Mr. GRINNELL. I have nothing further to say." In trying thus to defend himself, and re oi the assault made upon him he committe a most grave mistake for himself as an individual, and a most grave and unardonnble violation of the privileges of the Housc. In short, the Gentfrom Iowa put himself precisely on the same plane with his assailant; and by mu tual criminations and recriminations they both violated the rules and privileges of the House. Now, I will so that do not accept the statement made a ozen times on the floor of the House, that the Gentfrom Iowa charged the Gentfrom Kentucky with cowardice. I do not so read the record. I affirm that he did not charge him with cowardicet I admit that the whole tone and temper of his rein rks were in contempt of the military recor of General Rousseau, and in the highest degree offensive to him as a man of honor and of military re utation but I deny that he charged him with cowar ice. And now, Mr. Speaker, I come to a point to which I desire for a moment the attention of the House a pomt which has been made by 4 or 5 gentleman who have spoken on this question namely, the suggestion that General ROUSSEAU’S offense is pulliiited by the fact that the House did not protectdnm, and therefore he was left to do as he said he would do, protect himself. I meet that by denyin the alletion; I meet it by the state mentt at the House did protect him, that it gave him all the protection he or his friends asked for, and more than they asked for. In introducing this question of protection I desire to say a word concerning the action of The SPEAKER on that occasion. His course has been criticised by several gentlemen here; and I was surprised to hear my colleague, the chair man of the select committee, [Mr. SPALDING] express his dissatisfaction with the course of The SPEAKER on that occasion. His remarks are reported in the Globe as follows: “ In reply to the gentleman I say, that if I could find inyselfin a moodwhich would enableme, after the history of the Gentfrom Kent iickyin connection with the Army. to char 0 him Witheoward ice or anything like cowardice. would decuimyself worthy to be expelled from this House. I trust the gentleman is satisfied with in answer. “Sir, with all due respect. go further and I say that this House looks at all times to its Presidiizig officerto exercise a vigilant controlover its rocccings. It dependsuponhis knowledge of par inment ary law. his experience.his discretion, hisiudicious use of that potent hammer which he holds in highand. At this 1st word uttered by any memberin disparagement of a fellow mcmber. that gavelshould soundits reproof, and the member should be called to order. Of this I haveno inanner of doubt: and I say it with all due respect. I state this. although I know The SPEAKER has stated it is not the practiecof the Chair to call to order when gentlemen have the privileve of the House to make orsonal explanations. “I conceive it will be foun to be correct parliamentnry law that members of the House a all times are under the authority of The SPEAKER and that it is his bounden duty to seethat the utmost courtesy prevails among members. If that be not the purliumenLary law, then we should take some action to make it so." Now, sir, I desire to say that the course of The SPEAKER in matters of personal explanation is, in my judgment, the correct one, and the only one which, under the spirit and genius of our Government, can be or ought to be tol erated. In other Governments, as in France, for instance, The SPEAKER is, in some degree, the organ of the administration. He is understood to be not only a conservator of order generally, but particularly a defender of the administration; and whencver any gentleman upon the floor of the Corps Legwlat z fsays anything that reflects upon the sovereign or upon an of the heads 0 depts The SPEAKER ca ls him down, and thus limits debate by his own notions of propriety. I ask the Clerk to read an extract I have cut from a paper, containing an account of what occurred in the French Legislature not many weeks ago, for the purpose of illustrating the difference be tWccu our practice and theirs.