whom the Free Traders could expect substantial assistance. Sir Robert
Peel had, in fact, in those later years expressed again and again his
conviction as to the general truth of the principles of free trade. "All
agree," he said in 1842, "in the general rule that we should buy in the
cheapest and sell in the dearest market." But he contended that while
such was the general rule, yet various economical and social conditions
made it necessary that there should be some distinct exceptions, and he
regarded the corn laws and sugar duties as such exceptions. It may be
mentioned, perhaps, that the corn laws had, in fact, been treated as a
necessary exception by many of the leading exponents of the principles
of free trade. Thus we have to notice the curious fact that while Sir
Robert Peel's own party looked upon his accession to power as a certain
guarantee against any concession to the Free Traders, the Free Traders
themselves were, for the most part, convinced that their cause had
better hope from him than from a Whig Ministry.

The Free Traders went on debating and dividing in the House, agitating
and lecturing all over the country, for some years without any marked
Parliamentary success following their endeavors. An immense and
overwhelming majority always voted against them in the House of Commons.
They were making progress, and very great progress, but it was not that
kind of advance which had yet come to be decided by a Parliamentary
vote. Probably a keen and experienced eye might have noted clearly
enough the progress they were making. The Whig party were coming more
and more round to the principles of free trade. Day after day some Whig
leader was admitting that the theories of the past would not do for the
present, and, as we have said, the Tory leader had himself gone so far
as to admit the justice of the general principles of free trade. At one
point the main difference between Sir Robert Peel, the leader of the
House of Commons, and Lord John Russell, the leader of the opposition,