind.
In the times that are gone, the art of Government was a mixture ot
fraud and force, in which fraud predominated. In the
time to come, fraud will be impracticable; and a know-
ledge of good and evil in the management of national
affairs, cannot be withheld from the nation. Government
I will be left either to rational conviction, or to naked force. This is
the grand revolution of modern times—this is the new era. Fraud
ilss tofore been combined with force—fraud must be supplauted
W knowledge ; and force, by itself, cannot insure the obedience of
mankind. It follows that rational conviction will not afford its aid
upon any tams but its own,—for rational conviction requires no
force. The abettors to delusion seek one plea for their mendacity—
that the ballot is unfavourable to truth. They display the %che-
mises of outraged moral feelings, when they contemplate the
chance that, under secrecy, the voters for a member may break theit
promise. Was there ever any thing so glaring? What is dif.
fereat in their cases is not the mendacity, but the end. In the
one case, the end is to place the power of government, without
limit, in the hands of the few. For that reason they argue active
fraud is laudable ; in the one case it is to limit the exercise
of the power of Government to the attainment of good; and in
the other to make the few who govern accountable to the nation at
large.. Another class argue, that those who have the suffrage, exer-
cise it substantially. This is a pretext employed to create
delusion on this subject. We are asked if we would destroy the
legitimate influence of property ? The friends of ballot are repre.
seined obliquely as the enemies of property ; and then comes all the
images of spoliation, confiscation, anarchy, and bloodshed, to annex
odium to the cause. The folly of this is easy to expose. We, the friends
of ballot, the plebeians, the dernociatical, the base, are fully persuaded
that there are two influences of property ; one good, moral, bene-
ficent ; another bad, criminal, pregnant with baneful consequences.
—The first of these we are so far from desiring to see extinguished,
that all our endeavour is to increase it. The course we propose is
to raise the moral influence of property. With respect to the im-
moral, the baneful influence of property, we confess we are demo.
cratical enough to wish to see it wholly destroyed. They are not so
explicit—we will explain the reason. Their term, the legitimate
" influence of property" includes both meanings—the moral and
immoral this is extremely convenient. In this we see an ex-
ample of the mean artifice by which discourse is rendered the instru-
ment of fraud. Let two things, one good and one evil, he
confounded under one name ; it is not difficult to transfer
the approbation, or detestation,which they severally deserve, from one
to the other. Riches mean a certain quantity of power : power ot
bestowing good—or inflicting evil. It is possible, we all know, for
a man, possessed of this power, to exercise it to become the object ot
affection, and to influence affection; but he, possessed of the im-
moral" or legitimate" influence of property or riches, may exercise
it without producing any affection towards him. This power over
their happiness is unavoidably attended by power over their wills.—
Men do not choose to act in opposition to amen who can injure them
greatly. This we call the immoral influence of property. Let u.
now ask under which of these influences should we desire the country
to be governed ? Could we give scope to the moral, and suppress the
immoral, will any man say that it should not be done P What
we affirm of the ballot is—that it has this precious quality.
—Let us now ipply our thoughts to the man vested with this
power in this country. It is a matter of fact, that a certain number
of opulent men hold the great majority in dependence, and com-
mand their votes. Whatever may be the opinion of an individual o:
this majority as to the candidatts, be will give his vote to him who
commands his fears and hopes. The question we have to resolve
will now be seen to be easy—all the evils of migovernment which
' we suffer, and to which we are liable, cumulated with all the evils
of that horrid immorality which results from the giving and suborn.
ing votes, arisefrom this—that the people of England do not choose
' the members of Parliament—that the majority are chosen by a

small number of men. What gives this power to. a small numbei is
the openness of voting—it is the openness of voting that corrupts
the government of England, and corrupts the morals of the pro.
pie. That which enables the man who holds the voters in
dependence, to suborn the votes, is then knowing how the
vote is given. Bender this knowledge impossible, and their
power is gone. The ballot alone would do all the good.
Allow every thing else to remain as It Is—the ballot would render
all other abuses hos felt.—But, it is said, " the ballot is net
English" : why not ?—if the ballot be a necessary means to the most
important of all ends, and the word " English" is not applicable to
it—the word " English" is then not applicable to one of the best of
things—that is aIL Among the opponents of ballot are others who
cannot be said to argue on the subject, but to groan and utter inar-
ticulate cries against it; of this sort are those who say they hope
they shall not live to see the time when Englishmen shall not have
the spirit to deliver their votes in the face of day, &c. It would be
as honest and about as wise to say, they hope not to live to see the
day when an Englishman shall not have his carriage and pair.—;
cannot abide muffling up, says another. If a great end is to be ob-
tained by muffling up, why should there not be muffling up ?
The last resource of these controversialists is to deny the possibility
of secrecy. How do they make it out ?—not at all. They make
out nothing. They assert, sometimes more nakedly, sometimes
covertly, but still they only asserts—" Voters will sheet how they
vote." Your word chew has a double meaning : it means either
secrecy or hearing. If you mean that it will be seen how he votes,
we can take care against that; but if you mean he will tell how he
votes—why let him; the secrecy of the vote is the same.
The above is an attempt to condense much of this writer's valu-
able matter into a small space. We are aware we have been doing
the work much injustice ; should he condescend ever to peruse our
literary attempts, we beg to apologize for our imperfections by de-
claring that they have arisen from:an honest anxiety to disseminate,
by every means in our power, the cogent piece of reasoning his
talent has produced.
Several of the other articles in the review are not inferior, and
we recommend the whole to our readers.

Her Royal Highness the Dowager LAN DGRATINE of
'friss HOMBURG (OUT Princess ELTZANITH) 11 shortly expected
in England, in company with the Duke and Duchess of CAN.
memos, on a visit to the Sing and Queen.
A correspondent who was present in the church of
Notre-Dame, at the celebration of re Dews on the progress of &a
French arms at Algiers, and who sat very near the Naze, remarked
that he trembled very much during the ceremony. perhaps this
trembling may be nervous and constitutional to his MAJZSTT....it
certainly was very discernable to the spectator.
The Duke of CUMBERLAND was in the House of
Lords last night, and seemed to be much interested in the debate
en the East Retford bill. The noble lords who ssgagainst toe
second raiding, bad the distinguished honour of
4sFally
patronised and loudly cheered by him. The panel don
bench exhibited rather a strange appearance to those be w the
bar. In the middle of it sat Earl GMT and Lord Demure, and
these two noble lads yes flanked by the Duke of CuNizaLawn
and the Earl of ELDON. The oommuninp between the four were
close and frequent.Tinies.