must guide the vast and complicated machine of government,
to the reciprocal advantage of all his dominions. There is not
the least contradiction in this; no imperium in imperio, as is
maintained: for the power of every distinct branch will be
limited to itself; and the authority of his Majesty over the
whole, will, like a central force, attract them all to the same
point.

The second part of your paragraph, is this : " In arbitrary
governments, this (supreme absolute) power is in the monarch ;
in aristocratical governments, in the nobles ; in democratical, in
the people, or the deputies of their electing. Our own govern
ment, being a mixture of all these kinds, the supreme authority
is vested in the king, nobles, and people ; that is in the King,
House of Lords, and House of Commons elected by the people."

You are mistaken when you confine arbitrary government to
a monarchy. It is not the supreme power being placed in one,
instead of many, that discriminates an arbitrary from a free
government. When any people are ruled by laws, in framing
which they have no part, that are to bind them, to all intents
and purposes, without, in the same manner, binding the legisla
tors themselves, they are, in the strictest sense, slaves ; and the
government, with respect to them, is despotic. Great Britain is
itself a free country ; but it is only so, because its inhabitants
have a share in the legislature. If they were once divested of
that they would cease to be free. So that, if its jurisdiction be
extended over other countries that have no actual share in its
legislature, it becomes arbitrary to them ; because they are des
titute of those checks and controls which constitute that moral
security which is the very essence of civil liberty.

I will go farther, and assert, that the authority of the British
Parliament over America, would, in all probability, be a more



JET. 18.] THE FARMER REFUTED. 57

intolerable and excessive species of despotism than an absolute
monarchy.* The power of an absolute prince is not temporary,
but perpetual. He is under no temptation to purchase the favor
of one part of his dominions at the expense of another ; but it is
his interest to treat them all upon the same footing. Yery different
is the case with regard to the Parliament. The Lords and Com
mons, both, have a private and separate interest to pursue. They
must be wonderfully disinterested, if they would not make us
bear a very disproportional part of the public burthens, to avoid
them as much as possible themselves. The people of Britain
must, in reality, be an order of superior beings, not cast in the
same mould with the common degenerate race of mortals, if the
sacrifice of our interest and ease to theirs, be not extremely wel
come and alluring. But should experience teach us, that they
are only mere mortals, fonder of themselves than their neigh
bors; the philanthropy and integrity of their representatives
will be of a transcendent and matchless nature, should they not
gratify the natural propensities of their constituents, in order to
ingratiate themselves, and enhance their popularity.

When you say, that " our government, being a mixture of
all these kinds, the supreme authority is vested in the king,
nobles, and people; that is, the King, House of Lords, and
House of Commons elected ly the people;" you speak unintelli
gibly. A person who had not read any more of your pamphlet
than this passage, would have concluded you were speaking of
our Governor, Council, and Assembly, whom, by a rhetorical

* Mr. Hume, in enumerating these political maxims, which will be eternally
true, speaks thus : "It may easily be observed, that though free governments have
been commonly the most happy, for those who partake of their freedom, yet are
they most ruinous and oppressive to their provinces" He goes on to give many solid
reasons for this ; and, among other things, observes, that " a free state necessarily
makes a great distinction (between herself and the provinces), and must continue
to do so, till men learn to love their neighbors as well as themselves." He con
firms his reflections by many historical facts, and concludes them thus: "Com
pare the pais conquis of France with Ireland, and you will be convinced of this
truth ; though this latter kingdom being in a good measure peopled from England,
possesses so many rights and privileges as should naturally make it challenge better
treatment."



58 HAMILTON'S WORKS. [JET. 18.

figure, you styled, " king, nobles, and people." For how could
it be imagined, you would call any government our own, with
this description, that it is vested in the king, nobles, and people,
in which, our own people have not the least share ? If our own
government be vested in the king, nobles, and people, how
comes it to pass, that our own people have no part in it ? The
resolution of these questions will afford a proper field in which
to display your ingenuity. You must endeavor to transmute
the people of America into those of Great Britain, or your des
cription will be considered as mere jargon, by every man of
sense. Perhaps you may be able, in imitation of that celebrated
sophist Spinosa, to prove, that they are only modally different,
but substantially the same. Or, if you please, that syllogism of
the schools, by which a man is proved a horse, may serve as an
excellent model. If I recollect right, it is in these words :

Homo est animal:
Equus est animal:
Ergo, homo est equus.

which is rendered thus: A man is an animal: A horse is an
animal: Therefore a man is a horse. By the same method of
argumentation, you may prove, that, as Britons and Americans
are generically the same, they are numerically so, likewise, as your
description implies. You may form a syllogism thus :

Britons are men:

Americans are the same:

Therefore, Britons and Americans are the same.

This argument will be as good as the one I am next going to
examine.

" The supreme authority," you say, " extends as far as the
British dominions extend. To suppose a part of the British do
minions, which is not subject to the power of the British legis
lature, is no better sense, than to suppose a country at one and
the same time, to be, and not to be, a part of the British domin
ions. If, therefore, the colony of New- York be a part of the



JET. 18.] THE FARMER REFUTED. 59

British dominions, the colony of New- York is subject and de
pendent on the supreme legislative authority of Great Britain."

By " this supreme authority," I suppose you mean the Par
liament of Great Britain. I deny that it extends as far as the
British dominions extend ; and I have given many substantial
reasons for this denial : whereas you have never offered any to
prove that it does. You have begged the question, and taken
that for granted, which is the very point in debate. As to your
general position, that there must be a supreme absolute autho
rity lodged somewhere, I have explained in what sense it ought
to be understood ; and shown, that the several parts of the em
pire may each enjoy a separate independent legislature, with
regard to each other, under one common head, the king.

The seeming proof you have subjoined, is entirely fallacious ;
and depends upon the use of the terms British dominions, and
British legislature, in an equivocal sense. The former may either
signify countries subject to the king, or to the legislature of Great
Britain. "When we say French dominions, we mean countries
subject to the king of France. In like manner, when we say
British dominions, the most proper signification is, countries
subject to the king of Great Britain. At least there is no impro
priety in using it in this sense.*

If, by the British legislature, you mean nothing more than
the Parliament of Great Britain, it is well ; but if you affix a
different idea to it, you are not arbitrarily to impose it upon
others. If there be any chimera in your fond imagination, which
you express by that term, you must allow others the liberty to
think it such. In short, if, by the term, you mean an authority
resident in one part of his Majesty's dominions, to make laws for
every other part of them ; you ought not to apply it in this
sense, till you have proved that such an authority does really
exist ; especially in a controversy about that very matter.

By the British dominions, I mean the countries subject to his



* Or, if there is, all your objection amounts to this : that we have adopted an
improper mode of expression ; and, for the future, we may, in the language of the
honorable House of Assembly, call the colonies his Majesty's American dominions.



60 HAMILTON'S WORKS. [&T. 18.

Britannic Majesty, in his royal capacity. By the British legis
lature, I will suppose you intend simply the Parliament of Great
Britain. Let us now try whether, "to suppose there may be a
part of his Britannic Majesty's dominions, which is not subject
to the Parliament, be no better sense, than to suppose a country,
at one and the same time, to be, and not to be, a part of the
British dominions." It is impossible for any thing to be, and not
to be ; but it involves no contradictions to say, that a country
maybe in subjection to his Britannic Majesty, and, in that sense,
a part of the British dominions, without being at all dependent
on the Parliament of Great Britain.* The colony of New- York,
therefore, may be a branch of the British empire, though not
subordinate to the legislative authority of Britain.

Upon the whole, if, by the British dominions, you mean ter
ritories subject to the Parliament, you adhere to your usual
fallacy, and suppose what you are bound to prove. I deny that
we are dependent on the legislature of Great Britain ; and yet I
maintain that we are a part of the British empire ; but in this
sense only, as being the free born subjects of his Britannic
Majesty.

Thus I have fully examined that argument, which is esteemed
the bulwark of the doctrine of Parliamentary supremacy ; and^
I flatter myself, clearly refuted it. The main pillar being now
broken down, the whole structure may easily be demolished. I
shall, therefore, proceed with alacrity in the completion of the
work. But it is worthy of observation, that a cause must be
extremely weak, which admits of no better supports.

Your next argument (if it deserve the name) is this : "Legis
lation is not an inherent right in the colonies : many colonies



* I doubt not, you will here be disposed to cavil, by urging, that if we deny
the authority of Parliament, we also reject his Britannic Majesty, since he com
poses a part of it : but, let it be considered, that the Parliament, as such, is a
political institution, not a physical being. We may deny his Majesty, in his politi
cal capacity, as a part of the legislature of Great Britain, and yet acknowledge
him in a similar political capacity, as a part of the legislature of New- York. This
is an obvious distinction, and cannot be contested, without an affront to common
sense.



jEi. 18.J THE FARMER REFUTED. 61

have been established and subsisted long without it. The Eo-
man colonies had no legislative authority. It was not till the
latter period of their republic, that the privileges of Eoman citi
zens, among which, that of voting in Assemblies of the people,
at Eome, was a principal one, were extended to the inhabitants
of Italy. All the laws of the empire were enacted at Eome.
Neither their colonies nor conquered countries, had any thing to
do with legislation."

The fundamental source of all your errors, sophisms, and
false reasonings, is a total ignorance of the natural rights of man
kind. Were you once to become acquainted with these, you
could never entertain a thought, that all men are not, by nature,
entitled to a parity of privileges. You would be convinced, that
natural liberty is a gift of the beneficent Creator, to the whole
human race ; and that civil liberty is founded in that ; and can
not be wrested from any people, without the most manifest viola
tion of justice. Civil liberty is only natural liberty, modified and
secured by the sanctions of civil society. It is not a thing, in its own
nature, precarious and dependent on human will and caprice ;
but it is conformable to the constitution of man, as well as neces
sary to the well-being of society.

Upon this principle, colonists, as well as other men, have a
right to civil liberty. For, if it be conducive to the happiness of
society (and reason and experience testify that it is), it is evident,
that every society, of whatsoever kind, has an absolute and per -
feet right to it, which can never be withheld without cruelty and
injustice. The practice* of Eome towards her colonies, cannot
afford the shadow of an argument against this. That mistress of
the world was often unjust. And the treatment of her depend
ent provinces, is one of the greatest blemishes in her history.
Through the want of that civil liberty for which we are so
warmly contending, they groaned under every species of wan
ton oppression. If we are wise, we shall take warning from

* If her practice proves any thing, it equally proves, that she had a right to
plunder them as much as possible. This doctrine, I presume, will not be disagree
able to some ears. There are many who would rejoice to see America plundered
in a like manner, provided they could be appointed the instruments.



62 HAMILTON'S WORKS. [-ffii. 18.

thence ; and consider a like state of dependence, as more to be
dreaded than pestilence and famine.

The right of colonists, therefore, to exercise a legislative
power, is an inherent right. It is founded upon the rights of
all men to freedom and happiness. For civil liberty cannot
possibly have any existence, where the society, for whom laws
are made, have no share in making them ; and where the inter
est of their legislators is not inseparably interwoven with theirs.
Before you asserted, that the right of legislation was derived
"from the indulgence or grant of the parent state," you should
have proved two things : that all men have not a natural right
to freedom ; and that civil liberty is not advantageous to society.

" The position," you say, " that we are bound by no laws but
those to which we have assented, either by ourselves, or by our
representatives, is a novel position, unsupported by any authori
tative record of the British constitution, ancient or modern. It
is republican in its very nature ; and tends to the utter subver
sion of the English monarchy.

" This position has arisen from an artful change of terms.
To say, that an Englishman is not bound by any laws but those
to which the representatives of the nation have given their con
sent, is to say what is true. But to say that an Englishman
is bound by no laws but those to which he hath consented, in
person, or by his representative, is saying what never was true,
and never can be true. A great part of the people have no vote
in the choice of representatives ; and, therefore, are governed
by laws to which they never consented, either by themselves,
or by their representatives."

The foundation of the English constitution rests upon this
principle ; that no laws have any validity or binding force, with
out the consent and approbation of the people, given in the per
sons of their representatives, periodically elected by themselves.
This constitutes the democratical part of the government.

It is also undeniably certain, that no Englishman, who can
be deemed a free agent in a political view, can be bound by laws,
to which he has not consented, either in person, or by his repre
sentative. Or, in other words, every Englishman (exclusive of



jEi. 18.] THE FARMER REFUTED. 63

the mercantile and trading part of the nation) who possesses a free
hold to the value of forty shillings per annum, has a right to
share in the legislature ; which he exercises, by giving his vote
in the election of some person he approves of as his representa
tive.

"The true reason," says Blackstone, " of requiring any quali
fication, with regard to property in voters, is to exclude such
persons as are in so mean a situation, that they are esteemed to
have no will of their own. If these persons had votes, they
would be tempted to dispose of them, under some undue
influence or other. This would give a great, an artful, or a
wealthy man, a larger share in elections than is consistent with
general liberty. If it were probable that every man would give
his vote freely, and without influence of any kind ; then, upon
the true theory and genuine principles of liberty, every mem
ber of the community, however poor, should have a vote in
electing those delegates, to whose charge is committed the dis
posal of his property, his liberty, and life. But since that can
hardly be expected, in persons of indigent fortunes, or such
as are under the immediate dominion of others; all popular
States have been obliged to establish certain qualifications,
whereby some, who are suspected to have no will of their
own, are excluded from voting; in order to set other individ
uals, whose wills may be supposed independent, more thoroughly
upon a level with each other."

Hence, it appears, that such " of the people as have no vote
in the choice of representatives, and, therefore, are governed
by laws to which they have not consented, either by themselves
or by their representatives," are only those " persons, who are
in so mean a situation, that they are esteemed to have no will
of their own." Every free agent, every free man, possessing a
freehold of forty shillings per annum, is, by the British consti
tution, entitled to a vote in the election of those who are in
vested with the disposal of his life, his liberty, and property.

It is therefore evident, to a demonstration, that unless a
free agent in America be permitted to enjoy the same privilege,
we are entirely stripped of the benefits of the constitution, and



64 HAMILTON'S WORKS. [Mi. 18.

precipitated into an abyss of slavery. For, we are deprived of
that immunity which is the grand pillar and support of free
dom. And this cannot be done without a direct violation of
the constitution, which decrees to every/ree agent, a share in the
legislature.

It deserves to be remarked here, that those very persons in
Great Britain, who are in so mean a situation as to be excluded
from a part in elections, are in more eligible circumstances than
they would be in who have every necessary qualification.

They compose a part of that society to whose government
they are subject. They are nourished and maintained by it ;
and partake in every other emolument for which they are quali
fied. They have, no doubt, most of them, relations and con
nections among those who are privileged to vote ; and, by that
means, are not entirely without influence in the appointment
of their rulers. They are not governed by laws made ex
pressly and exclusively for them ; but by the general laws of
their country, equally obligatory on the legal electors, and on
the law makers themselves. So that that they have nearly the
same security against oppression, which the body of the people
have.

To this we may add, that they are only under a conditional
prohibition, which industry and good fortune may remove.
They may, one day, accumulate a sufficient property to enable
them to emerge out of their present state. Or, should they die
in it, their situation is not entailed upon their posterity by a
fixed and irremediable doom. They, agreeably to the ordinary
vicissitudes of human affairs, may acquire what their parents
were deficient in.

These considerations plainly show, that the people in Ame
rica, of all ranks and conditions, opulent as well as indigent (if
subjected to the British Parliament), would be upon a less favor
able footing than that part of the people of Great Britain, who
are in so mean a situation, that they are supposed to have no will
of their own. The injustice of this, must be evident to every
man of common sense.

I shall now proceed to take such a survey of the political his-



jEi. 18.] THE FARMER REFUTED. 65

tory of the colonies as may be necessary to cast a full light upon
their present contest ; and, at the same time, to give the public a
just conception of the profound and comprehensive knowledge
you have of the dispute, the fairness and candor with which you
have represented facts, and the immaculate purity of your inten
tions.

But, previous to this, the following observations may not be
destitute of utility.

His Holiness the Pope, by virtue of being Christ's Vicegerent
upon earth, piously assumed to himself a right to dispose of the
territories of infidels as he thought fit. And in process of time
all Christian princes learned to imitate his example, very libe
rally giving and granting away the dominions and property of
Pagan countries. They did not seem to be satisfied with the title
which Christianity gave them to the next world only, but chose
to infer from thence an exclusive right to this world also.

I must refer it to sounder casuists than I am to determine con
cerning the consistency or justice of this principle. It is sufficient
for my purpose to observe that it is the only foundation upon
which Queen Elizabeth and her successors undertook to dispose
of the lands in America. Whatever right, therefore, we may
suppose to have existed, it was vested entirely in the crown ; the
nation had no concern in it. It is an invariable maxim, that
every acquisition of foreign territory is at the absolute disposal
of the king ; and unless he annex it to the realm, it is no part of
it. And if it be once alienated, it can never be united to it with
out the concurrence of the proprietors.

Were there any room to doubt that the sole right of the terri
tories in America was vested in the crown, a convincing argu
ment might be drawn from the principle of English tenure. By
means of the feudal system the king became, and still continues
to be, in a legal sense, the original proprietor, or lord paramount,
of all the lands in England.* Agreeably to this rule, he must
have been the original proprietor of all the lands in America, and

* See Blackstone, vol. 1.



66 HAMILTON'S WORKS. [^T. 18.

was therefore authorized to dispose of them in what manner he
thought proper.

The great inquiry, therefore, is concerning the terms on which
these lands were really dispensed.

" The first charter granted by the crown, for the purpose of
colonization, is" not " that of King James the first, to the two
Virginia companies," as you assert. Previous to that, there was
one from Queen Elizabeth to Sir Walter Kaleigh, for all the ter
ritory he might discover and plant between the thirty -third and
fortieth degrees of north latitude, which was not actually pos
sessed by any Christian prince, or inhabited by any Christian
people ; to have, hold, occupy, and enjoy the same, to him, his
heirs and assigns for ever, with all prerogatives, jurisdictions, roy
alties, privileges, franchises, thereunto belonging, by sea or land ;
only reserving to herself, her heirs and successors, the fifth part
of all gold and silver ore that might be acquired in those regions.

By this grant, Queen Elizabeth relinquished the whole legis
lative and executive power to Sir Walter, upon no other condi
tion than simple homage, and the above-mentioned fifth part of
gold and silver ore ; which shows that the crown considered itself
as invested with the absolute and entire disposal of the territories
in America ; and the passive conduct of the nation declares its
acquiescence in the same.

After many successless efforts to plant a colony in Virginia,
this charter was forfeited and abrogated by the attainder of Sir
Walter Ealeigh; and then succeeded that of King James the
first, to the two Virginia companies, dated the 10th of April,
1606. This was afterwards altered and improved by a second
charter, issued in 1609. There was also a third, dated March
12, 1611-12. The mention of this last would not have answered
your purpose, and, therefore, you chose to pass it over in silence.

In neither of these three, is there the least reservation made
of any authority to Parliament. The colonies are considered in
them as entirely without the realm, and, consequently, without
the jurisdiction of its legislature.

In the first charter from King James, there are the following
clauses :



MT. 18.] THE FARMER REFUTED. 67

" We do ordain, establish, and decree, &c., that each of the
said colonies shall have a council, which shall govern and order
all matters and all causes, which shall arise, grow, or happen to,