, it would be proclaimed in all the
strongholds of monopoly to which British literature penetrates--in
Parliament, in Congress, in the _Algemeine Zeitung_, and in the councils
of the Zollverein--that Adam Smith and the modern economists had been
refuted by Colonel Torrens; that free trade is good only where
reciprocity is perfect; that a nation can augment its wealth by
restraining a trade that was previously free; can protect itself against
such conduct on the part of its neighbours only by retaliation: and if
it neglect this retaliatory policy, that it will be punished for its
liberality by a progressive decrease of prices, of wages, and of
profits, and an increase of taxation."

The identity of Colonel Torrens's propositions with the exploded
"Mercantile Theory" is very satisfactorily established by the Edinburgh
reviewer; and it is certainly humbling to see a man of his ability
coming forward to revive doctrines which had well nigh gone down to
oblivion. On the subject where Colonel Torrens conceives himself
strongest, the distribution of the precious metals, the reviewer has
given a very able reply, though some points are left for future
amplification and discussion; and, as a whole, if there be any young
political economist whose head the _Budget_ has puzzled, the article in
the _Edinburgh Review_ will be found a very sufficient antidote. With
this, and another able article on the same subject in the last
_Westminster Review_ (in fact, two articles of the _Westminster_ relate
to the subject--one is on Colonel Torrens, the other on Free Trade and
Colonization), we may very safely leave the _Budget_ to the oblivion
into which it has sunk; and, meantime, the novice will not go far astray
who adheres to the "golden rule" of political economy, propounded by the
London merchants in 1820, and re-echoed by Sir Robert Peel in 1842: "The
maxim of buying in the cheapest market, and selling in the dearest,
which regulates every merchant in his individual dealings, is strictly
applicable as the best rule for every nation. As a matter of mere
diplomacy, it may sometimes answer to hold out the removal of particular
prohibitions or high duties as depending on corresponding concessions;
but it does not follow that we should maintain our restrictions where
the desired concessions cannot be obtained; for our restrictions would
not be the less prejudicial to our capital and industry, because other
governments persisted in preserving