In the extracts published from the Northern papers of the 13th, yesterday, we gave some portions of the debate on the resolutions introduced by Speaker Colfax, for the expulsion of Mr. Long, of Ohio, for a speech favoring the recognition of the Southern Confederacy. We find on reading the debate, many points of interest which we give in a condensed form below:

Mr. James C Allen, (Iii,) expressed his surprise that the Speaker should descend from his chair and offer a resolution to expel the gentleman from Ohio for words uttered in debate. It was without a parallel in the history of the country. Although he (Mr. Aden) was against Secession, he thought the gentleman from Ohio had a right to express his sentiments.

Mr. Garfield, (Ohio,) in advocating the resolution, said the question of rights in human affairs is a relative question. What may have been said with propriety and loyalty three years ago could not be said to-day. He might vote against declaration of war, but when it was made he was bound to take part against the enemy. This country has committed itself to putting down the rebellion. The gentleman from Ohio, (Mr Long,) had said no more than Jefferson Davis would say, were he here.--There was open and avowed treason uttered yesterday which should be rebuked.

Er. Hartis, (Md.) endorsed every sentiment uttered by Mr. Long yesterday, and he would stand by the latter for weal or for woe. If there was any honesty in any party they would rise like a hurricane and sweep away those who are preying on the vitals of the Republic. He (Mr Harris) was not only in favor of recognizing the Southern Confederacy, but acquiesced in the doctrine of secession.

A scene of great excitement existed, owing to the words of Mr. Harris, and for that reason he was compelled to take his seat.

Mr. Fernando Wood, (N Y,) said the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Long) had declared in his written speech that he would prefer the recognition of the southern Confederacy as an alternative rather than the people of the South should be subjugated and exterminated, and he, (Mr Wood) endorsed this and they could expel him for it.

Mr. Mallory. (Ky,) though not agreeing with Mr. Long, regarded the proposition to expel him as extraordinary. He yielded the floor to.

Mr. Colfax, who, in order to see in printed form what Mr. Long really had uttered yesterday, moved that the further consideration of the subject be postponed till Monday. This was agreed to unanimously,

Mr Washburne. (Iii,) offered a resolution to expel Mr. Harris, of Maryland, for the utterance of treasonable sentiments.

Mr. Pendleton, (Ohio,) rose to a point of order, contending that the resolution could not be entertained.

Mr. Washburne replied, insisting that the rule had been specifically complied with.

The Speaker pro tem, declared that Mr Washburne's resolution was in order.

Mr. Washburne moved the previous question, which was seconded by the House.

Mr. Ancona, (Pa,) moved to lay Mr Washburne's resolution on the table. Not carried.

Mr. Washburne's resolution to expel Mr. Harris was not adopted — yeas 81, nays 58--a two-thirds vote being necessary for that purpose.

Mr. Schenck, (Ohio,) then offered a resolution declaring Mr Harris to be an unworthy member, and is hereby censured.

Mr Eldridge, (Tenn,) moved to lay the resolution on the table. Not agreed to — yeas 23, nays 80.

The resolution of censure against Mr Harris was passed by a vote of 93 against 18.

Mr. Bliss (Dem., Ohio) expressed the hope that the House would consider the resolution with deliberation and in cool blood. He thought the mover of the resolution had not sufficiently reflected on the import of the language for which it was proposed to expel his colleague. He did not understand that his colleague had expressed a desire for the success of the Confederate cause over the armies of the United States. He did not understand and his colleague to express any want of sympathy for the success of the Union; but he understood him simply to express the opinion he had formed by his own reflections, and he came to the conclusion that it would be better, as a choice of evils, to recognize the Confederacy than to pursue the war for the purpose of conquest and subjugation, with all the attendant evils. He did not concur with his colleague. If he believed his colleague had come into the House and maintained the cause of the public enemy, thus showing an absence of good faith to the Government, he would regard him as unworthy a seat in this House; but if his colleague had only erred in judgment, he was disposed to look upon him with that degree of charity which all human beings require should be extended to them. His colleague had uttered no novel opinions when he said he would prefer recognition to subjugation. He did not believe the House, in a moment of passion and paroxysm of anger should expel a member, or should put a tarnish on his character, because he entertained and expressed opinions with the usual freedom of debate because they did not comport with the better sense of the majority of this House.

Mr. Cox said that his colleague, (Long,) in his speech, now declared to be so obnoxious, based his argument on the doctrines of the gentleman from Pennsylvania, (Stevens,) in which the latter declared "the Southern States were independent now for the purpose of war and subjugation"

Mr. Stevens.--I understand now how perfectly easy it is for the devil to quote Scripture and pervert it. [Laughter and applause.] No man would do it who was not a fool or a knave, or both-- [Laughter.]

Mr. Fernando Wood (Dem., N. Y.) then proceeded to address the House. He said doubtless the country had viewed with profound regret the proceedings of the House last Saturday. It was humiliating to him, as a member of an American Congress, to witness this continued trifling from day to day, when the country was bleeding to death for want of the remedies which Congress alone could give. Our arms were apparently paralyzed in face of the enemy Our treasury was exhausted, and its receipts less than one tenth of the expenses. The laboring classes were borne down with oppressive taxation and inadequate compensation. Our tables here groan under a load of bills of various character, awaiting legislative action. And what are we doing? We are here opening Court for the trial and punishment of members for the exercise of rights of which God alone can deprive them. It is a disgrace to the age we live in, and should, as it no doubt will, meet the reprobation of an indignant people. Mr. Wood then spoke of the position of the Speaker of the House (Colfax) as undignified and unprecedented, saying that gentleman (Colfax) had descended from the chair, with all its exalted surroundings, to enter the gladiatorial arena of partisan combatants. The gentleman from Ohio (Long) is arraigned, for what? For the honest avowal of the opinions he entertained, and for which he was responsible to no other power or authority than those he represented in this House — his constituents. He (Long) had declared that in a certain contingency, which he stated, he would prefer recognition as between annihilation and recognition. He (Long) preferred the latter. Is it criminal so to declare? None of us are in favor of taking human life, and yet all of us are prepared to do so in self defence. When such an alternative is presented either of us would kill. This is an analogous case. The gentleman from Ohio (Long) declared substantially that he was in favor of recognition rather than to see every woman and child of the Southern States put to the sword. He (Wood) thought that every humane and Christian man in the land would endorse this sentiment thus presented; but the gentleman (Long) was arraigned because it was said that his speech gives "aid and comfort to the rebels," if this were so the other side of the House have no right to complain, the Republican party having been flooding the dame of the rebellion ever since its existence.--That party was conceived and brought forth in disunion and could not exist for forty-eight hours as a political organization but for this fell and wicked spirit. That English vagabond (Thompson) was sent to this country by the British Government thirty years ago to sow the seeds of dissolution, and he now comes back as the guest of his friends and fellow disunionist to witness the bloody harvest. John Quincy Adams and Joshua R. Ohidings presented petitions in the year 1842 in favor of a dissolution of the Union. Senator Hale, of New Hampshire, presented memorials to the Senate in favor of disunion, and Mr. Seward and Mr. Chase voted for their reception. The present secretary of the Treasury (Mr Chase) advocated a recognition of the Southern Confederacy, in the Cabinet, while the Confederates had only a Provisional Confederacy at Montgomery. Mr. Summer, and indeed the leaders of the party in power were and still are in favor of "eternal separation. "--How dare the leaders of the Republican party in this House, then, arraign a member for doing that which they have been doing all their political lives?

Mr. Ashley (Un., Ohio) asked whether Mr. Chase had in any official act expressed himself in favor of recognizing the Southern Confederacy.

Mr. Cox replied to this by shying, on the 19th of April, 1861, the Mayor of Baltimore, in a speech, said that Secretary Chase told him so.

[Exclamation on the Republican side of "Oh! oh!" and laughter.]

Mr. Ashley--I deny it for Secretary Chase.

Mr Cox--You should not deny anything without knowing what it is. The Mayor represented Mr. Chase as saying he opposed the right of secession, but when the South became an independent and powerful State out of the Union, he was for telling them go in peace.

Mr Ashley--I deny it now.

Mr Cox--What authority have you?

Mr Ashley answered his knowledge of the character of the man, and an acquaintance with his views.

Mr Cox--If you judge by the character of the man, I say you are not authorized to deny for anybody.

[Colis to order.]

Fernando Wood resumed, saying that the Secretary of the Treasury would not deny the fact, and he was surprised that any denial of it would be made here. He pursued his remarks at some length, and caused to be read from a campaign document views attributed to leading Republicans in favor of a dissolution of the Union.

Mr Spaulding's (Un, Ohio) name being mentioned in connection with others that gentleman denounced the statement attributed to him as false, come from what quarter it might.

Mr. Wood said he was not in favor of recognition, but advocated the sending of Commissioners to Richmond, believing this would open the way to peace on the basis of the old Union. War, he contended, cannot restore the Union. The Democratic party cannot be a war party. There could not be such a thing as War Democrats, because war tended to the destruction of the Union and the Constitution. If the war was to be continued, let it be carried on by the Republican party.

Mr. Schenck (Un, Ohio) remarked that the gentleman from New York said he was no disunionist, and dissented from the views of Mr. Harris, while at the same time he dissented from the views of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr Long) The gentleman said he would send Commissioners to Richmond, and ask to treat for peace. How many others agreed with the gentleman he did not know. But he knew that the rebels had treated all such propositions with scorn. They must not come in that shape between the wind and their nobility — Those who thus advocate peace would crawl on their beliefs and lick the feet of the rebels to see whether they would not make terms. He did not belong to any such school as that. He was for having no conference with rebels in arms. He was in favor of no treaty.

Mr. Voorhees (Dem, lad) said that the gentleman from Ohio (Long) was sent here to utter his views, and was responsible to his constituents for what he said. The gentleman from Ohio (Schenck) would have been among the men who burned John Rogers at the stake and piled the fagots around the victim at Smithfield. The gentleman (Schenck) knew that he (Long) spoke the truth. The gentleman (Schenck) would have been among the mob who cried out for the crucifixion of our saviour on the bills of Judea. He (Voorhees) indorsed the right of the gentleman from Ohio (Long) to express his opinions fearlessly and honestly. The man who would not express his opinion, or feared to do so was a coward, and deserved to be a slave. He (Voorhees) liked New England; if for nothing else, for the production of Daniel Webster, the great defender of the Constitution. When Gen. Jackson entered his protest against the proceedings of the Senate the blood of the hold and eloquent lover of liberty (Webster) took fire; and when our rights were jeoparded, his voice went up louder than ever before heard. Webster then said: "When this and the other House lose the freedom of speech and of debate, and confess to all the important measures of the Executive, and are not allowed to maintain their own authority by vote, declaration, or resolution, then we would be no longer the Representatives of free people, and would be fit instruments to be made the slaves of others" He (Vorhees) adopted these words, and would stand by them in behalf of the Union, and in behalf of every man in this House. Mr. Voorhees then proceeded to discuss the question before the House, holding that the rules of the House were sufficient to protect its decorum and the personal relations of gentlemen. Enforce, then, the rules of the House. A man has a right to express his public sentiments in a proper manner. This was all that the gentleman from Ohio (Long) had done. He had listened to the remarks of Mr. Schenck about "Copperheads," and "sneaking out of their holes" Such language as he (Schenck) used would better become the bar room of some political gathering, where he (Voorhees) should judge from the remarks of the gentleman (Schenck) he would be more at home than in the society of gentlemen. His colleague (Colfax) had placed himself in the position of a public accuser, and in this connection Mr. Voorhees spoke of his colleague (Colfax) having recommended the "Helper Book," incited to mobs and riots and led to invasion and massacre. Yet his colleague (Colfax) with his benevolent countenance, could not endure the remarks of the gentleman from Ohio (Long) Mr. Voorhees then referred to the fact that in the year 1847 Mr. Schenck advocated the withdrawing of our troops from Mexico, while his colleague in the Senate, (Corwin,) acting in the same spirit, said that "were he a Mexican he would welcome our troops with bloody hands to hospitable graves." Were the Mexicans — mongrel, miscegenated people — any better than Southern men? He (Voorhees) made a further response to Mr Schenck, and concluded by saying that he (Voorhees) represented a district as loyal as that of the Speaker of this House (Colfax) He (Voorhees) came from a "Copperhead" district, in the eloquent language of the gentleman from Ohio (Schenck) but he supposed that he (Schenck) said so because he (Voorhees) stood by the Constitution by which the Union must be restored. He (Voorhees) maintained in behalf of liberty that the Representatives of the whole people should have the right to speak of their rights and wrongs.

Mr. Schenck briefly replied to the personal part of Mr. Voorhees's remarks. He (Schenck) never thought the Mexican war ought to be commenced, or that there was cause for it; but, being in it, he thought we ought to fight it through, and therefore he always voted for men and money. It was only a difference of opinion as to conducting that war.

Mr. Orth (Un., Ind.) commenced a speech, but at 5½ gave way for a recess until 7 o'clock.

At 7 o'clock Mr. Orth resumed his remarks, saying the issue was made in the Indiana campaign of 1862. His Democratic colleagues, in and out of the Convention, claimed that they were for a more vigorous prosecution of the war than the Republicans. But on the vote to expel the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Harris,) these gentlemen were found on the opposite side. If old Gen. Jackson had been in power, instead of being censured merely, the traitor would have been in the Old Capitol Prison. [Applause]

Mr. Pendleton (Dem., Ohio) raised the question that calling the gentleman from Maryland traitor was unparliamentary language.

Mr. Harris, to Mr. Orth--You are a liar !

Mr. Orth replied that the vile aabbering of one convicted of treason fell silent at his feet. He atluded briefly to his colleague, (Mr Voorhees,) and confessed with sorrow that his colleague was sustained by his constituents, and in conclusion said he was for continuing the war until the supremacy of the Constitution and the laws was extended over every inch of American soil.

Mr. Whaley (Un, W Va) controverted the truth of the remarks of Mr Fernando Wood that there were no War Democrats. On the contrary, thousands of Democrats — Jackson and Douglas Democrats — had taken the field in his new State. If the gentleman from New York was to be the leader of the Democratic party, let his friends make their speeches accordingly. Let us fight the traitors, North and South, in and out of this hall. Let us not lay down our arms until the Star Spangled Banner shall everywhere be unburied and respected throughout our land.

Mr. Dumont, (Un Ind,) in the course of his remarks in support of the resolution for expulsion, said when Mr. Long wanted to win a warm place in the heart and affections of Fernando Wood, the only way was really to show that he was a traitor.

Mr. Amos Myers (Pa.) said, in his experience as a lawyer, he had never before seen a man come into court and express his guilt. All the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Long) had to do to show himself a full rebel was to present his revolver. They had not to wait for him to go into the rebel army before they excluded him from this hall. The soldiers would take him by the neck and beels and throw him out of camp for declaring such sentitaents in their presence. M. Myers then alluded to the speech of Mr. Long, examining into the motives of the gentleman, maintaining that he had the heart of a traitor, and had made use of language similar to that of others previous to openly going into rebellion. He should vote for the expulsion of the gentleman from Ohio for the reason that he believed from the member's own declaration that he preferred the recognition of the Southern Confederacy to the Subjugation of the South.

A conversation then took place between several members concerning the time at which the debates shall be closed.

Mr. Colfax said he was willing to close the debate to-night, and not to call the question on the resolution till early Thursday afternoon.

Mr. Fenton was anxious the debate should be closed to night, that the House may proceed with the consideration of business, including that relating to taxes and finances, especially in view of the fact that gold is now rising rapidly in the market owing to our present monetary condition.

Mr. Eldridge (Wis,) said this resolution was wrongfully brought hare. The only object could be to stir up strife and ill feeling at a time when we ought not only to have good fellowship and kind feeling, but a union of sentiment. Referring to the constitutional provisions, he denied the right and power of the House to expel the gentleman from Ohio under the resolution. They could not expel him for his opinion's sake. The Constitution submitted no such question. A man could not be expelled for his opinion, but for his acts. He disagreed with the gentleman from Ohio and also the gentleman from Maryland, (Mr. Harris.)

He had not come to the conclusion that Secession is a fixed and unalterable fact, and the alternatives mentioned by the gentleman from Ohio had not yet been presented to the country. It is possible, however, that they may be. He referred to the New York Times, which says Speaker Colfax's seal has outrun his discretion, and that his resolution is neither right nor expedient; also, to the Evening Post which says that Long's speech was a perfectly legitimate expression. If the war was conducted on a proper policy the seceded States may be brought back; but carry it on for subjugation, and you never can accomplish your purpose. You accuse the Democrats of sympathizing with the rebels, but you do not believe it. The charge is made for a wicked and party purpose. He said the Republicans are a revolutionary party in opinions and practice, for in overthrowing the Constitution they overthrow the Union.

The following are notes from the Yankee reporters in the gallery:

An intense interest over the resolution to expel Long still continues. The galleries have been densely crowded since eleven A. M. Eldridge opened the discussion by a very weak speech in defence of Long. Pendleton and Carriagton sought in vain to find some excuse by which his language could be brought within parliamentary rules. Clay Smith, of Kentucky, Amos Myers, Broomall, Grinnell, Spaniding and Winfield, all have ably supported the resolution.

Clay Smith, in his strictures upon the Democratic party leaders in their course here, aroused "Sunset" Cox, who in several passages was so roughly handled by Smith that the Speaker could with difficulty restrain the galleries and members from applauding.

Broomall made some strong points upon the power and necessity of expelling Long. Myers and Grinnall were unusually eloquent in denouncing Long, his language, his sympathies, and his general conduct.

Grinnell taunted Harris, of Maryland, until he could hardly sit still in his seat. He referred to the promptness with which an Abolitionist (J. R. Olddings) resigned when he was coinsured by the House for introducing the resolution upon slavery. But the chivalric son of Maryland sat still in his seat, having boasted that he was a slaveholder; but he thanked God that he was the last one left withering alone. Harris talked loudly to some of his colleagues, but essayed no answer.

Long sits quietly in his seat, and listens carefully to all the speeches. Occasionally some of the Democrats go over to consult him, but he seldom moves. Pruyn and Rogers are both calculating to speak against the resolution. Speaker Colfax has a speech to make in support of his resolution and Long is to be accorded the closing speech. It is the present intention to get a vote on it to-night, but it will be late if a vote is reached at all.

It appears that the Yankees are again slowly following up Longstreet, under the impression that he is about to leave East Tennessee. A letter from Knoxville, dated the 2d inst., says:

There has arrived in Baltimore a refugee from Richmond, Mrs. Lucy A. Rice. Mrs. Rice, says the Yankee papers, despite the "tyranny that reigns at Richmond, has a ways preserved her loyalty to the Union, and evinced a warm sympathy for the sufferings of the Federal officers and men who have been imprisoned in Richmond. Her house was for nine days the hiding place and refuge of Col. Streight, Major B. B. McDonald, and another officer, after they escaped from Libby Prison, and were awaiting an opportunity to get out of the city" Mrs Rice has reached the Yankee lines in a destitute condition. She has been forced "to abandon all she possessed in Richmond."

From the report of the Secretary of the Treasury, in answer to a resolution of the Senate relative to the number of Commissioners and the amount of money received under the law to collect direct taxes in the insurrectionary districts, it appears that there were five Commissioners in the District of Florida, and tour in each of the Districts of South Carolina, Virginia, and Tennessee, at the salary of $3,000 each; two Clerks in Florida, and one in each of the other Districts, at $1,200 each. In South Carolina 103,674 acres of land were sold for $27,399; in Virginia 6,400 acres were sold for $110,407; in Florida 124 acres for $16,000; in Tennessee lands were sold for $52,500. The expenses in the District of South Carolina are $15,805; Florida, $14,460; in Virginia, $6,061; in Tennessee, $7,122.

Senator Doolittle, of Wisconsin, has presented a petition of Mr. Collins and others for authority to construct a telegraph line to connect with Russia via Behring's Straits. Reliable parties say that the line can be put in operation in eighteen months.

Wm. D. Ticknor, the senior partner of the well known Boston publishing firm of Ticknor & Field, died at the Continental Hotel, in Philadelphia last Tuesday. Mr. Ticknor meditated a trip to Havana for the benefit of his health, and he had reached that for on his journey.

The War Department is about to weed out the unemployed Generals, with a view to reducing the number by thirty or forty, and thereby making room for the promotion of really meritorious officers.

Lincoln has commuted to imprisonment in Fort Delaware during the war, John W. Scott and Simon J'Kemp, Baltimoreans, and Pierre C. Dagan, condemned to be hung as rebel spies.

The Baltimore Gazettes, of the 14th, was received Saturday. Gold opened at the First Board, New York Exchange, on the 13th, at 175½. The quotation at the Second Board was 177¼, and at 4 o'clock 178½. A telegram from New York says; "Gold closed at one hundred and seventy nine!" The following is a summary of the general news:

The Army of the Potomac is actively preparing for the new campaign. Brig. Gen. Torbett has been assigned to the command of the First Division Cavalry Corps, and Gen. Wilson is to relieve Gen. Gregg in command of the Second Division of Cavalry. All mounted men on duty at brigade and division headquarters have been sent back to their respective regiments. Scouts report that Long street, with the greater part of his army, has reached Richmond.

It is reported, on what is said to be good authority, that all the officers in the army of Gen. Lee were ordered to send their baggage to Richmond before the 16th inst., as the road would be needed after that date to bring up reinforcements.

Dispatches from Cairo, 12th, state that Forrast, with a large force, was again advancing from May field on Paducah, and that Federal troops had been seat from Cairo to meet him. The pickets at Columbus were driven in on the 11th.

A Yankee scouting party was surprised by guerrillas on the 7th inst, fifty miles below New Madrid. A lieutenant and sergeant were killed, and nine others wounded. All who could escape ran to the river, and calling the steamer Darling got on board and returned to New Madrid.

The negotiations between the Emperor of Austria and the Archduke Maximilian in regard to the succession to the Austrian throne are said to have terminated successfully. The confederate steamer Georgia was at Garoune, rapidly refitting for sea. It is reported that during her recent voyage she captured and burned, in the Bay of Biscay, the ship William Crampton, of New York.

A New York paper of the 12th, P M. Says: The volume of currency has been largely increased of late, but the rise in all commodities has been so much greater that the increase in the supply does not keep pace with the demand. The rise in gold and sterling has put prices up sharply — Flour 30@40 cts per bbl; Wheat 5 cts. A monder speculalion has been commenced in breatstuffs, extending through out the West sterling bills sold to day at 192, the highest rates yet paid.