contrary, they are proverbially "plucky," and yet the House is never
disgraced by those shameful brawls which have given to our legislative
assemblies, state and national, so unenviable a reputation throughout
the civilized world. How does this happen? To Englishmen it does not
seem a very difficult matter to manage. If one member charges another
with ungentlemanly or criminal conduct, he must follow up his charge
and prove it,--in which case the culprit is no longer recognized as a
gentleman; or if he fails to make good his accusation, and neglects
to atone for his offence by ample and satisfactory apologies, he is
promptly "sent to Coventry" as a convicted calumniator. No matter how
high his social position may have been, whether nobleman or commoner,
he shall not escape the disgrace he has deserved. And to forfeit one's
standing among English gentlemen is a punishment hardly less severe
than to lose caste in India. In such a community, what need of duels to
vindicate wounded honor or establish a reputation for courage?

The members of the present House of Commons were elected in the spring
of 1859. Among their number are several men who, in point of capacity,
eloquence, and political experience, will compare not unfavorably with
the ablest statesmen whom England has known for generations. I
have thought that some description of their appearance and mental
characteristics might not be unacceptable to American readers. As the
best mode of accomplishing this object, I shall select an occasion,
which, from the importance of the question under discussion, the deep
interest which it awakened, and the ability with which it was treated,
certainly presented as favorable an opportunity as could ever occur to
form a correct opinion of the best speaking talent in the kingdom. The
debate to which I allude took place early in the month of July, 1860.

My name being fortunately on the first list for the Speaker's Gallery,