In Burgh's Political Disquisitions, (London, 1774) the American doctrine in its most rigorous extent is found applied in full vigor to members of parliament, and sustained by an abundant series of precedents from the earliest times, and quotations of the strongest language from members of Parliament in sustaining the duty of obedience, and the advice and opinions of the best English authors, to the same purport. (See vol. I, from p. 180 to 205—many instances of instruction and obedience against the sentiments of the representative, a few of which are in _Mr. Leigh's_ report of 1812.) In the _Irish_ parliament, which met in November 1767, there was scarcely a town or county which had not instructed its representative to vote in favor of a limitation of their parliaments to seven years; and so eager were they, that all required the most positive assurances, and some even exacted an _oath_ from their members to vote for the bill. The bill was passed, and its subsequent history affords a curious instance of legislative cunning and popular firmness. (See London Magazine, 1768, p. 131.) In the session of 1733-4, (An. 7, Geo. II) _Sir William Wyndham_, in the house of commons, in a speech on _Mr. Bromley's_ motion for repealing the septennial act, said of an opinion of _Mr. Willes_, (afterwards chief justice) of a character very similar to that advanced by _Judge Hopkinson_, (to wit: “After we are chosen, and have taken our seats in this house, we have no longer any dependance upon our electors, at least so far as regards our behavior here; their whole power is then devolved upon us, and we are in every question to regard only the public good in general, and to determine according to our own judgment. If we do not—if we are to depend upon our representatives, and to follow blindly the _instructions_ they send us, we cannot be said to act freely, nor can such parliaments be called free parliaments. Such a dependance would be more dangerous than a dependance upon the crown”)—that it was “not only a _new_ doctrine, but it was the _most monstrous_, the _most slavish_ doctrine that ever was heard, and such a doctrine as he hoped no man would _ever dare_ to support within those walls. He was persuaded that the learned gentleman _did not mean_ what the words he happened to use seemed to import—for though the people of a county, city or borough may be misled, and may be induced to give instructions which are contrary to the true interest of their country, yet he hoped he would allow that in times past the crown has oftener been misled; and we must conclude that it was more apt to be misled in future, than we can suppose the people to be.” (See Com. Debates VIII, pp. 172, 188. The whole debate might be read with advantage by many modern _republicans_.) Here, whatever right the crown had to control parliament, is vested in the legislatures as to senators, and the