One remark of Judge H. will finish our consideration of this portion of his letter. “This (right of instruction) {688} is practically to give the legislatures a power to recall their senators, as instructions may always be given, which _must be disobeyed by an honest man_.” Such could not be given by an _honest man_. This supposes a _majority_ of each legislature always dishonest, and ready to pass dishonest instructions, not to effect legislation, but merely to eject an _honest_ senator. What could induce this? only _one_ could take the place, and the rest must be prostrated, unless the people too be dishonest. A new election would place honest men in power, _they_ would give honest instructions to the dishonest senator, and by our rule he must obey and honest measures prevail, or give place to an honest man. So that the rule is likely to work as much good as harm in any contingency, unless honest men are necessarily corrupt state legislators, or a dishonest man an honest senator, or the _people_ thoroughly corrupt. If the latter is true, unless we could find an honest king, we must be content with a corrupt government. In his former letter the Judge complained that there was no mention of this right in the constitution,[2] and now declares that “not a syllable can be found any where from any body which hints at this right.” I trust this popular periodical now bears many syllables from high authority having an “awful squinting” that way, and visible to the naked eye. But there is still higher evidence, not only of the knowledge of this right by our ancestors, but of the high value and sanctity of it in their estimation. It was incorporated into the first Virginia bill of rights, thence copied _verbatim_ by the Virginia convention on the federal constitution, in a bill of rights which that body proposed to attach to the federal constitution, and copied again _verbatim_ in the recommendations of amendments by the _North Carolina_ convention on the constitution.[3] [Footnote 2: _Mr. Bowdoin_. “The whole constitution is a declaration of rights. The rights of _particular states_ and private citizens not being the object or subject of the constitution, they are only incidentally mentioned. In regard to the _former_, it would require _a volume_ to describe them, as they extend to every subject of legislation not included in the powers vested in congress.”—_Debates Massachusetts Convention_.] [Footnote 3: See fifteenth article of Virginia bill of rights, _passed unanimously_ in the Virginia convention, _June 12th, 1776_, in these words. “XV. That _the people_ have a right peaceably to assemble together, to consult for the common good, _or to instruct their representatives_; and that _every freeman_ has a right to _petition_, or _apply_ to the legislature for redress of grievances.”