fiercely replied, 'You did, you did.' The public well know, which no member of the House of Commons should ever forget, that what a member in explanation states to have been his words and meaning, is, by the acknowledged rule of the House, to be so taken and admitted. We have here the first minister of the crown, in his place in parliament, violating one of its plainest and most undisputed rules, and doing this with a coarseness of manner at which sobor-minded Englishmen of all parties must feel shame. Sir Robert Peel, after his fierce and twice-repeated contradiction of Mr. Cobden, immediately says, "I will not over. state any thing; therefore I will not say that I am certain the honourable gentleman used the word personally. Why, then, if not certain,' why did he before, in such a tone of confidence, twice deny Mr. Cobden's disclaimer?"
Many persons thought that Mr. Cobden had no occasion to disclaim the use of the word "personal," even if he had used it. The responsibility of an administration is declared by the constitution, and as there can be no collective responsibility that is not shared individually, individual punishment, one way or other, must involve personal punishment. If the individual minister be beheaded, he personally suffers; if he be imprisoned, he personally suffers; if he be degraded, he personally suffers. There is an immense amount of {{smaller|sham in parliamentary language. If a member says that a minister is wicked and profligate, satisfaction is given by an explanation that the terms were applied to him not as a man but as a minister! Mr. Roe. buck, in the passing of the Income Tax, had denounced Sir Robert Peel in Language more personal and inflammatory than any which has been falsely attributed to Mr. Cobden. "The right honourable baronet," said he, "is the author and propounder of this measure. He sums up the whole cabinet in his person. The Conservatives withiout him are nothing. He is the party. Upon his head, if he passes it, the whole responsibility will rest with undivided,
