The distinction taken by Dr. Arnold between what was _illegal_ and what was merely _irregular_, was little marked at Athens: both were called _illegal_, τοὺς νόμους λύειν. The rules which the Athenian assembly, a sovereign assembly, laid down for its own debates and decisions, were just as much _laws_ as those which it passed for the guidance of private citizens. The English House of Commons is not a sovereign assembly, but only a portion of the sovereign power: accordingly, the rules which it lays down for its debates are not _laws_, but orders of the House: a breach of these orders, therefore, in debating any particular subject, would not be illegal, but merely irregular or informal. The same was the case with the French Chamber of Deputies, prior to the revolution of February, 1848: the rules which it laid down for its own proceedings were not laws, but simply _le réglement de la Chambre_. It is remarkable that the present National Assembly now sitting (March, 1849) has retained this expression, and adopted a _réglement_ for its own business; though it is in point of fact a sovereign assembly, and the rules which it sanctions are, properly speaking, _laws_. Both in this case, and in the Mitylenæan debate, I think the Athenian prytanis committed an illegality. In the first case, every one is glad of the illegality, because it proved the salvation of so many Mitylenæan lives. In the second case, the illegality was productive of practical bad consequences, inasmuch as it seems to have brought about the immense extension of the scale upon which the expedition was projected. But there will occur in a few years a third incident, the condemnation of the six generals after the battle of Arginusæ, in which the prodigious importance of a strict observance of forms will appear painfully and conspicuously manifest.