cise of it is to be reviewed, and when they must descend to the level from which they were raised; there forever to remain, unless a faithful discharge of their trust shall have established their title to a renewal of it.

I will add, as a fifth circumstance in the situation of the House of Representatives, restraining them from oppressive measures, that they can make no law which will not have its full operation on themselves and their friends, as well as on the great mass of the society This has always been deemed one of the strongest bonds by which human policy can connect the rulers and the People together. It creates between them that communion of interests and sympathy of sentiments, of which few Governments have furnished examples; but without which every Government degenerates into tyranny. If it be asked, what is to restrain the House of Representatives from making legal discriminations in favor of themselves and a particular class of the society, I answer, the genius of the whole system; the nature of just and constitutional laws; and above all, the vigilant and manly spirit which actuates the People of America: a spirit which nourishes freedom, and in return is nourished by it.

If this spirit shall ever be so far debased as to tolerate a law not obligatory on the Legislature, as well as on the People, the People will be prepared to tolerate anything but liberty.

Such will be the relation between the House of Representatives and their constituents. Duty, gratitude, interest, ambition itself, are the chords by which they will be bound to fidelity and sympathy with the great mass of the People. It is possible that these may all be insufficient to control the caprice and wickedness of But are they not all that Government will admit, and that human prudence can devise? Are they not the genuine and the characteristic means, by which Re

man.

publican Government provides for the liberty and happiness of the People? Are they not the identical means on which every State Government in the Union relies for the attainment of these important ends? What then are we to understand by the objection which this paper has combated? What are we to say to the men who profess the most flaming zeal for Republican Government, yet boldly impeach the fundamental principle of it; who pretend to be champions for the right and the capacity of the People to choose their own rulers, yet maintain that they will prefer those only who will immediately and infallibly betray the trust committed

to them?

Were the objection to be read by one who had not seen the mode prescribed by the Constitution for the choice of Representatives, he could suppose nothing less, than that some unreasonable qualification of property was annexed to the right of suffrage; or that the right of eligibility was limited to persons of particular families or fortunes; or at least that the mode prescribed by the State Constitutions was, in some respect or other, very grossly departed from. We have seen, how far such a supposition would err, as to the two first points. Nor would it, in fact, be less erroneous as to the last. only difference discoverable between the two cases is, that each Representative of the United States will be elected by five or six thousand citizens; whilst in the individual States, the election of a Representative is left to about as many hundreds. Will it be pretended, that this difference is sufficient to justify an attachment to the State Governments, and an abhorrence to the Fœderal Government? If this be the point on which the objection turns, it deserves to be examined.

The

Is it supported by reason? This cannot be said, without maintaining that five or six thousand citizens are less capable of choosing a fit Representative, or

more liable to be corrupted by an unfit one, than five or six hundred. Reason, on the contrary, assures us, that as in so great a number a fit Representative would be most likely to be found, so the choice would be less likely to be diverted from him, by the intrigues of the ambitious or the bribes of the rich.

Is the consequence from this doctrine admissible? If we say that five or six hundred citizens are as many as can jointly exercise their right of suffrage, must we not deprive the People of the immediate choice of their public servants, in every instance, where the administration of the Government does not require as many of them as will amount to one for that number of citizens?

Is the doctrine warranted by facts? It was shown in the last paper, that the real representation in the British House of Commons very little exceeds the proportion of one for every thirty thousand inhabitants. Besides a variety of powerful causes, not existing here, and which favor in that country the pretensions of rank and wealth, no person is eligible as a Representative of a county, unless he possess real estate of the clear value of six hundred pounds sterling per year; nor of a city or borough, unless he possess a like estate of half that annual value. To this qualification, on the part of the county Representatives, is added another on the part of the county electors, which restrains the right of suffrage to persons having a freehold estate of the annual value of more than twenty pounds sterling, according to the present rate of money. Notwithstanding these unfavorable circumstances, and notwithstanding some very unequal laws in the British code, it cannot be said, that the Representatives of the Nation have elevated the few on the ruins of the many.

But we need not resort to foreign experience on this subject. Our own is explicit and decisive. The districts in New Hampshire, in which the Senators are

chosen immediately by the People, are nearly as large as will be necessary for her Representatives in the Congress. Those of Massachusetts are larger than will be necessary for that purpose; and those of New York still more so. In the last State, the Members of Assembly, for the cities and counties of New York and Albany, are elected by very nearly as many voters as will be entitled to a Representative in the Congress, calculating on the number of sixty-five Representatives only. It makes no difference, that in these Senatorial districts and counties, a number of Representatives are voted for by,eath elector, at the same time. If the same electors, at the same time, are capable of choosing four or five Representatives, they cannot be incapable of choosing one. Pennsylvania is an additional example. Some of her counties, which elect her State Representatives, are almost as large as her districts will be by which her Fœderal Representatives will be elected. city of Philadelphia is supposed to contain between fifty and sixty thousand souls. It will, therefore, form nearly two districts for the choice of Foederal Representatives. It forms, however, but one county, in which every elector votes for each of its Representatives in the State Legislature. And what may appear to be still more directly to our purpose, the whole city actually elects a single member for the Executive Council. This is the case in all the other counties of the State.

The

Are not these facts the most satisfactory proofs of the fallacy which has been employed against the branch of the Fœderal Government under consideration? Has it appeared on trial, that the Senators of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and New York, or the Executive Council of Pennsylvania, or the members of the Assembly in the two last States, have betrayed any peculiar disposition to sacrifice the many to the few; or are in any respect less worthy of their places, than the Representa

tives and magistrates appointed in other States, by very small divisions of the People?

But there are cases of a stronger complexion than any which I have yet quoted. One branch of the Legislature of Connecticut is so constituted, that each member of it is elected by the whole State. So is the Governor of that State, of Massachusetts, and of this State, and the President of New Hampshire. I leave every man to decide whether the result of any one of these experiments can be said to countenance a suspicion, that a diffusive mode of choosing Representatives of the People tends to elevate traitors and to undermine the public liberty.

PUBLIUS.

[From the New York Packet, Friday, February 22, 1788.]

THE FEDERALIST. No. LVII.

TO THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK:

THE

HE remaining charge against the House of Representatives, which I am to examine, is grounded on a supposition that the number of members will not be augmented from time to time, as the progress of popu lation may demand.

It has been admitted, that this objection, if well supported, would have great weight. The following observations will show, that like most other objections against the Constitution, it can only proceed from a partial view of the subject; or from a jealousy which discolors and disfigures every object which is beheld.

1. Those who urge the objection seem not to have recollected, that the Fœderal Constitution will not suffer by a comparison with the State Constitutions, in the