In fine, this is a right which the Legislatures can, will and ought to exercise. They can and ought to demand pledges, which no honorable man could disregard. Is there not always an implied pledge from the nature of the office and the understanding upon the subject? Nay, is there not in Virginia at least a tacit pledge given by all Senators elected since the adoption of MR. LEIGH'S report and resolutions in 1812?—The last of those resolutions is in these words—“_Resolved_, That after this solemn expression of the opinion of the General Assembly, on the right of instruction, and duty of obedience thereto, _no man ought henceforth to accept the appointment of a Senator of the United States from Virginia, who doth not hold himself bound to obey such instructions._” Is not acceptance of office under this resolution a tacit pledge, as binding as express words could make it? I must conclude, having already occupied too much space in your valuable magazine, but the subject was too interesting and important to justify one in attempting to vindicate our cherished doctrines from the attack of so able a champion as JUDGE HOPKINSON, in too cursory an examination of his views. In conclusion, I must remark, that although we have to lament the misfortune of differing with that able and learned gentleman, and the lamented and illustrious MARSHALL, we feel no doubt of the support of HENRY, JEFFERSON, and ROANE.[2] [Footnote 2: One word more. This article was written in great haste for the August number. Instead of this an addition to his letter was published by _Judge Hopkinson_, under his own name, in that number. It requires notice as imperiously as his letter. It _must_ be noticed in the October Messenger. But _briefly_, very _briefly_. Subsequent investigation has satisfied the writer, that the Judge's opinions, both as to the _novelty_ and _weakness_ of our doctrines, are much less supported, either by _authority_ or _reason_, than he had supposed, when he was writing this article. He thinks even the Judge himself may be convinced that “politicians of a later date” than the adoption of the constitution, are not the “authors of the doctrine of instructions.” R.] DEATH OF THE PATRIOT. BY W. GILMORE SIMMS. Unembitter'd by hate, and untroubled by strife, Shall the Patriot we loved, to the dark grave descend, Whilst the foes of his well-spent, political life, Have forgot each distinction in the wide term of friend. Each doubt that had whisper'd against him before, Each feeling of Envy, of Jealousy, Hate— Now awed into silence and sorrow, deplore, Nor seek to detract from the fame of the great! {636} And great may we call _him_, whose mind in its scope, No barrier could limit, no danger could tame; Whose love for his country kept pace with the hope That prompted her efforts and led her to fame—