Mr. de St. Chamans saw clearly the a.n.a.logy, or rather the ident.i.ty which exists between _importation_ and _machinery_, and was, therefore, in favor of proscribing both. There is some pleasure in having to do with intrepid arguers, who, even in error, thus carry through a chain of reasoning.

But let us look at the difficulty into which they are here led.

If it be true, _a priori_, that the domain of _invention_, and that of _labor_, can be extended only to the injury of one another, it would follow that the fewest _workmen_ would be employed in countries (Lancashire, for instance) where there is the most _machinery_. And if it be, on the contrary, proved, that machinery and manual labor coexist to a greater extent among rich nations than among savages, it must necessarily follow, that these two powers do not interfere with one another.

I cannot understand how a thinking being can rest satisfied with the following dilemma:

Either the inventions of man do not injure labor; and this, from general facts, would appear to be the case, for there exists more of both among the English and the French, than among the Sioux and the Cherokees. If such be the fact, I have gone upon a wrong track, although unconscious at what point. I have wandered from my road, and I would commit high treason against humanity, were I to introduce such an error into the legislation of my country.

Or else the results of the inventions of mind limit manual labor, as would appear to be proved from limited facts; for every day we see some machine rendering unnecessary the labor of twenty, or perhaps a hundred workmen. If this be the case, I am forced to acknowledge, as a fact, the existence of a flagrant, eternal, and incurable antagonism between the intellectual and the physical power of man; between his improvement and his welfare. I cannot avoid feeling that the Creator should have bestowed upon man either reason or bodily strength; moral force, or brutal force; and that it has been a bitter mockery to confer upon him faculties which must inevitably counteract and destroy one another.

This is an important difficulty, and how is it put aside? By this singular apothegm:

"_In political economy there are no absolute principles._"

There are no principles! Why, what does this mean, but that there are no facts? Principles are only formulas, which recapitulate a whole cla.s.s of well-proved facts.

Machinery and Importation must certainly have effects. These effects must be either good or bad. Here there may be a difference of opinion as to which is the correct conclusion, but whichever is adopted, it must be capable of being submitted to the formula of one or other of these principles, viz.: Machinery is a good, or, Machinery is an evil.

Importations are beneficial, or, Importations are injurious. Bat to say _there are no principles_, is certainly the last degree of debas.e.m.e.nt to which the human mind can lower itself, and I confess that I blush for my country, when I hear so monstrous an absurdity uttered before, and approved by, the French Chambers, the _elite_ of the nation, who thus justify themselves for imposing upon the country laws, of the merits or demerits of which they are perfectly ignorant.

But, it may be said to me, finish, then, by destroying the _Sophism_.

Prove to us that machines are not injurious to _human labor_, nor importations to _national labor_.

In a work of this nature, such demonstrations cannot be very complete.

My aim is rather to point out than to explain difficulties, and to excite reflection rather than to satisfy it. The mind never attains to a firm conviction which is not wrought out by its own labor. I will, however, make an effort to put it upon the right track.

The adversaries of importations and of machinery are misled by allowing themselves to form too hasty a judgment from immediate and transitory effects, instead of following these up to their general and final consequences.

The immediate effect of an ingenious piece of machinery, is, that it renders superfluous, in the production of any given result, a certain quant.i.ty of manual labor. But its action does not stop here. This result being obtained at less labor, is given to the public at a less price.

The amount thus saved to the buyers, enables them to procure other comforts, and thus to encourage general labor, precisely in proportion to the saving they have made upon the one article which the machine has given to them at an easier price. Thus the standard of labor is not lowered, though that of comfort is raised.

Let me endeavor to render this double fact more striking by an example.

I suppose that ten million of hats, at fifteen francs each, are yearly consumed in France. This would give to those employed in this manufacture one hundred and fifty millions. A machine is invented which enables the manufacturer to furnish hats at ten francs. The sum given to the maintenance of this branch of industry, is thus reduced (if we suppose the consumption not to be increased) to one hundred millions.

But the other fifty millions are not, therefore, withdrawn from the maintenance of _human labor_. The buyers of hats are, from the surplus saved upon the price of that article, enabled to satisfy other wants, and thus, in the same proportion, to encourage general industry. John buys a pair of shoes; James, a book; Jerome, an article of furniture, etc. Human labor, as a whole, still receives the encouragement of the whole one hundred and fifty millions, while the consumers, with the same supply of hats as before, receive also the increased number of comforts accruing from the fifty millions, which the use of the machine has been the means of saving to them. These comforts are the net gain which France has received from the invention. It is a gratuitous gift; a tribute exacted from nature by the genius of man. We grant that, during this process, a certain sum of labor will have been _displaced_, forced to change its direction; but we cannot allow that it has been destroyed or even diminished.

The case is the same with regard to importations. I will resume my hypothesis.

France, according to our supposition, manufactured ten millions of hats at fifteen francs each. Let us now suppose that a foreign producer brings them into our market at ten francs. I maintain that _national labor_ is thus in no wise diminished. It will be obliged to produce the equivalent of the hundred millions which go to pay for the ten millions of hats at ten francs, and then there remains to each buyer five francs, saved on the purchase of his hat, or, in total, fifty millions, which serve for the acquisition of other comforts, and the encouragement of other labor.

The ma.s.s of labor remains, then, what it was, and the additional comforts accruing from the fifty millions saved in the purchase of hats, are the net profit of importation or free trade.

It is no argument to try and alarm us by a picture of the sufferings which, in this hypothesis, would result from the displacement or change of labor.

For, if prohibition had never existed, labor would have cla.s.sed itself in accordance with the laws of trade, and no displacement would have taken place.

If prohibition has led to an artificial and unproductive cla.s.sification of labor, then it is prohibition, and not free trade, which is responsible for the inevitable displacement which must result in the transition from evil to good.

It is a rather singular argument to maintain that, because an abuse which has been permitted a temporary existence, cannot be corrected without wounding the interests of those who have profited by it, it ought, therefore, to claim perpetual duration.

XXI.

RAW MATERIAL.

It is said that no commerce is so advantageous as that in which manufactured articles are exchanged for raw material; because the latter furnishes aliment for _national labor_.

And it is hence concluded:

That the best regulation of duties, would be to give the greatest possible facilities to the importation of raw material, and at the same time to check that of the finished article.

There is, in political economy, no more generally accredited Sophism than this. It serves for argument not only to the protectionists, but also to the pretended free trade school; and it is in the latter capacity that its most mischievous tendencies are called into action.

For a good cause suffers much less in being attacked, than in being badly defended.

Commercial liberty must probably pa.s.s through the same ordeal as liberty in every other form. It can only dictate laws, after having first taken thorough possession of men's minds. If, then, it be true that a reform, to be firmly established, must be generally understood, it follows that nothing can so much r.e.t.a.r.d it, as the misleading of public opinion. And what more calculated to mislead opinion than writings, which, while they proclaim free trade, support the doctrines of monopoly?

It is some years since three great cities of France, viz., Lyons, Bordeaux, and Havre, combined in opposition to the restrictive system.

France, all Europe, looked anxiously and suspiciously at this apparent declaration in favor of free trade. Alas! it was still the banner of monopoly which they followed! a monopoly, only a little more sordid, a little more absurd than that of which they seemed to desire the destruction! Thanks to the Sophism which I would now endeavor to deprive of its disguise, the pet.i.tioners only reproduced, with an additional incongruity, the old doctrine of _protection to national labor_. What is, in fact, the prohibitive system? We will let Mr. de Saint Cricq answer for us.

"Labor const.i.tutes the riches of a nation, because it creates supplies for the gratification of our necessities; and universal comfort consists in the abundance of these supplies." Here we have the principle.

"But this abundance ought to be the result of _national labor_. If it were the result of foreign labor, national labor must receive an inevitable check." Here lies the error. (See the preceding Sophism).

"What, then, ought to be the course of an agricultural and manufacturing country? It ought to reserve its market for the produce of its own soil and its own industry." Here is the object.

"In order to effect this, it ought, by restrictive, and, if necessary, by prohibitive duties, to prevent the influx of produce from foreign soils and foreign industry." Here is the means.

Let us now compare this system with that of the pet.i.tion from Bordeaux.

This divided articles of merchandise into three cla.s.ses. "The first cla.s.s includes articles of food and _raw material untouched by human labor_. _A judicious system of political economy would require that this cla.s.s should be exempt from taxation._" Here we have the principle of no labor, no protection.

"The second cla.s.s is composed of articles which have received _some preparation_ for manufacture. This preparation would render reasonable the imposition of _some duties_." Here we find the commencement of protection, because, at the same time, likewise commences the demand for _national labor_.

"The third cla.s.s comprehends finished articles, which can, under no circ.u.mstances, furnish material for national labor. We consider this as the most fit for taxation." Here we have at once the maximum of labor, and, consequently, of production.

The pet.i.tioners then, as we here see, proclaimed foreign labor as injurious to national labor. This is the _error_ of the prohibitive system.

They desired the French market to be reserved for _French labor_. This is the _object_ of the prohibitive system.

They demanded that foreign labor should be subjected to restrictions and taxes. These are the _means_ of the prohibitive system.

What difference, then, can we possibly discover to exist between the Bordalese pet.i.tioners and the Corypheus of restriction? One, alone; and that is simply the greater or less extension which is given to the signification of the word _labor_.

Mr. de Saint Cricq, taking it in its widest sense, is, therefore, in favor of _protecting_ every thing.