Mr. HALE. Mr. Speaker, it is an ungrucious task, with the mercury at 90 degrees and upwards, in such a House as this, to attempt to secure the attention of this body or to occu y much of its time. this with no little hesitation that I have risen to advocate my view of this question, which differs from that of the entire committee with the more hesitation from the high standing and character of that committee which commend it to every member of this house. But entertaining the views which I do, I cannot do otherwise than attempt to the best of my ability to vindicate briefly those views. I do not propose to differ with the finding of the committee as to the facts. Nor do I dtffer with the committee in its conclusions as to the power of this House to vindicate its own privileges to the widest and fullest. extent. I trust. that I shall not be found regardless of the high privileges of this House. I trust I shall not lie found to undervalue the importance of the fullest protection to the personal privileges of members of this House. It is, sir, because I esteem those privileges highly, because I would prevent this case from becoming a scene of disorder and violence, because I would protect its members not. only from violence but from insult, that I have offered the amendatory resolution, now pending, which I now rise to advocate. As to the eculiur form of the resolution, or the precise s ape in which the conclusions of this House may find expression, I am not strenuous. That to which I object and against which my remarks will be directed is what. seems to me an unjust and improper discrimination in the case before this House against one who acted under provocation against the man who, I believe has been “ sinnea against” certainly not less t tan “shining.” The chairman of the select committee, in discussinw this question on Saturday, anticipated various lines of nrgument that might be used against the propositions of the committee; questions as to the power of Congress questions as to its power in different directions. None of those lines of argument. which he then I call for the regular order anticipated and met do I prose to follow. I admit in its fullest extent t a power of this House to punish any and every person for a breach of the privileges of its members. I admit that this power extends as well to the I protection of their persons and characters out side the walls of this Hallas inside. i admit that there can scarcely be found a limit to the wer which this House may exercise for the full protection of personal freedom from violence and freedom from insult. I put this case simply upon its peculiar facts; and I shall argue that, simply as a question of propriety. as a question of desert, we ought not to adopt the propositions either of the majority or the minority of the committee. 1st in order, I propose to consider the character of the assault committed by Mr. ROUSSEAI' upon Mr. GRINNELL; and I suppose that in a case involving directly the action of the Ilouse upon those persons it is proper I should speak of the in by name, instead of des ignating them in the usual manner, by the States which they represent. If I am right in this I shall continue to speak of these parties by their names. The assault committed by General ROUSSEAU upon Mr. Gsixssu is admitted by the committee and shown by the whole evidence to have been an assault rather for purposes of insult and disgrace than for the purpose of perpetra ting personal injury. The committee report this fact expressly. It does not, as has been charged outside of this House and in the public prints. partake in any degree of the character of brutality in the sense of personal injury intended. I mention this, not. as claiming that thereby it is any the less the subject of the protection of this House by animadvcrsion or punishment to be inflicted upon the party of fending: but I simply desire to trace in connection the whole case and consider what ought to be done and not what may be done. And right here permit me to refer to a single branch of the report of the committee upon the facts, which I regret to find is not quite so full and explicit as the facts in the case would warrant and failing in this respect to present the circumstances as they were admitted in the argument of the chairman of the committee on last Saturday. The committee, in their report, refer to the fact that 3 men were present armed; and they used this language: " 3 persons were present as friends of Mr. Rousseau: the 1st. on account of information re ccired from Mr. Rousseau that a personal assault was possible.ifiiot probable: the 2nd, on account efa suggestion or cull from the 1st; and the 3rd followed