Page:Essays in Historical Criticism.djvu/173



THE AUTHORSHIP OF THE FEDERALIST 153

was one of the most careful students of history of the time, had to have his attention called by Hamilton to the utility of examples from English history. I have called attention to the fact that Madison was reading at this time Burgh's Dis- quisitions^ which are quoted in No. 56. Madison's Notes, being 'Notes of Ancient and Modern Confederacies,^ would not naturally contain facts about England.

In regard to No. 54, I will refer to the points made in my article, (p. 127). As the number is put into the mouth of a Southern statesman, whether Madison or Hamilton believed in the arguments is irrelevant; the only requirement is that the arguments should be such as a Southerner would use.

That Madison was " absolutely opposed " to property repre- sentation is asserted without evidence, and, in fact, is a mistake. He wrote in 1785: "In a general view, I see no reason why the rights of property, which chiefly bears the burden of government, should not be respected as well as personal rights' in the choice of rulers." (Writings, I, 181; also p. 129.)

In regard to the uncertainty expressed in No. 52 on the term of the Virginia assembly, it may be said that as " Publius" pretended to be a citizen of New York, that uncertainty might have been assumed as a natural touch for a New Yorker.

There is no praise for the House of Lords in No. 63. It is merely cited to prove that there is no danger to be feared from the organization of the Senate when an aristocratic body like the Lords has not been able to hold its own against the Commons.

The reference to the senate of Maryland, as far as it goes, points to Madison's being the author of No. 63, rather than Hamilton, In the Convention, Madison said of it: "In no instance had the Senate of Maryland created just suspicions of danger from it." Hamilton, on the other hand, said: "The Senate of Maryland has not been sufficiently tried." (Scott's ed. of the Debates, pp. 155 and 182; cf. also Madi- son's favorable opinions in his Writings, I, 177 and 186.)

The mention of local circumstances of New York State, etc., in Nos. 54 and 57 contains nothing beyond the ordinary