In Virginia convention on the federal constitution, Friday, 27th June, 1788, _Mr. Wythe_, from the committee on amendments, reported the Virginia bill of rights, with this preamble, “That there be a bill of rights asserting and securing from encroachment the essential and unalienable rights of the people, in some such manner as the following.” (Here follows the bill, including the fifteenth article.) The same clause, with others, was carried in the North Carolina convention, by a vote of 184 to 84, the minority objecting to other clauses. This proves that the right was _known_ and _valued_, as a _natural_ and _unalienable_ right of the people, and of course the states when constituents, and considered a _different thing_ from _consultation_, _petition_, _advice_ or _remonstrance_. _Every freeman_ may _petition_ or _remonstrate_, but the _people_ must _instruct._] JUDGE HOPKINSON “has not referred to the opinions of MR. BURKE, because the argument stands here on a different and stronger ground.” Yes, stronger—on our side. _First_, because states are represented _as such_, in their _sovereign capacity_; and apart from general representative principles, their ambassadorial character requires obedience. _Secondly_, because small districts elect for vast regions in England, and here power is equally distributed, for the avowed purpose of equal representation and protection. And _thirdly_, because in England a member of the House of Commons has no constitutional right of _resignation_; it is prohibited; and by our rule, he must there obey in _all cases_.