proposal and the amendments;
but no such expedient was practicable in this case, that of the
sugar-duties. A defeat on an important clause in the Budget by a
majority of twenty was a far more serious matter; it was such a blow as
had generally been reckoned sufficient to require a resignation of a
ministry. But on this occasion Peel did not feel himself called on to
take that step; nor was he inclined to dissolve Parliament, which some
regarded as his only legitimate alternative, though he had little doubt
that, if he did so, he should be supported by the confidence of the
country. After careful reflection, the course on which he eventually
decided was to adhere to the principle of a relaxation of duties, but to
consent to a moderate variation from his original proposal as to the
amount. And in pursuit of this plan, on the next discussion of the
Budget, he proposed an amendment to that effect, making the adoption of
it by the House a test of its confidence in the administration. Lord
John Russell opposed the amendment with great vehemence, pronouncing the
acceptance of it, if it should be accepted, and the House should thus
consent "to retract its previous vote, a lamentable proof of
subserviency, which would disgrace it with the country." What Sir Robert
now asked was, substantially, that they should now declare that to be
expedient which they had declared to be inexpedient only three nights
ago; and Lord Palmerston insisted that the proper course to be taken by
the government was to resign; while Mr. Labouchere, who had also been a
member of Lord Melbourne's cabinet,[267] though he admitted that there
might be "circumstances under which a minister might without impropriety
ask the House to reconsider a vote," denied that the present was such a
case, and especially denounced the importation of the question of
confidence or no confidence in the ministry into the discussion as
"dangerous and unconstitutional." Another section of the Opposition
agreed in taking the same line; Mr. Disraeli (then beginning to lay the
foundations of his reputation and influence) strongly denouncing the
conduct of the minister, as degrading both to his own supporters and
still more to the whole House, and recommending him to say frankly to
both, "We have gauged your independence, and you may have a semblance of
parliamentary freedom as far as this point, but the moment you go
farther, you must either submit to public disgrace, or we must submit