PATRICK HENRY was the great champion of the opposition in that convention, and so decidedly federal in his construction of its terms after its adoption, that he was afterwards elected to oppose MR. MADISON'S celebrated resolutions of '98. Yet we find him admitting the _right_ of instruction in its fullest extent throughout the state and federal governments, and never seeming to suppose that the obligation would be doubted, but at the same time contending with a wonderful forecaste that the responsibility of our representatives would be no protection to us, because though instructed, they would be out-voted by other delegates who could not be instructed by us. He says at page 230, “He tells us responsibility is secured by direct taxation. _Responsibility_, instead of being increased, _will be lost_ forever by it. _In our state governments our representatives may be severally instructed by their constituents._ There are no persons to _counteract their operations. They can have no excuse for deviating from our instructions._ In the general government other men have power over the business. When oppressions may take place, our {627} representatives may tell us we contended for your interest, but we could not carry our point, because the representatives from Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Connecticut, &c. were against us. Thus, sir, you may see there is no real responsibility.” Here are instructions referred to as a complete security in the state government against _any_ legislation objected to by the people, and as completely obligatory upon our representatives from the state in Congress, and only failing to be a complete protection there too, because _we_ cannot _instruct_ the representatives of New Hampshire, &c. He places the representative in the attitude of apologizing, not for disobedience, but failure in accomplishing the wishes of the people. Disobedience did not seem to enter his imagination, much less the right to disobey.