The SPEAKER came before the house upon a different case, upon the merits of the resolution reported by the committee; and therefore he had a right to reconsider any question connected with it. So it is with the rights of the select committee. The House, by its deliberate order, sent to a committee of privilege a question of privilege. They ordered)that committee to report upon all the circumstances connected with that question. Now, if any member of this House supposes that any committee of 5 honorable men would have ro nouncedajudgment against the Gentfrom Kentucky on account of his rt in this transaction without referring to, rehearsing, and expressing their opinious on the circumstances which led to that transaction, the certainly mistook the character of the gentlemen who were selected to compose that committee; and I do not hesitate to say that if the members of this House be asked to pass judgment upon the action of the Gentfrom Kentucky in this assault, and exclude all consideration of the part of the Gentfrom Iowa in producing that assault, it will be as fla rant an act of injustice as was ever committe in the history of the world. No man can properly consider the part which the Gentfrom Kentucky hadpin this matter and exclude the part which the Gentfrom Iowa took in its initiation. Therefore the committee passed upon that question. They were called) upon to review 1: e whole case and express their opinion. And let me say to the members of this House that the precedent sought to be established here this day is the most vital precedent ever established in a legislative assembly, and will hereafter justify a resort to the law of violence whenever any man or any party shall choose to enforce it. I have listened to this debate for 3 days, and I have heard but little other than careful considerations relating to the personal positions of these 2 gentlemen; one consideration offset against another consideration, and the whole intellect and ingenuity of the members of this legislative assembly exclusively directed to that view of the subject. I have not heard discussed that which is the real and only question before this House. I have not hear an allusion to the dignit of this assembly, an assembl which is, or which ought to be, the 1st par iamentary assembly on the face of the earth, as it is the only deliberative assembly where the people of the nation are represented. I have heard hardly any reference made to that dignity and those privileges with which this assembly is clothed by the terms of the Constitution, the most sacred of all the privileges with which the people of our country are invested; they have beenard ly recurred to in all these 3 days’ debate. Let me, then, speak a word upon that subject. The highest of all privileges is the immunit and inviolability of person. IfI am to be insulted, bullied, brow beaten, attacked, disabled, as a member of this House from the State of Massachusetts. then the people I represent have no rights. Therefore, at the foundation of this Government lies the inviolability of the Representative. And what have we seen here? The Aax of this House, he who should be the lea er, comes in here with a reposition to justify for I can only interpret it in that way to justify the assault which has been made upon temember from Iowa. And what was the character of that assault? A member of this House has been beaten; he has been beaten with stripes; he has been beaten with stripes in the presence of this House, as it were; he has been beaten with stripes in the presence of this House, for words spoken in ebate. What should be the conclusion of this assembly? That any member so abusing his privileges and the dignity of this House ought not to sit longer in it as a member. It is no injustice to the member from Kentucky that we should adopt this conclusion. If he under took to vindicate his own rights, as a soldier and as a man he should be willing to pay the penalty of his act. In this case there is no philosophy but the maxim of the McGregors, for a man like him or for any man who occupies his position. Let him play his game boldly, but let him also pay the forfeit manfully. What is that forfeit? That he should cease, for a time at least, to sit as a member of this House. So the committee have reported. When he returns to his constituents they will review the circumstances, and they may re'elect him. 1f so he will be received here or not, as the case may justify. In an event he is purged; and the i house is purge of the indignity and the wrong which have been inflicted upon its members and upon itself. If there)0 any other conclusion than this, then, sir, the dignity of this assembly must be defended by other persons than those who now represent its power. What do gentlemen pro.oseinstead of this? I have heard much phi ological discussion upon this subject. gentlemen say that a disapproval is a censure; and if a disapproval is a censure, then a censure or a reprimand is a mere disa proval; and the judgment of this House is to fie expressed upon a case of the most inelfable wrong that can be committed upon its members by a disapproval of the act! A member is beaten with stripes in the Capitol for words spoken in debate; and the highest act of justice and of dignity that this assembly can perform is to say that it disapproves the act! Sir, as one of the committee and as member of this House, I can give no vote of that character. I will not set the seal of my name to a record and a judgment which must degrade the dignity of the House and destroy its parliamentary privileges forever hereafter. Let me say a word, sir, in regard to the 3 wronged and innocent men who a little while since were by a happy accident on the eastern portico of the Capitol, a part by invitation a part by chance, with arms in their hands, taking their places, one here, another there, another there, with a view to the movements of some body else, keeping clear space and field of action while a member oftbis House was being assaulted. We are told now that it will be an infringement upon the rights of those men if the HoRep, the 1st arliar mentary assembly of the world, should even question them for their conduct so much as to invite them here to answer for their action. They are not arraigned; they are not charged with anything. It is not alleged that they are responsible as parties to this assault. But the facts are stated in plain Saxon language; and it is recommended that these men should be called to the bar of the House to answer to any charge which this House may have to make against them.