The colleague alluded to was a Mr. Vallandigham, of Ohio, the leader of the small, democratic, forlorn hope in the lower House, who had lately presided at a meeting, the object of which was to reconstitute the party. This gentleman not unnaturally resented the imputation, and two or three days after, the following scene occurred in the House of Representatives :

"Mr. Vallandigham (after quoting the above passage): I am here in my place in this House, and as a representative, I denounce, and I speak it advisably, the author of that speech as a liar, a scoundrel, and a coward.

Mr. Blake (Ohio) wished to note a personal explanation in reply to Mr. Vallandigham. He understood the latter to say that the remarks quoted were not made in the Senate, and therefore his colleague had denounced Senator Wade as a liar, scoundrel, and coward,' under false pretence.

Mr. Vallandigham asked that the words be taken down by the clerk.

Mr. Blake would modify his language to the following effect:-'His colleague uttered his remarks under a false declaration, that they were not made with reference to a member of Congress.'

Mr. Vallandigham asked that that language should be taken down by the clerk.

Mr. Blake wanted Mr. Vallandigham's words taken down, with a view to subsequent action. Both his col

league and Senator Wade were well known in Ohio, and where the latter was known his character needed no defence from the remark of his colleague.

Mr. Vallandigham replied that he, too, was well known in Ohio, and referred to the fact, that the verdict of the city in which he lived was recently returned in his favour by a change of vote, since last October, of 640. He was ready to meet his colleague elsewhere or anywhere.

Mr. Blake wished to know what he meant by elsewhere? This was the place to settle disputes; he knew of no other.

Mr. Vallandigham replied: In the district of Columbia, Ohio, anywhere outside of this House. He had read from a printed speech a foul and infamous libel on his character. He did not mention Wade as a senator, but as an individual. He had been branded for years past, and he threw himself back firmly and decidedly on his rights. When Wade recalled his words, then he (Vallandigham) would take back his.

Mr. Blake replied: He felt that Ohio was shamefully insulted by his colleague's remarks, and further, he believed three-fourths of the people of that State would speak of Vallandigham as Mr. Wade had.

Mr. Hutchins (Republican, of Ohio), offered a resolution, setting forth the offensive language used by Mr. Vallandigham of Mr. Wade, characterizing it as a violation of the rules, and a breach of the decorum of the

House, and concluding by declaring Clement L. Vallandigham is deserving of, and is hereby censured by, the House.

Mr. Sheffield (Democrat, of Rhode Island,) moved that the House adjourn, as the attendance was thin. Pending the resolution, the House adjourned."

Nothing came of the matter, either here or elsewhere. Mr. Blake and Mr. Vallandigham, when the night's reflection had brought coolness to their heated blood, confessed that their language had been over hasty, and that they had only called each other liars in a parliamentary sense, and there the quarrel ended.

About the same time there was another personal quarrel on a point of order. No speaker in the House of Representatives is allowed to speak more than an hour, unless the House consent unanimously to an extension of the time. The objection, therefore, of any one member is sufficient to veto the extension. It is needless to say that in the middle of an impassioned harangue it is provoking to be pulled short up by the striking of the clock; and, as a rule, members are allowed to finish their speeches. On an occasion when Mr. Roscoe Conkling, of New York, was speaking on the Tax Bill, a dispute of this kind arose, of which I quote the printed report :

"Mr. Conkling asked the Speaker what time remained to him?

The Speaker replied, eighteen minutes.

Mr. Dawes, (Republican, of Massachusetts): The time will be extended to the gentleman.

Mr. Washburne, (Republican, of Illinois): I object to that.

Mr. Conkling: I knew that. And do you know how I knew it? Because the member for Illinois is the only man in this House surly enough to interpose objections in such a case.

Mr. Washburne rose to reply, when Mr. Ashley called the member to order.

Mr. Washburne, (excitedly): I call the creature to order.

The Speaker demanded the preservation of order.

Mr. Conkling: The member from Illinois understands the rules of the House, and must understand that this is not the place for personal altercation. He knows the proper place for that is outside these walls. Mr. Washburne, (excitedly): Yes, sir, and I am ready for it.

Mr. Conkling: No individual in this House better knows than the member from Illinois that I stand by what I say, until I am convinced that I am in error; and, therefore, there is no necessity for any interruption here."

This affair also ended in smoke, moral, not actual. The above were the two most glaring specimens of brawls in Congress while I was there; and it would not be difficult to match them by incidents which have

occurred not so long ago in our own Parliament. The fact is, and it is worth noting, that the rowdy element disappeared from Congress with the secession of the slaveholding Democrats.

So much of the House of Representatives. The Senate is more interesting to a stranger, from the simple fact that you can hear and follow readily what is going on, which you cannot do in the Lower House. In shape and arrangement, the building is the counterpart of the representative chamber, only smaller. With so scant a number of members at its fullest-diminished as it is now by the absence of the seceding senators— and with the widely-parted rows of arm-chairs, fronted by the small mahogany tables, the aspect of the Senate is not a lively one. It seems impossible that with such an audience any actor could work himself into a passion; and the whole look of the scene is so very staid and decorous, that it is hard to realize the stormy, passionate discussions which have taken place within these walls; harder still to imagine that bludgeons and fire-arms could ever have been wielded amongst men so sober and respectable-looking.

To me it was a surprise to learn how very much of the business of both Houses is conducted secretly. On all executive questions, that is, on questions of the appointment or dismissal of public officials, &c., the discussions are held with closed doors. Then too the real business of both Houses of a deliberative character is