1846.] Sir Robert Peel's Administration. 335 first sight it appeared that the amendment would only cause a general reduction, leaving the amount of colonial protection the same. Cobden and the shrewder free-traders saw that this was a delusive promise, and that practically there would be an increase of protection. The free-traders, however, were divided, and Russell and the Whigs, seeing an opportunity of injuring the Government, went with the protectionists, and the result was a division which took place on the I4th of June, when there were for the Government plan, 221 ; against it, 241, leaving ministers in a minority of twenty. This vote also, like that on the ten-hours resolution, the Cabinet refused to accept as final, and they demanded a reversion of it as a proof of the confidence of the House. On the i;th Peel himself stated the course which his Government intended to pursue. This was practically to reintroduce their proposal, and stake the existence of the Ministry upon its acceptance. It was not only that they objected to the nature of the amendment itself, but the conditions under which it had been passed would leave the Government powerless in the future. The House, then, had either to rescind its resolution or accept the resignation of the Ministry. This was a strong policy to proclaim. It was extremely unpalatable to the ultra-protectionists, and they resisted it as an attack upon the independence of the House. They found their most effective mouthpiece in Disraeli, who on this occasion made the first of those attacks upon the Minister which formed the foundation of his own importance to the party. Russell also protested, but all in vain, for on a division there appeared for the Government, 255 ; against them, 233, giving what was, under the circumstances, a very substantial majority. It was plain, however, that the protectionists ceased to place their trust in the Ministry, and this was the most instructive part of the whole trans- action. The session was made memorable by the debates which arose in both Houses on the subject of the inviolability of letters sent for transmission through the post. On the I4th
