The objections of LUTHER MARTIN to the _possibility_ of senators doing their own will instead of that of their states, modern times have proven to be too well founded, but his opinions upon that subject being analogous to those of PATRICK HENRY, I refer to my last number for the answer. He does not yield the right, but complains of the power of senators to disobey, without being punished. He does not say, as the Judge supposes, “that senators are _not_, precisely what the advocates of instructions say they _are_,” but that they _may do_, precisely what we say they _ought not_. He is directly opposed to MR. MADISON, and fears the senators may stop that transfusion of temper, which the latter thought they could not legitimately stop. MR. MARTIN would not have objected to this system, if senators had been elected for shorter terms, and paid by the states, and subject to recall, because then he would have thought them sufficiently dependent on their states. But none of these would have given the state any control over them except by _instructions_. MR. WILSON was with MR. MADISON and GOVERNOR RANDOLPH, opposed to the election of Senators by state legislatures. Because he thought they ought “_to lay aside their state connections and act for the general good of the whole,_” and that the general government ought not “to be comprised of an assemblage of different state governments.” Mr. W. wished senators elected by _districts_. He wanted an _independent_ national government, and thought the laying aside state connections incompatible with legislative elections, and that this mode would make the general government an assemblage of different state governments. He wished the senators to be by a DIFFERENT CONSTITUTION, precisely what Judge H. contends they NOW ARE, and Mr. W. contended that they could not be by our present {686} system. Yet he is quoted to prove that under this constitution “the senators for each become the senators of all,” and that “the senators from Virginia become as independent of her as those of Massachusetts.” If Mr. W. thought so, he was arguing against himself. Nothing but instructions could possibly make the senate an assemblage of different state governments; and the doctrine of the senators from each state loosing their connection and becoming senators for all, made it the reverse, and a senate as strictly national and independent as Mr. W. could wish. The defeat of MR. WILSON proves that the convention did _not_ wish senators to lay aside state connections, and _did_ wish the senate to be an assemblage of state governments; and the reasoning of himself and his party proves that they thought such would be the operation of the present system if adopted. Thus we have the evidence of both majority and minority—the whole convention—against the opinions of JUDGE HOPKINSON, and his coadjutors of the present day.