Mr. HALE. I hardly think, Mr. Speaker, that I ought to be interrupted for the purpose of such a statement as that l have not as sumed to discuss any provocation between these parties prior to the occasion of which I have conspeakin. I believe that no possible prov ocation could induce a man having a proper regard for himself or a proper sense of the proprietics of this House to rise here and deliver such remarks as were uttered by Mr. GRIXNELL on that occasion. I do not propose to go back to consider whether there had been prior prov ocation. I will content myself with saying that, in tracing back the history of this matter to the beginning, it will be found that the 1st personal attack came from Mr. tiuissnumpon General ROYSSEAU, and not from Rousseau upon GRIXNELI.; and the columns of the congressioual Globe will bear me out in this state ment. Now, air, as I said, I do comment on the word “ debate, ” not, as I have repeated more than once, for the purpose of implying in any degree any limitation upon the power of this House to protect its members, but. that gentlemen shall not put this case upon the ground that “ freedom of debate, ” in its proper, ordinary, well understood sense, is in any manner brought in question in this case. Is it “ freedom of debate” for a member to rise in this House, no question whatever beiu before the body, and eliberately and wantonlg insult another member? If so, sir, I congress I have misapprehended the ordinary meaning of the word “debate.” I do not think that is the sense in which it is used by thoee who use language correct]. Nor do I think that.the term “freedom of debate” has an particular application to such a case. If “ reedom ” means simply “license, ” without limitation of rule, or law, or anything else, then this man did exercise freedom in the words he uttered. But in any proper sense of the term “ freedom of debate he can no more be covered by it than any man who, without. any ground whatever, simply rises here and attacks another member by abusive language in defiance of all rules. The SPEAKER of this House, in his ruling one upon this very case, recognized, and I doubt not very properly, the distinction which I here make. Vhen the language to which I have called attention was uttered by Mr. Guisunu. l for one sat here astonished beyond measure that a member of this House was permitted to pmced in the use of such language. I did not deem it my place to call him to order, for, inexperienced as l was in the usages of parlia mentary assemblies, I supposed, in my inno cence, that it was the duty of The SPEAKER to restrain such language. The SPEAKER himself, in afterward stating the line of action which be pursued and the reasons for it, stated that the precedents were the other way; that, by the ticc of the House, The SPEAKER not being invited to yield his consent to a personal explanation, and being the only member of the House who is not so invited, the rest of the House having granted the leave, it is, according to its e. for the rest of the House to reg ulate the ebate, not for The SPEAKER to interferein the 1st instance. If I had understood that rule which is nndoubtedl the correct one as stated by The SPEAKER if bad so under stood it. I most certainly would take to myself still greater shame and self abasement that I had set here iti my seat and been privy to permitting such a proceeding to go on here. To day, sir, I say fraiikiy, I look back with self abasement and self reproach to the part I took in this transaction in being a silent spectator of such a proceeding. Now. sir, the point to which I come isthis: that in the report made by the committee they have been guilty of what seems to me and I beg pardon for using the word guilty, perhaps I ought not to use it they have committed an error which strikes me as a most palpable one, especially when taken in connection with the remarks of the chairman of that committee on Saturday. This committee report that the as sault made by General Rousseau on Mr. Gun; SILL was intended for the purpose of disgrace ind insult, and not for the purpose of serious iaraonal injury. They report that it was pro:oked by the unparliamentary, improper, and untrue language of Mr. Git instant. hey re t port that the charge of cowardice and improper conduct as an officer which he made upon Gen' eral Rousseau was unfounded; that General RufSSIIL"S military record is unblemished. Then most singularly they fall out of the line oflbe argument they pursue, and in reference to which the chairman in his remarks claps the climax by saying, and I think most justly and properly, that it he had made such remarks upon this floor as were made by Mr. GRINNELL, he should have thought he ought to be expelled ham the body. Taking that line of facts re by the committee and that admission made by the chairman in his argument on Saturday, it seems to me a most extraordinary le that the majority of this committee have reported as the punishment of one of these insults the expulsion of the misdoing member from the ease, and as to the other insult which provoked the former, an insult I submit in the eyes of every right minded man quite as flagrant, a charge of cowardice against an officer, a charge of falsehood and false pretenseupon this floor against a member, as damn iqlian insult as a blow; for the 1st of these illllts equal in extent, prior in time, the proroker of the other. they say what? Not expulsion, not a reprimand at the bar of the House by The SPEAKER, not a censure, but the mild expression that such thin “ merit the disa proval of this House.” this most delicatey put. To call a gallant officer, an honorable utenber of this House, falsely, a coward, a int, a bra "art, upon this floor, to do it delib erately uii er color of vindicating his own perand reputation from as ersion, is conduct in the language of this resolution which “merits “disapproval of this House.” Sir, I cannot believe that the immense dislifction which was here taken between the in sult offered by GRINSELL to Rousseau and the insult offered by Rousseau to GRINNEIJ. duly received the attention and consideration of that committee. I cannot believe they intended to say here, we will for one gross and wanton insult, not only to a member of this House, but to the privileges of the House, indicate our disapproval, oursense that it merits the disapproval of the House, and will visit the other with the extremest punishment this House caninflict. The Gentfrom Massachusetts [Mr. BOUTWELI.] asked me a little while ago if I proposed to assert here that any person who considered himself insulted upon the floor of this House was at liberty to go out of the House and vindicate himself by an act of violence upon the offending party. I disclaimed in the eginnin any such argument. I disclaim it now. simply say, and I say by my resolution, when eat: an assault, such an in sult is committed upon the floor of this House and the member insulted fails to receive the protection of this House, and follows it with action not monstrously disreportioned to the aggravation received, I wilfnot say he is jusTT lied, but I will not discuss the question of jus tiiication. I contend that when this House has permitted one of its members thus to make an attack a on the character ofanother member, and has failed to protect the member assailed, I, for one, say that when he, in following up that insult, and avenging it as he may see fit, does not do it in such a way as to be grossly and monstrously disproportioned to the offense committed, it is a matter which the House should not inquire into. In this case, the fault originated with the party finally injured. He ought to have been dealt with by the House for his violation of its privileges. Whether General Rousseau was justified in his subsequent conduct I leave it to his own conscience to decide. But, sir, in my jud ment, whether the House shall adopt the amendment which I have offered or not, whether they shall deem that action on ht to be taken here such as will properl vin icate the rights of members or not, one ting is certain, and that is, that their action should not look to the punishment of Mr. Rousseau only. This House ought not to put itself in the position ofcondemning severe y the party who acted under great provocation and let off the party who gave that provocation with the mildest possible expiession of disapproval.