A Joint Rule, moved by Mr. Wade, of Ohio, to facilitate secret sessions, contained a restriction on debate, which was afterwards struck out on his own motion. Mr. Sumner united with others against this restriction, and some of his remarks are preserved here as a record of opinion. January 27th, he said:-- I am glad the Senator has modified his rule, so far as it bears on the length of speeches. He thinks a speech of five minutes long enough. If all had the happy faculty of my distinguished friend, who so easily speaks to the point, I doubt not it would be long enough; but we must take Senators as they are, according to our experience, and allow for their ways. Besides, such a rule would be a departure from the constant policy of the Senate. The Joint Rule was much discussed, and underwent various modifications, some on motion of Mr. Sumner. January 29th, a substitute was moved by Mr. Sherman, of Ohio, and subsequently adopted, which contained the restriction on debate abandoned by his colleague, as follows:-- “If decided in the affirmative, debate shall be confined to the subject-matter, and be limited to five minutes by any member. _Provided_, That any member shall be allowed five minutes to explain or oppose any pertinent amendment.” This led Mr. Sumner to speak again. I must confess that I hesitate to place among Rules of the Senate a limitation of debate to five minutes,--not that I desire in our conversations on business to exceed that allowance. Personally I am content with what pleases my associates; but I doubt the expediency of such a rule, which thus far is a stranger among us. Limitations of debate in various forms play a large part in the other Chamber. Shall they begin here, even in the small way proposed? A five minutes’ rule is not the previous question, with its death-dealing _garrote_, but it is a limitation of debate, and the Senate has from the beginning set itself against any such restriction, insisting always upon the largest latitude and amplest opportunity. If there were any obvious good to be accomplished by such a rule, if there were any exigency seeming to require the sacrifice, I should welcome it; but I put it to Senators, whether experience in Executive Session does not show that it is unnecessary. I cannot doubt that the very business contemplated by the rule would be discussed directly, plainly, briefly, according to the essential nature of the question, even without any restriction. But, if unnecessary, why make a change which will look so ill that it were better to bear inconvenience rather than have such a deformity? It is enough, if on a critical occasion we are able to close our doors, leaving the great privilege of debate unchecked, to be employed as sword or buckler, according to the promptings of patriotism and the conscience of Senators. INDUSTRIAL EXHIBITION AT LONDON.