diff options
| -rw-r--r-- | 44145-0.txt | 379 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | 44145-h.zip | bin | 195576 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/44145-8.txt | 10389 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/44145-8.zip | bin | 190148 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/44145-h.zip | bin | 195576 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/44145-h/44145-h.htm | 12662 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/44145.txt | 10389 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/44145.zip | bin | 189938 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/readme.htm | 13 |
9 files changed, 2 insertions, 33830 deletions
diff --git a/44145-0.txt b/44145-0.txt index 1475a1f..0e689dc 100644 --- a/44145-0.txt +++ b/44145-0.txt @@ -1,25 +1,4 @@ -The Project Gutenberg EBook of Economic Sophisms, by Frédéric Bastiat - -This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with -almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or -re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included -with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org - - -Title: Economic Sophisms - -Author: Frédéric Bastiat - -Translator: Patrick James Stirling - -Release Date: November 10, 2013 [EBook #44145] - -Language: English - -*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK ECONOMIC SOPHISMS *** - - - +*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 44145 *** Produced by David Widger @@ -10030,358 +10009,4 @@ THE END. End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of Economic Sophisms, by Frédéric Bastiat -*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK ECONOMIC SOPHISMS *** - -***** This file should be named 44145-8.txt or 44145-8.zip ***** -This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: - http://www.gutenberg.org/4/4/1/4/44145/ - -Produced by David Widger - -Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions -will be renamed. - -Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no -one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation -(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without -permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, -set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to -copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to -protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark. Project -Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you -charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission. If you -do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the -rules is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose -such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and -research. They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do -practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks. Redistribution is -subject to the trademark license, especially commercial -redistribution. - - - -*** START: FULL LICENSE *** - -THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE -PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK - -To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free -distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work -(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project -Gutenberg-tm License available with this file or online at - www.gutenberg.org/license. - - -Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works - -1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to -and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property -(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all -the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy -all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession. -If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the -terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or -entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8. - -1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be -used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who -agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few -things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See -paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement -and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic -works. See paragraph 1.E below. - -1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation" -or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the -collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an -individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are -located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from -copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative -works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg -are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project -Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by -freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of -this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with -the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by -keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project -Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others. - -1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern -what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in -a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check -the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement -before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or -creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project -Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning -the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United -States. - -1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: - -1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate -access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently -whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the -phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project -Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, -copied or distributed: - -This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with -almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or -re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included -with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org - -1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived -from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is -posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied -and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees -or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work -with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the -work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 -through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the -Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or -1.E.9. - -1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted -with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution -must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional -terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked -to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the -permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work. - -1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm -License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this -work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. - -1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this -electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without -prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with -active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project -Gutenberg-tm License. - -1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, -compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any -word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or -distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than -"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version -posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org), -you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a -copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon -request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other -form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm -License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. - -1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, -performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works -unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing -access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided -that - -- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from - the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method - you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is - owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he - has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the - Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments - must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you - prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax - returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and - sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the - address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to - the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation." - -- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies - you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he - does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm - License. You must require such a user to return or - destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium - and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of - Project Gutenberg-tm works. - -- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any - money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the - electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days - of receipt of the work. - -- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free - distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. - -1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set -forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from -both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael -Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the -Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. - -1.F. - -1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable -effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread -public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm -collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic -works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain -"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or -corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual -property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a -computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by -your equipment. - -1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right -of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project -Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all -liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal -fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT -LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE -PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE -TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE -LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR -INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH -DAMAGE. - -1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a -defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can -receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a -written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you -received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with -your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with -the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a -refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity -providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to -receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy -is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further -opportunities to fix the problem. - -1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth -in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO OTHER -WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO -WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. - -1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied -warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. -If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the -law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be -interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by -the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any -provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions. - -1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the -trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone -providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance -with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, -promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works, -harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, -that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do -or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm -work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any -Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause. - - -Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm - -Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of -electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers -including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists -because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from -people in all walks of life. - -Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the -assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's -goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will -remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure -and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations. -To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation -and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 -and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org - - -Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive -Foundation - -The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit -501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the -state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal -Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification -number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg -Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent -permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. - -The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S. -Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered -throughout numerous locations. Its business office is located at 809 -North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email -contact links and up to date contact information can be found at the -Foundation's web site and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact - -For additional contact information: - Dr. Gregory B. Newby - Chief Executive and Director - gbnewby@pglaf.org - -Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg -Literary Archive Foundation - -Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide -spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of -increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be -freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest -array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations -($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt -status with the IRS. - -The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating -charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United -States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a -considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up -with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations -where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To -SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any -particular state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate - -While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we -have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition -against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who -approach us with offers to donate. - -International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make -any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from -outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. - -Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation -methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other -ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. -To donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate - - -Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic -works. - -Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm -concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared -with anyone. For forty years, he produced and distributed Project -Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support. - -Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed -editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S. -unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily -keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition. - -Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility: - - www.gutenberg.org - -This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, -including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to -subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. - +*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 44145 *** diff --git a/44145-h.zip b/44145-h.zip Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index 562f6b4..0000000 --- a/44145-h.zip +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/44145-8.txt b/old/44145-8.txt deleted file mode 100644 index c73573a..0000000 --- a/old/44145-8.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,10389 +0,0 @@ -The Project Gutenberg EBook of Economic Sophisms, by Frédéric Bastiat - -This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with -almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or -re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included -with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org - - -Title: Economic Sophisms - -Author: Frédéric Bastiat - -Translator: Patrick James Stirling - -Release Date: November 10, 2013 [EBook #44145] - -Language: English - -Character set encoding: ISO-8859-1 - -*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK ECONOMIC SOPHISMS *** - - - - -Produced by David Widger - - - - - - -ECONOMIC SOPHISMS - -By Frédéric Bastiat - -Translated From the Fifth Edition of the French, by Patrick James -Stirling, LLD., F.R.S.E. - -Author Of "The Philosophy Of Trade," Etc. - -Edinburgh: Oliver And Boyd, Tweeddale Court. - - -1873 - - - - -TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE. - -Bastiat's two great works on Political Economy--the Sophismes -Économiques, and the Harmonies Économiques--may be regarded as -counterparts of each other. He himself so regarded them: "the one," he -says, "pulls down, the other builds up." His object in the Sophismes was -to refute the fallacies of the Protectionist school, then predominant -in France, and so to clear the way for the establishment of what he -maintained to be the true system of economic science, which he desired -to found on a new and peculiar theory of value, afterwards fully -developed by him in the _Harmonies_. Whatever difference of opinion -may exist among economists as to the soundness of this theory, all must -admire the irresistible logic of the _Sophismes_, and "the sallies -of wit and humour," which, as Mr Cobden has said, make that work as -"amusing as a novel." - -The system of Bastiat having thus a _destructive_ as well as a -_constructive_ object, a _negative_ as well as a _positive_ design, it -is perhaps only doing justice to his great reputation as an economist to -put the English reader in a position to judge of that system as a -whole. Hence the present translation of the _Sophismes_ is intended as a -companion volume to the translation of the _Harmonies._ - -It is unnecessary for me to say more here by way of preface, the gifted -author having himself explained the design of the work in a short but -lucid introduction. - -P.J.S. - - - - -ECONOMIC SOPHISMS. FIRST SERIES. - - - - -INTRODUCTION. - -My design in this little volume is to refute some of the arguments which -are urged against the Freedom of Trade. - -I do not propose to engage in a contest with the protectionists; but -rather to instil a principle into the minds of those who hesitate -because they sincerely doubt. - -I am not one of those who say that Protection is founded on men's -interests. I am of opinion rather that it is founded on errors, or, if -you will, upon _incomplete truths_. Too many people fear liberty, to -permit us to conclude that their apprehensions are not sincerely felt. - -It is perhaps aiming too high, but my wish is, I confess, that this -little work should become, as it were, the _Manual_ of those whose -business it is to pronounce between the two principles. Where men have -not been long accustomed and familiarized to the doctrine of liberty, -the sophisms of protection, in one shape or another, are constantly -coming back upon them. In order to disabuse them of such errors when -they recur, a long process of analysis becomes necessary; and every -one has not the time required for such a process--legislators less than -others. This is my reason for endeavouring to present the analysis and -its results cut and dry. - -But it may be asked, Are the benefits of liberty so hidden as to be -discovered only by Economists by profession? - - * The first series of the Sophismes Économiques appeared in - the end of 1845; the second series in 1848.--Editor. - -We must confess that our adversaries have a marked advantage over us in -the discussion. In very few words they can announce a half-truth; and -in order to demonstrate that it is _incomplete_, we are obliged to have -recourse to long and dry dissertations. - -This arises from the nature of things. Protection concentrates on one -point the good which it produces, while the evils which it inflicts are -spread over the masses. The one is visible to the naked eye; the other -only to the eye of the mind. In the case of liberty, it is just the -reverse. - -In the treatment of almost all economic questions, we find it to be so. - -You say, Here is a machine which has turned thirty workmen into the -street. - -Or, Here is a spendthrift who encourages every branch of industry. - -Or, The conquest of Algeria has doubled the trade of Marseilles. - -Or, The budget secures subsistence for a hundred thousand families. - -You are understood at once and by all. Your propositions are in -themselves clear, simple, and true. What are your deductions from them? - -Machinery is an evil. - -Luxury, conquests, and heavy taxation, are productive of good. - -And your theory has all the more success that you are in a situation to -support it by a reference to undoubted facts. - -On our side, we must decline to confine our attention to the cause, and -its direct and immediate effect. We know that this very effect in its -turn becomes a cause. To judge correctly of a measure, then, we must -trace it through the whole chain of results to its definitive effect. In -other words, we are forced to _reason_ upon it. - -But then clamour gets up: You are theorists, metaphysicians, idealists, -utopian dreamers, _doctrinaires_; and all the prejudices of the popular -mind are roused against us. - -What, under such circumstances, are we to do? We can only invoke the -patience and good sense of the reader, and set our deductions, if we -can, in a light so clear, that truth and error must show themselves -plainly, openly, and without disguise,--and that the victory, once -gained, may remain on the side of restriction, or on that of freedom. - -And here I must set down an essential observation. - -Some extracts from this little volume have already appeared in the -_Journal des Economistes_. - -In a critique, in other respects very favourable, from the pen of M. -le Vicomte de Romanet, he supposes that I demand the suppression of -customs. He is mistaken. I demand the suppression of the protectionist -_régime_. We don't refuse taxes to the Government, but we desire, if -possible, to dissuade the governed from taxing one another. Napoleon -said that "the customhouse should not be made an instrument of revenue, -but a means of protecting industry." We maintain the contrary, and we -contend that the customhouse ought not to become in the hands of the -working classes an instrument of reciprocal rapine, but that it may be -used as an instrument of revenue as legitimately as any other. So far -are we--or, to speak only for myself, so far am I--from demanding the -suppression of customs, that I see in that branch of revenue our future -anchor of safety. I believe our resources are capable of yielding to the -Treasury immense returns; and to speak plainly, I must add, that, seeing -how slow is the spread of sound economic doctrines, and so rapid -the increase of our budgets, I am disposed to count more upon the -necessities of the Treasury than on the force of enlightened opinion for -furthering the cause of commercial reform. - -You ask me, then, What is your conclusion? and I reply, that here there -is no need to arrive at a conclusion. I combat sophisms; that is all. - -But you rejoin, that it is not enough to pull down--it is also necessary -to build up. True; but to destroy an error, is to build up the truth -which stands opposed to it. - -After all, I have no repugnance to declare what my wishes are. I desire -to see public opinion led to sanction a law of customs conceived nearly -in these terms:-- - -Articles of primary necessity to pay a duty, ad valorem, of 5 per cent. - -Articles of convenience, 10 per cent. - -Articles of luxury, 15 to 20 per cent. - -These distinctions, I am aware, belong to an order of ideas which are -quite foreign to Political Economy strictly so called, and I am far from -thinking them as just and useful as they are commonly supposed to be. -But this subject does not fall within the compass of my present design. - - - - -I. ABUNDANCE, SCARCITY. - -Which is best for man, and for society, abundance or scarcity? - -What! you exclaim, can that be a question? Has any one ever asserted, or -is it possible to maintain, that scarcity is at the foundation of human -wellbeing? - -Yes, this has been asserted, and is maintained every day; and I hesitate -not to affirm that the _theory of scarcity_ is much the most popular. -It is the life of conversation, of the journals, of books, and of -the tribune; and strange as it may seem, it is certain that Political -Economy will have fulfilled its practical mission when it has -established beyond question, and widely disseminated, this very -simple proposition: "The wealth of men consists in the abundance of -commodities." - -Do we not hear it said every day, "The foreigner is about to inundate us -with his products?" Then we fear abundance. - -Did not M. Saint Cricq exclaim, "Production is excessive?" Then he feared -abundance. - -Do workmen break machines? Then they fear excess of production, or -abundance. - -Has not M. Bugeaud pronounced these words, "Let bread be dear, and -agriculturists will get rich?" Now, bread cannot be dear but because it -is scarce. Therefore M. Bugeaud extols scarcity. - -Does not M. d'Argout urge as an argument against sugar-growing the -very productiveness of that industry? Does he not say, "Beetroot has no -future, and its culture cannot be extended, because a few acres devoted -to its culture in each department would supply the whole consumption of -France?" Then, in his eyes, good lies in sterility, in dearth, and evil -in fertility and abundance. - -The _Presse_, the _Commerce_, and the greater part of the daily papers, -have one or more articles every morning to demonstrate to the Chambers -and the Government, that it is sound policy to raise legislatively the -price of all things by means of tariffs. And do the Chambers and the -Government not obey the injunction? Now tariffs can raise prices only -by diminishing the _supply_ of commodities in the market! Then the -journals, the Chambers, and the Minister, put in practice the theory of -scarcity, and I am justified in saying that this theory is by far the -most popular. - -How does it happen that in the eyes of workmen, of publicists, and -statesmen, abundance should appear a thing to be dreaded, and scarcity -advantageous? I propose to trace this illusion to its source. - -We remark that a man grows richer in proportion to the return yielded by -his exertions, that is to say, in proportion as he sells his commodity -at a _higher price_. He sells at a higher price in proportion to the -rarity, to the scarcity, of the article he produces. We conclude from -this, that, as far as he is concerned at least, scarcity enriches him. -Applying successively the same reasoning to all other producers, we -construct the _theory of scarcity_. We next proceed to apply this -theory, and, in order to favour producers generally, we raise prices -artificially, and cause a scarcity of all commodities, by prohibition, -by restriction, by the suppression of machinery, and other analogous -means. - -The same thing holds of abundance. We observe that when a product is -plentiful, it sells at a lower price, and the producer gains less. If -all producers are in the same situation, they are all poor. Therefore -it is abundance that ruins society And as theories are soon reduced -to practice, we see the law struggling against the abundance of -commodities. - -This sophism in its more general form may make little impression, but -applied to a particular order of facts, to a certain branch of industry, -to a given class, of producers, it is extremely specious; and this -is easily explained. It forms a syllogism which is not _false_, -but _incomplete_. Now, what is _true_ in a syllogism is always and -necessarily present to the mind. But _incompleteness_ is a negative -quality, an absent _datum_, which it is very possible, and indeed very -easy, to leave out of account. - -Man produces in order to consume. He is at once producer and consumer. -The reasoning which I have just explained considers him only in the -first of these points of view. Had the second been taken into account, -it would have led to an opposite conclusion. In effect, may it not be -said:-- - -The consumer is richer in proportion as he _purchases_ all things -cheaper; and he purchases things cheaper in proportion to their -abundance; therefore it is abundance which enriches him. This reasoning, -extended to all consumers, leads to the _theory of plenty_. - -It is the notion of _exchange_ imperfectly understood which leads to -these illusions. If we consider our personal interest, we recognise -distinctly that it is double. As _sellers_ we have an interest in -dearness, and consequently in scarcity; as _buyers_, in cheapness, or -what amounts to the same thing, in the abundance of commodities. We -cannot, then, found our reasoning on one or other of these interests -before inquiring which of the two coincides and is identified with the -general and permanent interest of mankind at large. - -If man were a solitary animal, if he laboured exclusively for himself, -if he consumed directly the fruit of his labour--in a word, _if he did -not exchange_--the theory of scarcity would never have appeared in -the world. It is too evident that, in that case, abundance would be -advantageous, from whatever quarter it came, whether from the result -of his industry, from ingenious tools, from powerful machinery of his -invention, or whether due to the fertility of the soil, the liberality -of nature, or even to a mysterious _invasion_ of products brought by the -waves and left by them upon the shore. No solitary man would ever -have thought that in order to encourage his labour and render it more -productive, it was necessary to break in pieces the instruments which -saved it, to neutralize the fertility of the soil, or give back to the -sea the good things it had brought to his door. He would perceive at -once that labour is not an end, but a means; and that it would be absurd -to reject the result for fear of doing injury to the means by which that -result was accomplished. He would perceive that if he devotes two -hours a day to providing for his wants, any circumstance (machinery, -fertility, gratuitous gift, no matter what) which saves him an hour -of that labour, the result remaining the same, puts that hour at his -disposal, and that he can devote it to increasing his enjoyments; -in short, he would see that _to save labour_ is nothing else than -_progress_. - -But _exchange_ disturbs our view of a truth so simple. In the social -state, and with the separation of employments to which it leads, -the production and consumption of a commodity are not mixed up and -confounded in the same individual. Each man comes to see in his labour -no longer a means but an end. In relation to each commodity, exchange -creates two interests, that of the producer and that of the consumer; -and these two interests are always directly opposed to each other. - -It is essential to analyze them, and examine their nature. - -Take the case of any producer whatever, what is his immediate interest? -It consists of two things: 1st, that the fewest possible number of -persons should devote themselves to his branch of industry; 2dly, that -the greatest possible number of' persons should be in quest of the -article he produces. Political economy explains it more succinctly in -these terms, Supply very limited, demand very extended; or in other -words still, Competition limited, demand unlimited. - -What is the immediate interest of the consumer? That the supply of the -product in question should be extended, and the demand restrained. - -Seeing, then, that these two interests are in opposition to each other, -one of them must necessarily coincide with social interests in general, -and the other be antagonistic to them. - -But which of them should legislation favour, as identical with the -public good--if, indeed, it should favour either? - -To discover this, we must inquire what would happen if the secret wishes -of men were granted. - -In as far as we are producers, it must be allowed that the desire of -every one of us is anti-social. Are we vine-dressers? It would give us -no great regret if hail should shower down on all the vines in the world -except our own: _this is the theory of scarcity_. Are we iron-masters? -Our wish is, that there should be no other iron in the market but our -own, however much the public may be in want of it; and for no other -reason than that this want, keenly felt and imperfectly satisfied, shall -ensure us a higher price: this _is still the theory of scarcity_. Are -we farmers? We say with M. Bugeaud, Let bread be dear, that is to say, -scarce, and agriculturists will thrive: always the same theory, _the -theory of scarcity_. - -Are we physicians? We cannot avoid seeing that certain physical -ameliorations, improving the sanitary state of the country, the -development of certain moral virtues, such as moderation and temperance, -the progress of knowledge tending to enable each man to take better -care of his own health, the discovery of certain simple remedies of easy -application, would be so many blows to our professional success. In as -far as we are physicians, then, our secret wishes would be anti-social. -I do not say that physicians form these secret wishes. On the contrary, -I believe they would hail with joy the discovery of a universal panacea; -but they would not do this as physicians, but as men, and as Christians. -By a noble abnegation of self', the physician places himself in the -consumer's point of view. But as exercising a profession, from which he -derives his own and his family's subsistence, his desires, or, if you -will, his interests, are anti-social. - -Are we manufacturers of cotton stuffs? We desire to sell them at the -price most profitable to ourselves. We should consent willingly to an -interdict being laid on all rival manufactures; and if we could venture -to give this wish public expression, or hope to realize it with some -chance of success, we should attain our end, to some extent, by indirect -means; for example, by excluding foreign fabrics, in order to diminish -the _supply_, and thus produce, forcibly and to our profit, a _scarcity_ -of clothing. - -In the same way, we might pass in review all other branches of industry, -and we should always find that the producers, as such, have anti-social -views. "The shopkeeper," says Montaigne, "thrives only by the -irregularities of youth; the farmer by the high price of corn, the -architect by the destruction of houses, the officers of justice by -lawsuits and quarrels. Ministers of religion derive their distinction -and employment from our vices and our death. No physician rejoices in -the health of his friends, nor soldiers in the peace of their country; -and so of the rest." - -Hence it follows that if the secret wishes of each producer were -realized, the world would retrograde rapidly towards barbarism. The sail -would supersede steam, the oar would supersede the sail, and general -traffic would be carried on by the carrier's waggon; the latter would be -superseded by the mule, and the mule by the pedlar. Wool would exclude -cotton, cotton in its turn would exclude wool, and so on until the -dearth of all things had caused man himself to disappear from the face -of the earth. - -Suppose for a moment that the legislative power and the public force -were placed at the disposal of Mimeral's committee, and that each member -of that association had the privilege of bringing in and sanctioning a -favourite law, is it difficult to divine to what sort of industrial code -the public would be subjected? - -If we now proceed to consider the immediate interest of the consumer, we -shall find that it is in perfect harmony with the general interest, with -all that the welfare of society calls for. When the purchaser goes -to market, he desires to find it well stocked. Let the seasons be -propitious for all harvests; let inventions more and more marvellous -bring within reach a greater and greater number of products and -enjoyments; let time and labour be saved; let distances be effaced by -the perfection and rapidity of transit; let the spirit of justice and -of peace allow of a diminished weight of taxation; let barriers of every -kind be removed;--in all this the interest of the consumer runs parallel -with the public interest. The consumer may push his secret wishes to a -chimerical and absurd length, without these wishes becoming antagonistic -to the public welfare. He may desire that food and shelter, the hearth -and the roof, instruction and morality, security and peace, power and -health, should be obtained without exertion, and without measure, like -the dust of the highways, the water of the brook, the air which we -breathe; and yet the realization of his desires would not be at variance -with the good of society. - -It may be said that if these wishes were granted, the work of the -producer would become more and more limited, and would end with -being stopped for want of aliment. But why? Because, on this extreme -supposition, all imaginable wants and desires would be fully satisfied. -Man, like Omnipotence, would create all things by a simple act of -volition. Well, on this hypotheses, what reason should we have to regret -the stoppage of industrial production? - -I made the supposition, not long ago, of the existence of an assembly -composed of workmen, each member of which, in his capacity of producer, -should have the power of passing a law embodying his _secret wish_, and -I said that the code which would emanate from that assembly would be -monopoly systematized, the theory of scarcity reduced to practice. - -In the same way, a chamber in which each should consult exclusively his -own immediate interest as a consumer, would tend to systematize liberty, -to suppress all restrictive measures, to overthrow all artificial -barriers--in a word, to realize the _theory of plenty_. - -Hence it follows: - -That to consult exclusively the immediate interest of the producer, is -to consult an interest which is anti-social. - -That to take for basis exclusively the immediate interest of the -consumer, would be to take for basis the general interest. - -Let me enlarge on this view of the subject a little, at the risk of -being prolix. - -A radical antagonism exists between seller and buyer.* - -The former desires that the subject of the bargain should be scarce, its -supply limited, and its price high. - -The latter desires that it should be _abundant_, its supply large, and -its price low. - -The laws, which should be at least neutral, take the part of the seller -against the buyer, of the producer against the consumer, of dearness -against cheapness,** of scarcity against abundance. - - * The author has modified somewhat the terms of this - proposition in a posterior work.--See _Harmonies - Économiques_, chapter xi.--Editor. - - ** We have not in French a substantive to express the idea - opposed to that of dearness (cheapness). It is somewhat - remarkable that the popular instinct expresses the idea by - this periphrase, _marché avantageux, bon marche'_. The - protectionists would do well to reform this locution, for it - implies an economic system opposed to theirs. - -They proceed, if not intentionally, at least logically, on this datum: -_a nation is rich when it is in want of everything_. - -For they say, it is the producer that we must favour by securing him a -good market for his product. For this purpose it is necessary to raise -the price, and in order to raise the price we must restrict the supply; -and to restrict the supply is to create scarcity. - -Just let us suppose that at the present moment, when all these laws -are in full force, we make a complete inventory, not in value, but in -weight, measure, volume, quantity, of all the commodities existing in -the country, which are fitted to satisfy the wants and tastes of its -inhabitants--corn, meat, cloth, fuel, colonial products, etc. - -Suppose, again, that next day all the barriers which oppose the -introduction of foreign products are removed. - -Lastly, suppose that in order to test the result of this reform, they -proceed three months afterwards to make a new inventory. - -Is it not true that there will be found in France more corn, cattle, -cloth, linen, iron, coal, sugar, etc., at the date of the second, than -at the date of the first inventory? - -So true is this, that our protective tariffs have no other purpose than -to hinder all these things from reaching us, to restrict the supply, and -prevent depreciation and abundance. - -Now I would ask, Are the people who live under our laws better fed -because there is _less_ bread, meat, and sugar in the country? Are they -better clothed, because there is _less_ cloth and linen? Better warmed, -because there is _less_ coal? Better assisted in their labour, because -there are _fewer_ tools and _less_ iron, copper, and machinery? - -But it may be said, If the foreigner _inundates_ us with his products, -he will carry away our money. - -And what does it matter? Men are not fed on money. They do not clothe -themselves with gold, or warm themselves with silver. What matters it -whether there is more or less money in the country, if there is more -bread on our sideboards, more meat in our larders, more linen in our -wardrobes, more firewood in our cellars. - -Restrictive laws always land us in this dilemma:-- - -Either you admit that they produce scarcity, or you do not. If you admit -it, you avow by the admission that you inflict on the people all the -injury in your power. If you do not admit it, you deny having restricted -the supply and raised prices, and consequently you deny having favoured -the producer. - -What you do is either hurtful or profitless, injurious or ineffectual. -It never can be attended with any useful result. - - - - -II. OBSTACLE, CAUSE. - -The obstacle mistaken for the cause,--scarcity mistaken for -abundance,--this is the same sophism under another aspect; and it is -well to study it in all its phases. - -Man is originally destitute of everything. - -Between this destitution and the satisfaction of his wants, there exist -a multitude of _obstacles_ which labour enables us to surmount. It is -curious to inquire how and why these very obstacles to his material -prosperity have come to be mistaken for the cause of that prosperity. - -I want to travel a hundred miles. But between the starting-point and -the place of my destination, mountains, rivers, marshes, impenetrable -forests, brigands--in a word, _obstacles_--interpose themselves; and to -overcome these obstacles, it is necessary for me to employ many efforts, -or, what comes to the same thing, that others should employ many efforts -for me, the price of which I must pay them. It is clear that I should -have been in a better situation if these obstacles had not existed. - -On his long journey through life, from the cradle to the grave, man -has need to assimilate to himself a prodigious quantity of alimentary -substances, to protect himself against the inclemency of the weather, -to preserve himself from a number of ailments, or cure himself of them. -Hunger, thirst, disease, heat, cold, are so many obstacles strewn along -his path. In a state of isolation he must overcome them all, by hunting, -fishing, tillage, spinning, weaving, building; and it is clear that -it would be better for him that these obstacles were less numerous -and formidable, or, better still, that they did not exist at all. In -society, he does not combat these obstacles personally, but others do -it for him; and in return he employs himself in removing one of those -obstacles which are encountered by his fellow-men. - -It is clear also, considering things in the gross, that it would be -better for men in the aggregate, or for society, that these obstacles -should be as few and feeble as possible. - -But when we come to scrutinize the social phenomena in detail, and men's -sentiments as modified by the introduction of exchange, we soon perceive -how they have come to confound wants with wealth, the obstacle with the -cause. - -The separation of employments, the division of labour, which results -from the faculty of exchanging, causes each man, instead of struggling -on his own account to overcome all the obstacles which surround him, to -combat only _one_ of them; he overcomes that one not for himself but for -his fellow-men, who in turn render him the same service. - -The consequence is that this man, in combating this obstacle which it is -his special business to overcome for the sake of others, sees in it the -immediate source of his own wealth. The greater, the more formidable, -the more keenly felt this obstacle is, the greater will be the -remuneration which his fellow-men will be disposed to accord him; that -is to say, the more ready will they be to remove the obstacles which -stand in his way. - -The physician, for example, does not bake his own bread, or manufacture -his own instruments, or weave or make his own coat. Others do these -things for him, and in return he treats the diseases with which his -patients are afflicted. The more numerous, severe, and frequent these -diseases are, the more others consent, and are obliged, to do for his -personal comfort. Regarding it from this point of view, disease, -that general obstacle to human happiness, becomes a cause of material -prosperity to the individual physician. The same argument applies to -all producers in their several departments. The shipowner derives his -profits from the obstacle called _distance_; the agriculturist from that -called _hunger_; the manufacturer of cloth from that called _cold_; the -schoolmaster lives upon _ignorance_; the lapidary upon _vanity_; the -attorney on _cupidity_; the notary upon possible _bad faith_,--just -as the physician lives upon the diseases of men. It is quite true, -therefore, that each profession has an immediate interest in the -continuation, nay in the extension, of the special obstacle which it is -its business to combat. - -Observing this, theorists make their appearance, and, founding a system -on their individual sentiments, tell us: Want is wealth, labour is -wealth, obstacles to material prosperity are prosperity. To multiply -obstacles is to support industry. - -Then statesmen intervene. They have the disposal of the public force; -and what more natural than to make it available for developing and -multiplying obstacles, since this is developing and multiplying wealth? -They say, for example: If we prevent the importation of iron from places -where it is abundant, we place an obstacle in the way of its being -procured. This obstacle, keenly felt at home, will induce men to pay in -order to be set free from it. A certain number of our fellow-citizens -will devote themselves to combating it, and this obstacle will make -their fortune. The greater the obstacle is--that is, the scarcer, the -more inaccessible, the more difficult to transport, the more distant -from the place where it is to be used, the mineral sought for -becomes--the more hands will be engaged in the various ramifications -of this branch of industry. Exclude, then, foreign iron, create an -obstacle, for you thereby create the labour which is to overcome it. - -The same reasoning leads to the proscription of machinery. - -Here, for instance, are men who are in want of casks for the storage of -their wine. This is an obstacle; and here are other men whose business -it is to remove that obstacle by making the casks that are wanted. It -is fortunate, then, that this obstacle should exist, since it gives -employment to a branch of national industry, and enriches a certain -number of our fellow-citizens. But then we have ingenious machinery -invented for felling the oak, cutting it up into staves, and forming -them into the wine-casks that are wanted. By this means the obstacle is -lessened, and so are the gains of the cooper. Let us maintain both at -their former elevation by a law, and put down the machinery. - -To get at the root of this sophism, it is necessary only to reflect -that human labour is not the _end_, but the _means. It never remains -unemployed_. If one obstacle is removed, it does battle with another; -and society is freed from two obstacles by the same amount of labour -which was formerly, required for the removal of one. If the labour of -the cooper is rendered unnecessary in one department, it will soon take -another direction. But how and from what source will it be remunerated? -From the same source exactly from which it is remunerated at present; -for when a certain amount of labour becomes disposable by the removal of -an obstacle, a corresponding amount of remuneration becomes disposable -also. To maintain that human labour will ever come to want employment, -would be to maintain that the human race will cease to encounter -obstacles. In that case labour would not only be impossible; it would be -superfluous. We should no longer have anything to do, because we should -be omnipotent; and we should only have to pronounce our _fiat_ in order -to ensure the satisfaction of all our desires and the supply of all our -wants.* - - * See post, ch. xiv. of second series of _Sophismes - Economiques_, and ch. iii. and xi. of the _Harmonies - Économiques_. - - - - -III. EFFORT, RESULT. - -We have just seen that between our wants and the satisfaction of -these wants, obstacles are interposed. We succeed in overcoming these -obstacles, or in diminishing their force by the employment of our -faculties. We may say in a general way, that industry is an effort -followed by a result. - -But what constitutes the measure of our prosperity, or of our wealth? -Is it the result of the effort? or is it the effort itself? A relation -always subsists between the effort employed and the result obtained. -Progress consists in the relative enhancement of the second or of the -first term of this relation. - -Both theses have been maintained; and in political economy they have -divided the region of opinion and of thought. - -According to the first system, wealth is the result of labour, -increasing as the relative _proportion of result to effort increases_. -Absolute perfection, of which God is the type, consists in the infinite -distance interposed between the two terms--in this sense, effort is -_nil_, result infinite. - -The second system teaches that it is the effort itself which constitutes -the measure of wealth. To make progress is to increase the relative -proportion _which effort bears to result_. The ideal of this system may -be found in the sterile and eternal efforts of Sisyphus.* - -The first system naturally welcomes everything which tends to diminish -_pains_ and augment _products_; powerful machinery which increases the -forces of man, exchange which allows him to derive greater advantage -from natural agents distributed in various proportions over the face -of the earth, intelligence which discovers, experience which proves, -competition which stimulates, etc. - -Logically, the second invokes everything which has the effect of -increasing pains and diminishing products; privileges, monopolies, -restrictions, prohibitions, suppression of machinery, sterility, etc. - -It is well to remark that the _universal practice_ of mankind always -points to the principle of the first system. We have never seen, -we shall never see, a man who labours in any department, be he -agriculturist, manufacturer, merchant, artificer, soldier, author, or -philosopher, who does not devote all the powers of his mind to work -better, to work with more rapidity, to work more economically--in a -word, to effect _more with less_. - -The opposite doctrine is in favour only with theorists, deputies, -journalists, statesmen, ministers--men, in short, born to make -experiments on the social body. - - * For this reason, and for the sake of conciseness, the - reader will pardon us for designating this system in the - sequel by the name of _sisyphism_. - -At the same time, we may observe, that in what concerns themselves -personally, they act as every one else does, on the principle of -obtaining from labour the greatest possible amount of useful results. - -Perhaps I may be thought to exaggerate, and that there are no true -_sisyphists_. - -If it be argued that in practice they do not press their principle to -its most extreme consequences, I willingly grant it. This is always the -case when one sets out with a false principle. Such a principle soon -leads to results so absurd and so mischievous that we are obliged to -stop short. This is the reason why practical industry never admits -_sisyphism_; punishment would follow error too closely not to expose it. -But in matters of speculation, such as theorists and statesmen deal -in, one may pursue a false principle a long time before discovering -its falsity by the complicated consequences to which men were formerly -strangers; and when at last its falsity is found out, the authors take -refuge in the opposite principle, turn round, contradict themselves, and -seek their justification in a modern maxim of incomparable absurdity: in -political economy, there is no inflexible rule, no absolute principle. - -Let us see, then, if these two opposite principles which I have just -described do not predominate by turns, the one in practical industry, -the other in industrial legislation. - -I have already noticed the saying of M. Bugeaud (that "when bread is -dear, agriculturists become rich"); but in M. Bugeaud are embodied two -separate characters, the agriculturist and the legislator. - -As an agriculturist, M. Bugeaud directs all his efforts to two ends,--to -save labour, and obtain cheap bread. When he prefers a good plough to a -bad one; when he improves his pastures; when, in order to pulverize the -soil, he substitutes as much as possible the action of the atmosphere -for that of the harrow and the hoe; when he calls to his aid all the -processes of which science and experiment have proved the efficacy,--he -has but one object in view, viz., to diminish _the proportion of effort -to result_. We have indeed no other test of the ability of a cultivator, -and the perfection of his processes, than to measure to what extent they -have lessened the one and added to the other. And as all the farmers -in the world act upon this principle, we may assert that the effort of -mankind at large is to obtain, for their own benefit undoubtedly, bread -and all other products cheaper, to lessen the labour needed to procure a -given quantity of what they want. - -This incontestable tendency of mankind once established, should, it -would seem, reveal to the legislator the true principle, and point out -to him in what way he should aid industry (in as far as it falls within -his province to aid it); for it would be absurd to assert that human -laws should run counter to the laws of Providence. - -And yet we have heard M. Bugeaud, as a deputy, exclaim: "I understand -nothing of this theory of cheapness; I should like better to see bread -dearer and labour more abundant." And following out this doctrine, the -deputy of the Dordogne votes legislative measures, the effect of -which is to hamper exchanges, for the very reason that they procure us -indirectly what direct production could not procure us but at greater -expense. - -Now, it is very evident that M. Bugeaud's principle as a deputy is -directly opposed to the principle on which he acts as an agriculturist. -To act consistently, he should vote against all legislative restriction, -or else import into his farming operations the principle which he -proclaims from the tribune. We should then see him sow his corn in his -most sterile fields, for in this way he would succeed in _working much -to obtain little_. We should see him throwing aside the plough, since -hand-culture would satisfy his double wish for dearer bread and more -abundant labour. - -Restriction has for its avowed object, and its acknowledged effect, to -increase labour. - -It has also for its avowed object, and its acknowledged effect, to cause -dearness, which means simply scarcity of products; so that, carried out -to its extreme limits, it is pure _sisyphism_, such as we have defined -it,--_labour infinite, product nil_. - -Baron Charles Dupin, the light of the peerage, it is said, on economic -science, accuses railways of _injuring navigation_; and it is certain -that it is of the nature of a more perfect, to restrict the use of a -less perfect means of conveyance. But railways cannot hurt navigation -except by attracting traffic; and they cannot attract traffic but by -conveying goods and passengers more cheaply; and they cannot convey -them more cheaply but by _diminishing the proportion which the effort -employed bears to the result obtained_, seeing that that is the very -thing which constitutes cheapness. When, then, Baron Dupin deplores this -diminution of the labour employed to effect a given result, it is the -doctrine of _sisyphism_ which he preaches. Logically, since he prefers -the ship to the rail, he should prefer the cart to the ship, the -pack-saddle to the cart, and the pannier to all other known means of -conveyance, for it is the latter which exacts the most labour with the -least result. - -"Labour constitutes the wealth of a people," said M. de Saint-Cricq, -that Minister of Commerce who has imposed so many restrictions upon -trade. We must not suppose that this was an elliptical expression, -meaning, "The results of labour constitute the wealth of a people." No, -this economist distinctly intended to affirm that it is the _intensity_ -of labour which is the measure of wealth, and the proof of it is, that -from consequence to consequence, from one restriction to another, he -induced France (and in this he thought he was doing her good) to expend -double the amount of labour, in order, for example, to provide herself -with an equal quantity of iron. In England, iron was then at eight -francs, while in France it cost sixteen francs. Taking a day's labour at -one franc, it is clear that France could, by means of exchange, procure -a quintal of iron by subtracting eight days' work from the aggregate -national labour. In consequence of the restrictive measures of M. de -Saint-Cricq, France was obliged to expend sixteen days' labour in order -to provide herself with a quintal of iron by direct production. Double -the labour for the same satisfaction, hence double the wealth. Then it -follows that wealth is not measured by the result, but by the intensity -of the labour. Is not this _sisyphism_ in all its purity? - -And in order that there may be no mistake as to his meaning, the -Minister takes care afterwards to explain more fully his ideas; and as -he had just before called the intensity of labour _wealthy_ he goes on -to call the more abundant results of that labour, or the more abundant -supply of things proper to satisfy our wants, _poverty_. "Everywhere," -he says, "machinery has taken the place of manual labour; everywhere -production superabounds; everywhere the equilibrium between the faculty -of producing, and the means of consuming, is destroyed." We see, then, -to what, in M. de Saint-Cricq's estimation, the critical situation -of the country was owing--it was to having produced too much, and her -labour being too intelligent, and too fruitful. We were too well -fed, too well clothed, too well provided with everything; a too rapid -production surpassed all our desires. It was necessary, then, to put a -stop to the evil, and for that purpose, to force us, by restrictions, to -labour more in order to produce less. - -I have referred likewise to the opinions of another Minister of -Commerce, M. d'Argout. They deserve to be dwelt upon for an instant. -Desiring to strike a formidable blow at beet-root culture, he says, -"Undoubtedly, the cultivation of beet-root is useful, _but this utility -is limited_. The developments attributed to it are exaggerated. To be -convinced of this, it is sufficient to observe that this culture will be -necessarily confined within the limits of consumption. Double, triple, -if you will, the present consumption of France, _you will always find -that a very trifling portion of the soil will satisfy the requirements -of that consumption_." (This is surely rather a singular subject of -complaint!) "Do you desire proof of this? How many _hectares_ had we -under beet-root in 1828? 3130, which is equivalent to 1-10, 540th of -our arable land. At the present time, when indigenous sugar supplies -one-third of our consumption, how much land is devoted to that culture? -16,700 _hectares_, or 1-1978th of the arable land, or 45 _centiares_ -in each commune. Suppose indigenous sugar already supplied our whole -consumption, we should have only 48,000 hectares under beet-root, or -1-689th of the arable land."* - -There are two things to be remarked upon in this citation--the facts and -the doctrine. The facts tend to prove that little land, little capital, -and little labour are required to produce a large quantity of sugar, and -that each commune of France would be abundantly provided by devoting to -beet-root cultivation one hectare of its soil. The doctrine consists in -regarding this circumstance as adverse, and in seeing in the very power -and fertility of the new industry, _a limit to its utility_. - - * It is fair to M. d'Argout to say that he put this language - in the mouth of the adversaries of beet-root culture. But he - adopts it formally, and sanctions it besides, by the law - which it was employed to justify. - -I do not mean to constitute myself here the defender of beet-root -culture, or a judge of the strange facts advanced by M. d'Argout; * but -it is worth while to scrutinize the doctrine of a statesman, to whom -France for a long time entrusted the care of her agriculture and of her -commerce. - -I remarked in the outset that a variable relation exists between an -industrial effort and its result; that absolute imperfection consists -in an infinite effort without any result; absolute perfection in -an unlimited result without any effort; and perfectibility in the -progressive diminution of effort compared with the result. - -But M. d'Argout tells us there is death where we think we perceive -life, and that the importance of any branch of industry is in direct -proportion to its powerlessness. What are we to expect, for instance, -from the cultivation of beet-root? Do you not see that 48,000 _hectares_ -of land, with capital and manual labour in proportion, are sufficient -to supply all France with sugar? Then, this is a branch of industry of -limited utility; limited, of course, with reference to the amount -of labour which it demands, the only way in which, according to the -ex-Minister, any branch of industry can be useful. This utility would be -still more limited, if, owing to the fertility of the soil, and the -richness of the beet-root, we could reap from 24,000 hectares, what at -present we only obtain from 48,000. Oh! were only twenty times, a -hundred times, more land, capital, and labour necessary to _yield us the -same result_, so much the better. We might build some hopes on this new -branch of industry, and it would be worthy of state protection, for it -would offer a vast field to our national industry. But to produce much -with little! that is a bad example, and it is time for the law to -interfere. - - * Supposing that 48,000 or 50,000 hectares were sufficient - to supply the present consumption, it would require 150,000 - for triple that consumption, which M. d'Argout admits as - possible. Moreover, if beet-root entered into a six years' - rotation of crops, it would occupy successively 900,000 - hectares, or 1-38th of the arable land. - -But what is true with regard to sugar, cannot be otherwise with regard -to bread. If, then, the _utility_ of any branch of industry is to be -estimated not by the amount of satisfactions it is fitted to procure us -with a determinate amount of labour, but, on the contrary, by the amount -of labour which it exacts in order to yield us a determinate amount of -satisfactions, what we ought evidently to desire is, that each acre of -land should yield less corn, and each grain of com less nourishment; in -other words, that our land should be comparatively barren; for then the -quantity of land, capital, and manual labour that would be required for -the maintenance of our population would be much more considerable; -we could then say that the demand for human labour would be in -direct proportion to this barrenness. The aspirations of MM. Bugeaud, -Saint-Cricq, Dupin, and d'Argout, would then be satisfied; bread would -be dear, labour abundant, and France rich--rich at least in the sense in -which these gentlemen understand the word. - -What we should desire also is, that human intelligence should be -enfeebled or extinguished; for, as long as it survives, it will be -continually endeavouring to augment _the proportion which the end bears -to the means, and which the product bears to the labour_. It is in that -precisely that intelligence consists. - -Thus, it appears that _sisyphism_ has been the doctrine of all the -men who have been intrusted with our industrial destinies. It would be -unfair to reproach them with it. This principle guides Ministers only -because it is predominant in the Chambers; and it predominates in the -Chambers only because it is sent there by the electoral body, and -the electoral body is imbued with it only because public opinion is -saturated with it. - -I think it right to repeat here that I do not accuse men such as MM. -Bugeaud, Dupin, Saint-Cricq, and d'Argout of being absolutely and under -all circumstances _sisyphists_. They are certainly not so in their -private transactions; for in these they always desire to obtain _by -way of exchange_ what would cost them dearer to procure _by direct -production_; but I affirm they are _sisyphists_ when they hinder the -country from doing the same thing.* - - * See on the same subject, _Sophismes Économiques_, second - series, ch. xvi., post, and _Harmonies Économiques_, ch. vi. - - - - -IV. TO EQUALIZE THE CONDITIONS OF PRODUCTION. - -It has been said.....but in case I should be accused of putting sophisms -into the mouths of the protectionists, I shall allow one of their most -vigorous athletes to speak for them. - -"It has been thought that protection in our case should simply represent -the difference which exists between the cost price of a commodity which -we produce and the cost price of the same commodity produced by our -neighbours.... A protective duty calculated on this basis would only -ensure free competition....; free competition exists only when there is -equality in the conditions and in the charges. In the case of a horse -race, we ascertain the weight which each horse has to carry, and -so equalize the conditions; without that there could be no fair -competition. In the case of trade, if one of the sellers can bring his -commodity to market at less cost, he ceases to be a competitor, and -becomes a monopolist.... Do away with this protection which represents -the difference of cost price, and the foreigner invades our markets and -acquires a monopoly."* - -"Every one must wish, for his own sake, as well as for the sake of -others, that the production of the country should be protected against -foreign competition, _whenever the latter can furnish products at a -lower price._"** - - * M. le Vicomte de Romanet. - - ** Matthieu le Dombasle. - -This argument recurs continually in works of the protectionist school. -I propose to examine it carefully, and I solicit earnestly the reader's -patience and attention. I shall consider, first of all, the inequalities -which are attributable to nature, and afterwards those which are -attributable to diversity of taxation. - -In this, as in other cases, we shall find protectionist theorists -viewing their subject from the producer's stand-point, whilst we -advocate the cause of the unfortunate consumers, whose interests they -studiously keep out of sight. They institute a comparison between the -field of industry and the _turf_. But as regards the latter, the race is -at once the _means_ and the _end_. The public feels no interest in the -competition beyond the competition itself. When you start your horses, -your _end_, your object, is to find out which is the swiftest runner, -and I see your reason for equalizing the weights. But if your _end_, -your object, were to secure the arrival of some important and urgent -news at the winning-post, could you, without inconsistency, throw -obstacles in the way of any one who should offer you the best means of -expediting your message? This is what you do in commercial affairs. -You forget the end, the object sought to be attained, which is material -prosperity; you disregard it, you sacrifice it to a veritable _petitio -principii_; in plain language, you are begging the question. - -But since we cannot bring our opponents to our point of view, let us -place ourselves in theirs, and examine the question in its relations -with production. - -I shall endeavour to prove, - -1st, That to level and equalize the conditions of labour, is to attack -exchange in its essence and principle. - -2d, That it is not true that the labour of a country is neutralized by -the competition of more favoured countries. - -3d, That if that were true, protective duties would not equalize the -conditions of production. - -4th, That liberty, freedom of trade, levels these conditions as much as -they can be levelled. - -5th, That the least favoured countries gain most by exchange. - -I. To level and equalize the conditions of labour is not simply to cramp -exchanges in certain branches of trade, it is to attack exchange in its -principle, for its principle rests upon that very diversity, upon those -very inequalities of fertility, aptitude, climate, and temperature, -which you desire to efface. If Guienne sends wine to Brittany, and if -Brittany sends corn to Guienne, it arises from their being placed -under different conditions of production. Is there a different law for -international exchanges? To urge against international exchanges that -inequality of conditions which gives rise to them, and explains them, -is to argue against their very existence. If protectionists had on their -side sufficient logic and power, they would reduce men, like snails, -to a state of absolute isolation. Moreover, there is not one of their -sophisms which, when submitted to the test of rigorous deductions, does -not obviously tend to destruction and annihilation. - -II. It is not true, in point of _fact_, that inequality of conditions -existing between two similar branches of industry entails necessarily -the ruin of that which is least favourably situated. On the turf, if -one horse gains the prize, the other loses it; but when two horses -are employed in useful labour, each produces a beneficial result in -proportion to its powers; and if the more vigorous renders the greater -service, it does not follow that the other renders no service at all. -We cultivate wheat in all the departments of France, although there are -between them enormous differences of fertility; and if there be any -one department which does not cultivate wheat, it is because it is not -profitable to engage in that species of culture in that locality. In the -same way, analogy shows us that under the _régime_ of liberty, in spite -of similar differences, they produce wheat in all the countries of -Europe; and if there be one which abandons the cultivation of that -grain, it is because it is found _more for its interest_ to give another -direction to the employment of its land, labour, and capital And why -should the fertility of one department not paralyze the agriculturist of -a neighbouring department which is less favourably situated? Because -the economic phenomena have a flexibility, an elasticity, _levelling -powers_, so to speak, which appear to have altogether escaped the notice -of the protectionist school. That school accuses us of being given up -to system; but it is the protectionists who are systematic in the last -degree, if the spirit of system consists in bolstering up arguments -which rest upon one fact instead of upon an aggregation of facts. In the -example which we have given, it is the difference in the value of lands -which compensates the difference in their fertility. Your field produces -three times more than mine. Yes, but it has cost you ten times more, and -I can still compete with you. This is the whole mystery. And observe, -that superiority in some respects leads to inferiority in others. It is -just because your land is more fertile that it is dearer; so that it -is not _accidentally_, but _necessarily_, that the equilibrium is -established, or tends to be established; and it cannot be denied that -liberty is the _régime_ which is most favourable to this tendency. - -I have referred to a branch of agricultural industry; I might as well -have referred to industry in a different department. There are tailors -at Quimper, and that does not hinder there being tailors also in Paris, -though the latter pay a higher rent, and live at much greater expense. -But then they have a different set of customers, and that serves not -only to redress the balance, but to make it incline to their side. - -When we speak, then, of equalizing the conditions of labour, we must not -omit to examine whether liberty does not give us what we seek from an -arbitrary system. - -This natural levelling power of the economic phenomena is so important -to the question we are considering, and at the same time so fitted to -inspire us with admiration of the providential wisdom which presides -over the equitable government of society, that I must ask permission to -dwell upon it for a little. - -The protectionist gentlemen tell us: Such or such a people have over -us an advantage in the cheapness of coal, of iron, of machinery, of -capital--we cannot compete with them. - -We shall examine the proposition afterwards under all its aspects. At -present, I confine myself to the inquiry whether, when a superiority and -an inferiority are both present, they do not possess in themselves, the -one an ascending, the other a descending force, which must ultimately -bring them back to a just equilibrium. - -Suppose two countries, A and B. A possesses over B all kinds of -advantages. You infer from this, that every sort of industry will -concentrate itself in A, and that B is powerless. A, you say, sells much -more than it buys; B buys much more than it sells. I might dispute this, -but I respect your hypothesis. - -On this hypothesis, labour is much in demand in A, and will soon rise in -price there. - -Iron, coal, land, food, capital, are much in demand in A, and they will -soon rise in price there. - -Contemporaneously with this, labour, iron, coal, land, food, capital, -are in little request in B, and will soon fall in price there. - -Nor is this all. While A is always selling, and B is always buying, -money passes from B to A. It becomes abundant in A, and scarce in B. - -But abundance of money means that we must have plenty of it to buy -everything else. Then in A, to the _real dearness_ which arises from a -very active demand, there is added a _nominal dearness_, which is due to -a redundancy of the precious metals. - -Scarcity of money means that little is required for each purchase. Then -in B a _nominal cheapness_ comes to be combined with _real cheapness_. - -In these circumstances, industry will have all sorts of -motives--motives, if I may say so, carried to the highest degree of -intensity--to desert A and establish itself in B. - -Or, to come nearer what would actually take place under such -circumstances, we may affirm that sudden displacements being so -repugnant to the nature of industry, such a transfer would not have been -so long delayed, but that from the beginning, under the free _régime_, -it would have gradually and progressively shared and distributed itself -between A and B, according to the laws of supply and demand--that is to -say, according to the laws of justice and utility. - -And when I assert that if it were possible for industry to concentrate -itself upon one point, that very circumstance would set in motion an -irresistible decentralizing force, I indulge in no idle hypothesis. - -Let us listen to what was said by a manufacturer in addressing the -Manchester Chamber of Commerce (I omit the figures by which he supported -his demonstration):-- - -"Formerly we exported stuffs; then that exportation gave place to that -of yams, which are the raw material of stuffs; then to that of machines, -which are the instruments for producing yarn; afterwards to the -exportation of the capital with which we construct our machines; -finally, to that of our workmen and our industrial skill, which are -the source of our capital. All these elements of labour, one after the -other, are set to work wherever they find the most advantageous opening, -wherever the expense of living is cheaper and the necessaries of -life are moat easily procured; and at the present day, in Prussia, in -Austria, in Saxony, in Switzerland, in Italy, we see manufactures on -an immense scale founded and supported by English capital, worked by -English operatives, and directed by English engineers." - -You see very clearly, then, that nature, or rather that Providence, more -wise, more far-seeing than your narrow and rigid theory supposes, -has not ordered this concentration of industry, this monopoly of all -advantages upon which you found your reasoning as upon a fact which is -unalterable and without remedy. Nature has provided, by means as simple -as they are infallible, that there should be dispersion, diffusion, -solidarity, simultaneous progress; all constituting a state of things -which your restrictive laws paralyze as much as they can; for the -tendency of such laws is, by isolating communities, to render the -diversity of condition much more marked, to prevent equalization, hinder -fusion, neutralize countervailing circumstances, and segregate nations, -whether in their superiority or in their inferiority of condition. - -III. In the third place, to contend that by a protective duty you -equalize the conditions of production, is to give currency to an error -by a deceptive form of speech. It is not true that an import duty -equalizes the conditions of production. These remain, after the -imposition of the duty, the same as they were before. At most, all that -such a duty equalizes are _the conditions of sale_. It may be said, -perhaps, that I am playing upon words, but I throw back the accusation. -It is for my opponents to show that _production and sale_ are synonymous -terms; and if they cannot do this, I am warranted in fastening upon them -the reproach, if not of playing on words, at least of mixing them up and -confusing them. - -To illustrate what I mean by an example: I suppose some Parisian -speculators to devote themselves to the production of oranges. They know -that the oranges of Portugal can be sold in Paris for a penny apiece, -whilst they, on account of the frames and hot-houses which the colder -climate would render necessary, could not sell them for less than a -shilling as a remunerative price. They demand that Portuguese oranges -should have a duty of elevenpence imposed upon them. By means of this -duty, they say, the _conditions af production_ will be equalized; -and the Chamber, giving effect, as it always does, to such reasoning, -inserts in the tariff a duty of elevenpence upon every foreign orange. - -Now, I maintain that the _conditions of production_ are in nowise -changed. The law has made no change on the heat of the sun of Lisbon, or -on the frequency and intensity of the frosts of Paris. The ripening of -oranges will continue to go on naturally on the banks of the Tagus, and -artificially on the banks of the Seine--that is to say, much more -human labour will be required in the one country than in the other. The -conditions of sale are what have been equalized. The Portuguese must now -sell us their oranges at a shilling, elevenpence of which goes to pay -the tax. That tax will be paid, it is evident, by the French consumer. -And look at the whimsical result. Upon each Portuguese orange consumed, -the country will lose nothing, for the extra elevenpence charged to the -consumer will be paid into the treasury. This will cause displacement, -but not loss. But upon each French orange consumed there will be a loss -of elevenpence, or nearly so, for the purchaser will certainly lose that -sum, and the seller as certainly will not gain it, seeing that by the -hypothesis he will only have received the cost price. I leave it to the -protectionists to draw the inference. - -IV. If I have dwelt upon this distinction between the conditions -of production and the conditions of sale, a distinction which the -protectionists will no doubt pronounce paradoxical, it is because it -leads me to inflict on them another, and a much stranger, paradox, which -is this: Would you equalize effectually the conditions of production, -leave exchange free. - -Now, really, it will be said, this is too much; you must be making game -of us. Well, then, were it only for curiosity, I entreat the gentlemen -protectionists to follow me on to the conclusion of my argument. It will -not be long. I revert to my former illustration. - -Let us suppose for a moment that the average daily wage which a -Frenchman earns is equal to a shilling, and it follows incontestably -that to produce directly an orange in France, a day's work, or its -equivalent, is required; while to produce the value of a Portuguese -orange, only a twelfth part of that day's labour would be necessary; -which means exactly this, that the sun does at Lisbon what human labour -does at Paris. Now, is it not very evident that if I can produce an -orange, or, what comes to the same thing, the means of purchasing one, -with a twelfth part of a day's labour, I am placed, with respect to this -production, under exactly the same conditions as the Portuguese producer -himself, excepting the carriage, which must be at my expense. It is -certain, then, that liberty equalizes the conditions of production -direct or indirect, as far as they can be equalized, since it leaves -no other difference, but the inevitable one arising from the expense of -transport. - -I add, that liberty equalizes also the conditions of enjoyment, of -satisfaction, of consumption, with which the protectionists never -concern themselves, and which are yet the essential consideration, -consumption being the end and object of all our industrial efforts. In -virtue of free trade, we enjoy the sun of Portugal like the Portuguese -themselves. The inhabitants of Havre and the citizens of London are put -in possession, and on the same conditions, of all the mineral resources -which nature has bestowed on Newcastle. - -V. Gentlemen protectionists, you find me in a paradoxical humour; and I -am disposed to go further still. I say, and I sincerely think, that if -two countries are placed under unequal conditions of production, _it is -that one of the two which is least favoured by nature which has most -to gain by free trade_. To prove this, I must depart a little from the -usual form of such a work as this. I shall do so nevertheless, first of -all, because the entire question lies there, and also because it will -afford me an opportunity of explaining an economic law of the highest -importance, and which, if rightly understood, appears to me to be fitted -to bring back to the science all those sects who, in our day, seek in -the land of chimeras that social harmony which they fail to discover -in nature. I refer to the law of consumption, which it is perhaps to be -regretted that the majority of economists have neglected. - -Consumption is the _end_ and final cause of all the economic phenomena, -and it is in consumption consequently that we must expect to find their -ultimate and definitive solution. - -Nothing, whether favourable or unfavourable, can abide permanently with -the producer. The advantages which nature and society bestow upon him, -the inconveniences he may experience, glide past him, so to speak, and -are absorbed and mixed up with the community in as far as the community -represents consumers. This is an admirable law both in its cause and -in its effects, and he who shall succeed in clearly describing it is -entitled, in my opinion, to say, "I have not passed through life without -paying my tribute to society." Everything which favours the work of -production is welcomed with joy by the producer, for the _immediate -effect_ of it is to put him in a situation to render greater service -to the community, and to exact from it a greater remuneration. Every -circumstance which retards or interrupts production gives pain to -the producer, for the _immediate effect_ of it is to circumscribe his -services, and consequently his remuneration. _Immediate_ good or ill -circumstances--fortunate or unfortunate--necessarily fall upon the -producer, and leave him no choice but to accept the one and eschew the -other. - -In the same way, when a workman succeeds in discovering an improved -process in manufactures, the _immediate_ profit from the improvement -results to him. This was necessary, in order to give his labour an -intelligent direction; and it is just, because it is fair that an effort -crowned with success should carry its recompense along with it. - -But I maintain that these good or bad effects, though in their own -nature permanent, are not permanent as regards the producer. If it had -been so, a principle of progressive, and, therefore, of indefinite, -inequality would have been introduced among men, and this is the reason -why these good or evil effects become very soon absorbed in the general -destinies of the human race. - -How is this brought about? I shall show how it takes place by some -examples. - -Let us go back to the thirteenth century. The men who then devoted -themselves to the art of copying received for the service which they -rendered _a remuneration regulated by the general rate of earnings_.* -Among them there arose one who discovered the means of multiplying -copies of the same work rapidly. He invented printing. - -In the first instance, one man was enriched, and many others were -impoverished. At first sight, marvellous as the invention proves itself -to be, we hesitate to decide whether it is hurtful or useful. It seems -to introduce into the world, as I have said, an indefinite element -of inequality. Guttemberg profits by his invention, and extends his -invention with its profits indefinitely, until he has ruined all the -copyists. As regards the public, in the capacity of consumer, it gains -little; for Guttemberg takes care not to lower the price of his books, -but just enough to undersell his rivals. - -But the intelligence which has introduced harmony into the movements of -the heavenly bodies, has implanted it also in the internal mechanism of -society. We shall see the economic advantages of the invention when it -has ceased to be individual property, and has become for ever the common -patrimony of the masses. - -At length the invention comes to be known. Guttemberg is no longer the -only printer; others imitate him. Their profits' at first are large. -They are thus rewarded for having been the first to imitate the -invention; and it is right that it should be so, for this higher -remuneration was necessary to induce them to concur in the grand -definite result which is approaching. They gain a great deal, but they -gain less than the inventor, for _competition_ now begins its work. -The price of books goes on falling. The profit of imitators goes on -diminishing in proportion as the invention becomes of older date; that -is to say, in proportion as the imitation becomes less meritorious..... - - * The author, here and elsewhere, uses the French word - _profits_; but it is clear from the context that he does not - refer to the returns from capital, in which sense alone the - English economists employ the term _profits_. We have - therefore substituted the words _earnings or wages_.-- - Translator, - -The new branch of industry at length reaches its normal state; in other -words, the remuneration of printers ceases to be exceptionally high, and -comes, like that of the copyist, to be _regulated by the ordinary rate -of earnings_. Here we have production, as such, brought back to the -point from which it started. And yet the invention is not the less an -acquisition; the saving of time, of labour, of effort to produce a given -result, that is, to produce a determinate number of copies, is not the -less realized. But how does it show itself? In the cheapness of books. -And to whose profit? To the profit of the consumer, of society, of the -human race. The printers, who have thenceforth no exceptional merit, -no longer receive exceptional remuneration. As men, as consumers, -they undoubtedly participate in the advantages which the invention -has conferred upon the community. But that is all. As printers, as -producers, they have returned to the ordinary condition of the other -producers of the country. Society pays them for their labour, and not -for the utility of the invention. The latter has become the common and -gratuitous heritage of mankind at large. - -I confess that the wisdom and the beauty of these laws call forth my -admiration and respect. I see in them Saint-Simonianism: - -_To each according to his capacity; to each capacity according to its -works_. I see in them, communism; that is, the tendency of products -to become the _common_ heritage of men; but a Saint-Simonianism, a -communism, regulated by infinite prescience, and not abandoned to the -frailties, the passions, and the arbitrary will of men. - -What I have said of the art of printing, may be affirmed of all the -instruments of labour, from the nail and the hammer to the locomotive -and the electric telegraph. Society becomes possessed of all through -its more abundant consumption, and _it enjoys all gratuitously_, for -the effect of inventions and discoveries is to reduce the price of -commodities; and all that part of the price which has been annihilated, -and which represents the share invention has in production, evidently -renders the product gratuitous to that extent. All that remains to be -paid for is the human labour, the immediate labour, /and it is paid for -without reference to the result of the invention, at least when that -invention has passed through the cycle I have just described--the cycle -which it is designed to pass through. I send for a tradesman to my -house; he comes and brings his saw with him; I pay him two shillings for -his day's work, and he saws me twenty-five boards. Had the saw not been -invented, he would probably not have made out to furnish me with one, -and I should have had to pay him the same wages for his day's work. -The _utility_ produced by the saw is then, as far as I am concerned, a -gratuitous gift of nature, or rather it is a part of that inheritance -which, _in common_ with all my brethren, I have received from my -ancestors. I have two workmen in my field. The one handles the plough, -the other the spade. The result of their labour is very different, -but the day's wages are the same, because the remuneration is not -proportioned to the utility produced, but to the effort, the labour, -which is exacted. - -I entreat the reader's patience, and beg him to believe that I have not -lost sight of free trade. Let him only have the goodness to remember the -conclusion at which I have arrived: _Remuneration is not in proportion -to the utilities which the producer brings to market, but to his -labour_.* - - * It is true that labour does not receive a uniform - remuneration. It may be more or less intense, dangerous, - skilled, etc. Competition settles the usual or current price - in each department--and this is the fluctuating price of - which I speak. - -I have drawn my illustrations as yet from human inventions. Let us now -turn our attention to natural advantages. - -In every branch of production, nature and man concur. But the portion -of utility which nature contributes is always gratuitous. It is only -the portion of utility which human labour contributes which forms the -subject of exchange, and, consequently, of remuneration. The latter -varies, no doubt, very much in proportion to the intensity of the -labour, its skill, its promptitude, its suitableness, the need there -is of it, the temporary absence of rivalry, etc. But it is not the less -true, in principle, that the concurrence of natural laws, which are -common to all, counts for nothing in the price of the product. - -We do not pay for the air we breathe, although it is so _useful_ to us, -that, without it, we could not live two minutes. We do not pay for it, -nevertheless; because nature furnishes it to us without the aid of human -labour. But if, for example, we should desire to separate one of the -gases of which it is composed, to make an experiment, we must make an -exertion; or if we wish another to make that exertion for us, we must -sacrifice for that other an equivalent amount of exertion, although -we may have embodied it in another product. Whence we see that pains, -efforts, and exertions are the real subjects of exchange. It is not, -indeed, the oxygen gas that I pay for, since it is at my disposal -everywhere, but the labour necessary to disengage it, labour which has -been saved me, and which must be recompensed. Will it be said that there -is something else to be paid for, materials, apparatus, etc.? Still, in -paying for these, I pay for labour. The price of the coal employed, for -example, represents the labour necessary to extract it from the mine and -to transport it to the place where it is to be used. - -We do not pay for the light of the sim, because it is a gift of nature. -But we pay for gas, tallow, oil, wax, because there is here human labour -to be remunerated; and it will be remarked that, in this case, the -remuneration is proportioned, not to the utility produced, but to the -labour employed, so much so that it may happen that one of these kinds -of artificial light, though more intense, costs us less, and for this -reason, that the same amount of human labour affords us more of it. - -Were the porter who carries water to my house to be paid in proportion -to the _absolute utility_ of water, my whole fortune would be -insufficient to remunerate him. But I pay him in proportion to the -exertion he makes. If he charges more, others will do the work, or, if -necessary, I will do it myself. Water, in truth, is not the subject of -our bargain, but the labour of carrying it. This view of the matter is -so important, and the conclusions which I am about to deduce from it -throw so much light on the question of the freedom of international -exchanges, that I deem it necessary to elucidate it by other examples. - -The alimentary substance contained in potatoes is not very costly, -because we can obtain a large amount of it with comparatively little -labour. We pay more for wheat, because the production of it costs a -greater amount of human labour. It is evident that if nature did for -the one what it does for the other, the price of both would tend to -equality. It is impossible that the producer of wheat should permanently -gain much more than the producer of potatoes. The law of competition -would prevent it. - -If by a happy miracle the fertility of all arable lands should come to -be augmented, it would not be the agriculturist, but the consumer, who -would reap advantage from that phenomenon for it would resolve itself -into abundance and cheapness. There would be less labour incorporated -in each quarter of corn, and the cultivator could exchange it only for -a smaller amount of labour worked up in some other product. If, on the -other hand, the fertility of the soil came all at once to be diminished, -nature's part in the process of production would be less, that of human -labour would be greater, and the product dearer. I am, then, warranted -in saying that it is in consumption, in the human element, that all the -economic phenomena come ultimately to resolve themselves. The man who -has failed to regard them in this light, to follow them out to their -ultimate effects, without stopping short at _immediate_ results, and -viewing them from the _producer's_ standpoint, can no more be regarded -as an economist than the man who should prescribe a draught, and, -instead of watching its effect on the entire system of the patient, -should inquire only how it affected the mouth and throat, could be -regarded as a physician. - -Tropical regions are very favourably situated for the production of -sugar and of coffee. This means that nature does a great part of the -work, and leaves little for human labour to do. But who reaps the -advantage of this liberality of nature? Not the producing countries, for -competition causes the price barely to remunerate the labour. It is the -human race that reaps the benefit, for the result of nature's liberality -is cheapness, and cheapness benefits everybody. - -Suppose a temperate region where coal and iron-ore are found on the -surface of the ground, where one has only to stoop down to get them. -That, in the first instance, the inhabitants would profit by this happy -circumstance, I allow. But competition would soon intervene, and the -price of coal and iron-ore would go on falling, till the gift of nature -became free to all, and then the human labour employed would be alone -remunerated according to the general rate of earnings. - -Thus the liberality of nature, like improvements in the processes -of production, is, or continually tends to become, under the law of -competition, the common and gratuitous patrimony of consumers, of the -masses, of mankind in general. Then, the countries which do not possess -these advantages have everything to gain by exchanging their products -with those countries which possess them, because the subject of exchange -is _labour_, apart from the consideration of the natural utilities -worked up with that labour; and the countries which have incorporated -in a given amount of their labour the greatest amount of these _natural -utilities_, are evidently the most favoured countries. Their products -which represent the least amount of human labour are the least -profitable; in other words, they _are cheaper_; and if the whole -liberality of nature resolves itself into _cheapness_, it is evidently -not the producing, but the consuming, country which reaps the benefit. - -Hence we see the enormous absurdity of consuming countries which reject -products for the very reason that they are cheap. It is as if they said, -"We want nothing that nature gives us. You ask me for an effort equal to -two, in exchange for a product which I cannot create without an effort -equal to four; you can make that effort, because in your case nature -does half the work. Be it so; I reject your offer, and I shall wait -until your climate, having become more inclement, will force you to -demand from me an effort equal to four, in order that I may treat with -you _on a footing of equality_." - -A is a favoured country. B is a country to which nature has been less -bountiful. I maintain that exchange benefits both, but benefits B -especially; because exchange is not an exchange of _utilities for -utilities_, but _of value for value_. Now A includes _a greater amount -of utility in the same value_, seeing that the utility of a product -includes what nature has put there, as well as what labour has put -there; whilst value includes only what labour has put there. Then B -makes quite an advantageous bargain. In recompensing the producer of A -for his labour only, it receives into the bargain a greater amount of -natural utility than it has given. - -This enables us to lay down the general rule: Exchange is a barter of -_values_; value under the action of competition being made to represent -labour, exchange becomes a barter of equal labour. What nature has -imparted to the products exchanged is on both sides given _gratuitously -and into the bargain_; whence it follows necessarily that exchanges -effected with countries the most favoured by nature are the most -advantageous. - -The theory of which in this chapter I have endeavoured to trace the -outlines would require great developments. I have glanced at it only -in as far as it bears upon my subject of free trade. But perhaps the -attentive reader may have perceived in it the fertile germ which in the -rankness of its maturity will not only smother protection, but, along -with it, _Fourierisrme, Saint-Simonianisme, communisme_, and all those -schools whose object it is to exclude from the government of the world -the law of _competition_. Regarded from the producer's point of view, -competition no doubt frequently clashes with our _immediate_ and -individual interests; but if we change our point of view and extend our -regards to industry in general, to universal prosperity--in a word, to -_consumption_--we shall find that competition in the moral world plays -the same part which equilibrium does in the material world. It lies -at the root of true communism, of true socialism, of that equality of -conditions and of happiness so much desired in our day; and if so -many sincere publicists, and well-meaning reformers seek after the -_arbitrary_, it is for this reason--that they do not understand -liberty.* - - * The theory sketched in this chapter, is the same which, - four years afterwards, was developed in the _Harmonies - Économiques_. Remuneration reserved exclusively for human - labour; the gratuitous nature of natural agents; progressive - conquest of these agents, to the profit of mankind, whose - common property they thus become; elevation of general - wellbeing and tendency to relative equalization of - conditions; we recognise here the essential elements of the - most important of all the works of Bastiat.--Editor. - - - - -V. OUR PRODUCTS ARE BURDENED WITH TAXES. - -We have here again the same sophism. We demand that foreign products -should be taxed to neutralize the effect of the taxes which weigh -upon our national products. The object, then, still is to equalize the -conditions of production. We have only a word to say, and it is this: -that the tax is an artificial obstacle which produces exactly the same -result as a natural obstacle, its effect is to enhance prices. If this -enhancement reach a point which makes it a greater loss to create the -product for ourselves than to procure it from abroad by producing a -counter value, _laissez faire_, let well alone. Of two evils, private -interest will do well to choose the least. I might, then, simply refer -the reader to the preceding demonstration; but the sophism which we have -here to combat recurs so frequently in the lamentations and demands, I -might say in the challenges, of the protectionist school, as to merit a -special discussion. - -If the question relate to one of those exceptional taxes which are -imposed on certain products, I grant readily that it is reasonable to -impose the same duty on the foreign product. For example, it would be -absurd to exempt foreign salt from duty; not that, in an economical -point of view, France would lose anything by doing so, but the reverse. -Let them say what they will, principles are always the same; and France -would gain by the exemption as she must always gain by removing a -natural or artificial obstacle. But in this instance the obstacle -has been interposed for purposes of revenue. These purposes must be -attained; and were foreign salt sold in our market duty free, the -Treasury would lose its hundred millions of francs (four millions -sterling); and must raise that sum from some other source. There would -be an obvious inconsistency in creating an obstacle, and failing in -the object. It might have been better to have had recourse at first -to another tax than that upon French salt. But I admit that there are -certain circumstances in which a tax may be laid on foreign commodities, -provided it is not _protective_, but fiscal. - -But to pretend that a nation, because she is subjected to heavier taxes -than her neighbours, should protect herself by tariffs against the -competition of her rivals, in this is a sophism, and it is this sophism -which I intend to attack. - -I have said more than once that I propose only to explain the theory, -and lay open, as far as possible, the sources of protectionist -errors. Had I intended to raise a controversy, I should have asked the -protectionists why they direct their tariffs chiefly against England -and Belgium, the most heavily taxed countries in the world? Am I not -warranted in regarding their argument only as a pretext? But I am -not one of those who believe that men are prohibitionists from -self-interest, and not from conviction. The doctrine of protection is -too popular not to be sincere. If the majority had faith in liberty, we -should be free. Undoubtedly it is self-interest which makes our tariffs -so heavy; but conviction is at the root of it. "The will," says Pascal, -"is one of the principal organs of belief." But the belief exists -nevertheless, although it has its root in the will, and in the insidious -suggestions of egotism. - -Let us revert to the sophism founded on taxation. - -The State may make a good or a bad use of the taxes which it levies. -When it renders to the public services which are equivalent to the value -it receives, it makes a good use of them. And when it dissipates its -revenues without giving any service in return, it makes a bad use of -them. - -In the first case, to affirm that the taxes place the country which pays -them under conditions of production more unfavourable than those of a -country which is exempt from them, is a sophism. We pay twenty millions -of francs for justice and police; but then we have them, with the -security they afford us, and the time which they save us; and it is very -probable that production is neither more easy nor more active in those -countries, if there are any such, where the people take the business -of justice and police into their own hands. We pay many hundreds -of millions (of francs) for roads, bridges, harbours, and railways. -Granted; but then we have the benefit of these roads, bridges, -harbours, and railways; and whether we make a good or a bad bargain in -constructing them, it cannot be said that they render us inferior to -other nations, who do not indeed support a budget of public works, -but who have no public works. And this explains why, whilst accusing -taxation of being a cause of industrial inferiority, we direct our -tariffs especially against those countries which are the most heavily -taxed. Their taxes, well employed, far from deteriorating, have -ameliorated, _the conditions of production_ in these countries. Thus we -are continually arriving at the conclusion that protectionist sophisms -are not only not true, but are the very reverse of true.* - - * See Harmonies Économiques, ch. xvii. - -If taxes are improductive, suppress them, if you can; but assuredly -the strangest mode of neutralizing their effect is to add individual to -public taxes. Fine compensation truly! You tell us that the State -taxes are too much; and you give that as a reason why we should tax one -another! - -A protective duty is a tax directed against a foreign product; but -we must never forget that it falls back on the home consumer. Now the -consumer is the tax-payer. The agreeable language you address to him is -this: "Because your taxes are heavy, we raise the price of everything -you buy; because the State lays hold of one part of your income, we hand -over another to the monopolist." - -But let us penetrate a little deeper into this sophism, which is in such -repute with our legislators, although the extraordinary thing is that it -is just the very people who maintain unproductive taxes who attribute to -them our industrial inferiority, and in that inferiority find an excuse -for imposing other taxes and restrictions. - -It appears evident to me that the nature and effects of protection would -not be changed, were the State to levy a direct tax and distribute the -money afterwards in premiums and indemnities to the privileged branches -of industry. - -Suppose that while foreign iron cannot be sold in our market below eight -francs, French iron cannot be sold for less than twelve francs. - -On this hypothesis, there are two modes in which the State can secure -the home market to the producer. - -The first mode is to lay a duty of five francs on foreign iron. It is -evident that that duty would exclude it, since it could no longer be -sold under thirteen francs, namely, eight francs for the cost price, and -five francs for the tax, and at that price it would be driven out of the -market by French iron, the price of which we suppose to be only twelve -francs. In this case, the purchaser, the consumer, would be at the whole -cost of the protection. - -Or again, the State might levy a tax of five francs from the public, and -give the proceeds as a premium to the ironmaster. The protective effect -would be the same. Foreign iron would in this case be equally excluded; -for our ironmaster can now sell his iron at seven francs, which, with -the five francs premium, would make up to him the remunerative price of -twelve francs. But with home iron at seven francs the foreigner -could not sell his for eight, which by the supposition is his lowest -remunerative price. - -Between these two modes of going to work, I can see only one difference. -The principle is the same; the effect is the same; but in the one, -certain individuals pay the price of protection; in the other, it is -paid for by the nation at large. - -I frankly avow my predilection for the second mode. It appears to me -more just, more economical, and more honourable; more just, because if -society desires to give largesses to some of its members, all should -contribute; more economical, because it would save much expense in -collecting, and get us rid of many restrictions; more honourable, -because the public would then see clearly the nature of the operation, -and act accordingly. - -But if the protectionist system had taken this form, it would have been -laughable to hear men say, "We pay heavy taxes for the army, for the -navy, for the administration of justice, for public works, for -the university, the public debt, etc.--in all exceeding a milliard -[£40,000,000 sterling]. For this reason, the State should take another -milliard from us, to relieve these poor ironmasters, these poor -shareholders in the coal-mines of Anzin, these unfortunate proprietors -of forests, these useful men who supply us with cod-fish." - -Look at the subject closely, and you will be satisfied that this is the -true meaning and effect of the sophism we are combating. It is all in -vain; you cannot _give money_ to some members of the community but by -taking it from others. If you desire to ruin the tax-payer, you may do -so. But at least do not banter him by saying, "In order to compensate -your losses, I take from you again as much as I have taken from you -already." To expose fully all that is false in this sophism would be an -endless work. I shall confine myself to three observations. You assert -that the country is overburdened with taxes, and on this fact you found -an argument for the protection of certain branches of industry. But we -have to pay these taxes in spite of protection. If, then, a particular -branch of industry presents itself, and says, "I share in the payment -of taxes; that raises the cost price of my products, and I demand that a -protecting duty should also raise their selling price," what does such -a demand amount to? It amounts simply to this, that the tax should be -thrown over on the rest of the community. The object sought for is to -be reimbursed the amount of the tax by a rise of prices. But as the -Treasury requires to have the full amount of all the taxes, and as the -masses have to pay the higher price, it follows that they have to bear -not only their own share of taxation but that of the particular branch -of industry which is protected. But we mean to protect everybody, you -will say. I answer, in the first place, that that is impossible; and, -in the next place, that if it were possible, there would be no relief. -I would pay for you, and you would pay for me; but the tax must be paid -all the same. - -You are thus the dupes of an illusion. You wish in the first instance -to pay taxes in order that you may have an army, a navy, a church, -a university, judges, highways, etc., and then you wish to free from -taxation first one branch of industry, then a second, then a third, -always throwing back the burden upon the masses. You do nothing more -than create interminable complications, without any other result than -these complications themselves. Show me that a rise of price caused -by protection falls upon the foreigner, and I could discover in your -argument something specious. But if it be true that the public pays -the tax before your law, and that after the law is passed it pays for -protection and the tax into the bargain, truly I cannot see what is -gained by it. - -But I go further, and maintain that the heavier our taxes are, the more -we should hasten to throw open our ports and our frontiers to foreigners -less heavily taxed than ourselves. And why? In order to throw back upon -them a greater share of our burden. Is it not an incontestable axiom in -political economy that taxes ultimately fall on the consumer? The more, -then, our exchanges are multiplied, the more will foreign consumers -reimburse us for the taxes incorporated and worked up in the products -we sell them; whilst we in this respect will have to make them a smaller -restitution, seeing that their products, according to our hypothesis, -are less heavily burdened than ours. - -In fine, have you never asked yourselves whether these heavy burdens on -which you found your argument for a prohibitory régime are not caused -by that very régime? If commerce were free, what use would you have for -your great standing armies and powerful navies?.... But this belongs to -the domain of politics. - - Et ne confondons pas, pour trop approfondir, - Leurs affaires avec les nôtres. - - - - -VI. BALANCE OF TRADE. - -Our adversaries have adopted tactics which are rather embarrassing. -Do we establish our doctrine? They admit it with the greatest possible -respect. Do we attack their principle? They abandon it with the best -grace in the world. They demand only one thing--that our doctrine, which -they hold to be true, should remain relegated in books, and that their -principle, which they acknowledge to be vicious, should reign paramount -in practical legislation. Resign to them the management of tariffs, and -they will give up all dispute with you in the domain of theory. - -"Assuredly," said M. Gauthier de Rumilly, on a recent occasion, "no one -wishes to resuscitate the antiquated theories of the balance of trade." -Very right, Monsieur Gauthier, but please to remember that it is not -enough to give a passing slap to error, and immediately afterwards, and -for two hours together, reason as if that error were truth. - -Let me speak of M. Lestiboudois. Here we have a consistent reasoner, a -logical disputant. There is nothing in his conclusions which is not -to be found in his premises. He asks nothing in practice, but what -he justifies in theory. His principle may be false; that is open to -question. But, at any rate, he has a principle. He believes, and he -proclaims it aloud, that if France gives ten, in order to receive -fifteen, she loses five; and it follows, of course, that he supports -laws which are in keeping with this view of the subject "The important -thing to attend to," he says, "is that the amount of our importations -goes on augmenting, and exceeds the amount of our exportations--that -is to say, France every year purchases more foreign products, and sells -less of her own. Figures prove this. What do we see? In 1842, imports -exceeded exports by 200 millions. These facts appear to prove in the -clearest manner that national industry _is not sufficiently protected_, -that we depend upon foreign labour for our supplies, that the -competition of our rivals _oppresses_ our industry. The present law -appears to me to recognise the fact, which is not true according to the -economists, that when we purchase we necessarily sell a corresponding -amount of commodities. It is evident that we can purchase, not with our -usual products, not with our revenue, not with the results of permanent -labour, but with our capital, with products which have been accumulated -and stored up, those intended for reproduction--that is to say, that we -may expend, that we may dissipate, the proceeds of anterior economies, -that we may impoverish ourselves, that we may proceed on the road to -ruin, and consume entirely the national capital. _This is exactly what -we are doing. Every year we give away 200 millions of francs to the -foreigner_." - -Well, here is a man with whom we can come to an understanding. There is -no hypocrisy in this language. The doctrine of the balance of trade is -openly avowed. France imports 200 millions more than she exports. -Then we lose 200 millions a year. And what is the remedy? To place -restrictions on importation. The conclusion is unexceptionable. - -It is with M. Lestiboudois, then, that we must deal, for how can we -argue with M. Gauthier? If you tell him that the balance of trade is an -error, he replies that that was what he laid down at the beginning. If -you say that the balance of trade is a truth, he will reply that that is -what he proves in his conclusions. - -The economist school will blame me, no doubt, for arguing with M. -Lestiboudois. To attack the balance of trade, it will be said, is to -fight with a windmill. - -But take care. The doctrine of the balance of trade is neither so -antiquated, nor so sick, nor so dead as M. Gauthier would represent it, -for the entire Chamber--M. Gauthier himself included--has recognised by -its votes the theory of M. Lestiboudois. - -I shall not fatigue the reader by proceeding to probe that theory, but -content myself with subjecting it to the test of facts. - -We are constantly told that our principles do not hold good, except in -theory. But tell me, gentlemen, if you regard the books of merchants as -holding good in practice? It appears to me that if there is anything -in the world which should have practical authority, when the question -regards profit and loss, it is commercial accounts. Have all the -merchants in the world come to an understanding for centuries to keep -their books in such a way as to represent profits as losses, and losses -as profits? It may be so, but I would much rather come to the conclusion -that M. Lestiboudois is a bad economist. - -Now, a merchant of my acquaintance having had two transactions, the -results of which were very different, I felt curious to compare the -books of the counting-house with the books of the Customhouse, as -interpreted by M. Lestiboudois to the satisfaction of our six hundred -legislators. - -M. T. despatched a ship from Havre to the United States, with a cargo of -French goods, chiefly those known as _articles de Paris_, amounting to -200,000 francs. This was the figure declared at the Customhouse. When -the cargo arrived at New Orleans it was charged with 10 per cent, -freight and 30 per cent, duty, making a total of 280,000 francs. It was -sold with 20 per cent, profit, or 40,000 francs, and produced a total of -320,000 francs, which the consignee invested in cottons. These cottons -had still for freight, insurance, commission, etc., to bear a cost of -10 per cent. so that when the new cargo arrived at Havre it had cost -352,000 francs, which was the figure entered in the Customhouse books. -Finally M. T. realized upon this return cargo 20 per cent, profit, or -70,400 francs; in other words, the cottons were sold for 422,400 francs. - -If M. Lestiboudois desires it, I shall send him an extract from the -books of M. T. He will there see _at the credit_ of the _profit and -loss_ account--that is to say, as profits--two entries, one of 40,000, -another of 70,400 francs, and M. T. is very sure that his accounts are -accurate. - -And yet, what do the Customhouse books tell M. Lestiboudois regarding -this transaction? They tell him simply that France exported 200,000 -francs' worth, and imported to the extent of 352,000 francs; whence the -honourable deputy concludes "_that she had expended, and dissipated the -profits of her anterior economies, that she is impoverishing herself -that she is on the high road to ruin, and has given away to the -foreigner 152,000 francs of her capital_." - -Some time afterwards, M. T. despatched another vessel with a cargo also -of the value of 200,000 francs, composed of the products of our native -industry. This unfortunate ship was lost in a gale of wind after leaving -the harbour, and all M. T. had to do was to make two short entries in -his books, to this effect:-- - -"_Sundry goods debtors to X_, 200,000 francs, for purchases of different -commodities despatched by the ship N. - -"_Profit and loss debtors to sundry goods_, 200,000 francs, in -consequence of _definitive and total loss_ of the cargo." - -At the same time, the Customhouse books bore an entry of 200.000 francs -in the list of _exportations_; and as there was no corresponding entry -to make in the list of _importations_, it follows that M. Lestiboudois -and the Chamber will see in this shipwreck _a clear and net profit_ for -France of 200,000 francs. - -There is still another inference to be deduced from this, which is, -that according to the theory of the balance of trade, France has a very -simple means of doubling her capital at any moment. It is enough to pass -them through the Customhouse, and then pitch them into the sea. In this -case the exports will represent the amount of her capital, the imports -will be _nil_, and even impossible, and we shall gain all that the sea -swallows up. - -This is a joke, the protectionists will say. It is impossible' we could -give utterance to such absurdities. You do give utterance to them, -however, and, what is more, you act upon them, and impose them on your -fellow-citizens to the utmost of your power. - -The truth is, it would be necessary to take the balance of trade -_backwards [au rebours]_, and calculate the national profits from -foreign trade by the excess of imports over exports. This excess, after -deducting costs, constitutes the real profit. But this theory, which -is true, leads directly to free trade. I make you a present of it, -gentlemen, as I do of all the theories in the preceding chapters. -Exaggerate it as much as you please--it has nothing to fear from that -test. Suppose, if that amuses you, that the foreigner inundates us with -all sorts of useful commodities without asking anything in return, that -our imports are _infinite_ and exports _nil_, I defy you to prove to me -that we should be poorer on that account. - - - - -VII. OF THE MANUFACTURERS - -OF CANDLES, WAX-LIGHTS, LAMPS, CANDLESTICKS, STREET LAMPS, SNUFFERS, -EXTINGUISHERS, AND OF THE PRODUCERS OF OIL, TALLOW, ROSIN, ALCOHOL, AND, -GENERALLY, OF EVERYTHING CONNECTED WITH LIGHTING. - -To Messieurs the Members of the Chamber of Deputies. - -Gentlemen,--You are on the right road. You reject abstract theories, and -have little consideration for cheapness and plenty Your chief care is -the interest of the producer. You desire to emancipate him from external -competition, and reserve the _national market for national industry_. - -We are about to offer you an admirable opportunity of applying -your--what shall we call it? your theory? No; nothing is more deceptive -than theory; your doctrine? your system? your principle? but you dislike -doctrines, you abhor systems, and as for principles, you deny that -there are any in social economy: we shall say, then, your practice, your -practice without theory and without principle. - -We are suffering from the intolerable competition of a foreign rival, -placed, it would seem, in a condition so far superior to ours for the -production of light, that he absolutely _inundates our national market_ -with it at a price fabulously reduced. The moment he shows himself, -our trade leaves us--all consumers apply to him; and a branch of native -industry, having countless ramifications, is all at once rendered -completely stagnant. This rival, who is no other than the Sun, wages war -to the knife against us, and we suspect that he has been raised up by -_perfidious Albion_ (good policy as times go); inasmuch as he displays -towards that haughty island a circumspection with which he dispenses in -our case. - -What we pray for is, that it may please you to pass a law ordering the -shutting up of all windows, sky-lights, dormer-windows, outside and -inside shutters, curtains, blinds, bull's-eyes; in a word, of all -openings, holes, chinks, clefts, and fissures, by or through which the -light of the sun has been in use to enter houses, to the prejudice of -the meritorious manufactures with which we flatter ourselves we have -accommodated our country,--a country which, in gratitude, ought not to -abandon us now to a strife so unequal. - -We trust, Gentlemen, that you will not regard this our request as a -satire, or refuse it without at least previously hearing the reasons -which we have to urge in its support. - -And, first, if you shut up as much as possible all access to natural -light, and create a demand for artificial light, which of our French -manufactures will not be encouraged by it? - -If more tallow is consumed, then there must be more oxen and sheep; and, -consequently, we shall behold the multiplication of artificial meadows, -meat, wool, hides, and, above all, manure, which is the basis and -foundation of all agricultural wealth. - -If more oil is consumed, then we shall have an extended cultivation of -the poppy, of the olive, and of rape. These rich and exhausting plants -will come at the right time to enable us to avail ourselves of the -increased fertility which the rearing of additional cattle will impart -to our lands. - -Our heaths will be covered with resinous trees. Numerous swarms of bees -will, on the mountains, gather perfumed treasures, now wasting their -fragrance on the desert air, like the flowers from which they emanate. -No branch of agriculture but will then exhibit a cheering development. - -The same remark applies to navigation. Thousands of vessels will proceed -to the whale fishery; and, in a short time, we shall possess a navy -capable of maintaining the honour of France, and gratifying the -patriotic aspirations of your petitioners, the undersigned candlemakers -and others. - -But what shall we say of the manufacture of _articles de Paris?_ -Henceforth you will behold gildings, bronzes, crystals, in candlesticks, -in lamps, in lustres, in candelabra, shining forth, in spacious -warerooms, compared with which those of the present day can be regarded -but as mere shops. - -No poor _resinier_ from his heights on the seacoast, no coalminer from -the depth of his sable gallery, but will rejoice in higher wages and -increased prosperity. - -Only have the goodness to reflect, Gentlemen, and you will be convinced -that there is, perhaps, no Frenchman, from the wealthy coalmaster to the -humblest vender of lucifer matches, whose lot will not be ameliorated by -the success of this our petition. - -We foresee your objections, Gentlemen, but we know that you can oppose -to us none but such as you have picked up from the effete works of the -partisans of free trade. We defy you to utter a single word against -us which will not instantly rebound against yourselves and your entire -policy. - -You will tell us that, if we gain by the protection which we seek, the -country will lose by it, because the consumer must bear the loss. - -We answer: - -You have ceased to have any right to invoke the interest of the -consumer; for, whenever his interest is found opposed to that of the -producer, you sacrifice the former. You have done so for the purpose of -_encouraging labour and increasing employment_. For the same reason you -should do so again. - -You have yourselves obviated this objection. When you are told that -the consumer is interested in the free importation of iron, coal, corn, -textile fabrics--yes, you reply, but the producer is interested in their -exclusion. Well, be it so;--if consumers are interested in the free -admission of natural light, the producers of artificial light are -equally interested in its prohibition. - -But, again, you may say that the producer and consumer are identical. If -the manufacturer gain by protection, he will make the agriculturist -also a gainer; and if agriculture prosper, it will open a vent -to manufactures. Very well; if you confer upon us the monopoly of -furnishing light during the day,--first of all, we shall purchase -quantities of tallow, coals, oils, resinous substances, wax, -alcohol--besides silver, iron, bronze, crystal--to carry on our -manufactures; and then we, and those who furnish us with such -commodities, having become rich will consume a great deal, and impart -prosperity to all the other branches of our national industry. - -If you urge that the light of the sun is a gratuitous gift of nature, -and that to reject such gifts is to reject wealth itself under pretence -of encouraging the means of acquiring it, we would caution you against -giving a death-blow to your own policy. Remember that hitherto you have -always repelled foreign products, because they approximate more nearly -than home products to the character of gratuitous gifts. To comply with -the exactions of other monopolists, you have only _half a motive_; and -to repulse us simply because we stand on a stronger vantage-ground than -others would be to adopt the equation, + x + = -; in other words, it -would be to heap _absurdity upon absurdity_. - -Nature and human labour co-operate in various proportions (depending on -countries and climates) in the production of commodities. The part which -nature executes is always gratuitous; it is the part executed by human -labour which constitutes value, and is paid for. - -If a Lisbon orange sells for half the price of a Paris orange, it is -because natural, and consequently gratuitous, heat does for the one, -what artificial, and therefore expensive, heat must do for the other. - -When an orange comes to us from Portugal, we may conclude that it is -furnished in part gratuitously, in part for an onerous consideration; -in other words, it comes to us at _half-price_ as compared with those of -Paris. - -Now, it is precisely the _gratuitous half_ (pardon the word) which we -contend should be excluded. You say, How can natural labour sustain -competition with foreign labour, when the former has all the work to do, -and the latter only does one-half, the sun supplying the remainder? But -if this half being gratuitous, determines you to exclude competition, -how should the whole, being gratuitous, induce you to admit competition? -If you were consistent, you would, while excluding as hurtful to native -industry what is half gratuitous, exclude _a fortiori_ and with double -zeal, that which is altogether gratuitous. - -Once more, when products such as coal, iron, corn, or textile fabrics, -are sent us from abroad, and we can acquire them with less labour than -if we made them ourselves, the difference is a free gift conferred -upon us. The gift is more or less considerable in proportion as the -difference is more or less great. It amounts to a quarter, a half, or -three-quarters of the value of the product, when the foreigner only -asks us for three-fourths, a half, or a quarter of the price we should -otherwise pay. It is as perfect and complete as it can be, when the -donor (like the sun in furnishing us with light) asks us for nothing. -The question, and we ask it formally, is this, Do you desire for -our country the benefit of gratuitous consumption, or the pretended -advantages of onerous production? Make your choice, but be logical; for -as long as you exclude as you do, coal, iron, com, foreign fabrics, in -proportion as their price approximates to zero, what inconsistency would -it be to admit the light of the sun, the price of which is already at -_zero_ during the entire day! - - - - -VIII. DIFFERENTIAL DUTIES. - -A poor vine-dresser of the Gironde had trained with fond enthusiasm a -slip of vine, which, after much fatigue and much labour, yielded him, at -length, a tun of wine; and his success made him forget that each drop -of this precious nectar had cost his brow a drop of sweat. "I shall -sell it," said he to his wife, "and with the price I shall buy stuff -sufficient to enable you to furnish a trousseau for our daughter." The -honest countryman repaired to the nearest town, and met a Belgian and an -Englishman. The Belgian said to him: "Give me your cask of wine, and -I will give you in exchange fifteen parcels of stuff." The Englishman -said: "Give me your wine, and I will give you twenty parcels of stuff; -for we English can manufacture the stuff cheaper than the Belgians." But -a Customhouse officer, who was present, interposed, and said: "My good -friend, exchange with the Belgian if you think proper, but my orders -are to prevent you from making an exchange with the Englishman." "What!" -exclaimed the countryman; "you wish me to be content with fifteen -parcels of stuff which have come from Brussels, when I can get twenty -parcels which have come from Manchester?" "Certainly; don't you see -that France would be a loser if you received twenty parcels, instead -of fifteen?" "I am at a loss to understand you," said the vine-dresser, -"And I am at a loss to explain it," rejoined the Customhouse official; -"but the thing is certain, for all our deputies, ministers, and -journalists agree in this, that the more a nation receives in exchange -for a given quantity of its products, the more it is impoverished." The -peasant found it necessary to conclude a bargain with the Belgian. The -daughter of the peasant got only three-quarters of her trousseau; and -these simple people are still asking themselves how it happens that one -is ruined by receiving four instead of three; and why a person is richer -with three dozens of towels than with four dozens. - - - - -IX. IMMENSE DISCOVERY. - -At a time when everybody is bent on bringing about a saving in the -expense of transport--and when, in order to effect this saving, we are -forming roads and canals, improving our steamers, and connecting Paris -with all our frontiers by a network of railways--at a time, too, when I -believe we are ardently and sincerely seeking a solution of the problem, -_how to bring the prices of commodities, in the place where they are to -be consumed, as nearly as possible to the level of their prices in the -place where they were produced_,--I should think myself wanting to -my country, to my age, and to myself, if I kept longer secret the -marvellous discovery which I have just made. - -The illusions of inventors are proverbial, but I am positively certain -that I have discovered an infallible means of bringing products from -every part of the world to France, and _vice versa_ at a considerable -reduction of cost. - -Infallible, did I say? Its being infallible is only one of the -advantages of my invention. - -It requires neither plans, estimates, preparatory study, engineers, -mechanists, contractors, capital, shareholders, or Government aid! - -It presents no danger of shipwreck, explosion, fire, or collision! - -It may be brought into operation at any time! - -Moreover--and this must undoubtedly recommend it to the public--it will -not add a penny to the Budget, but the reverse. It will not increase the -staff of functionaries, but the reverse. It will interfere with no man's -liberty, but the reverse. - -It is observation, not chance, which has put me in possession of this -discovery, and I will tell you what suggested it. - -I had at the time this question to resolve: - -"Why does an article manufactured at Brussels, for example, cost dearer -when it comes to Paris?" - -I soon perceived that it proceeds from this: That between Paris and -Brussels _obstacles_ of many kinds exist. First of all, there is -_distance_, which entails loss of time, and we must either submit -to this ourselves, or pay another to submit to it. Then come rivers, -marshes, accidents, bad roads, which are so many _difficulties_ to be -surmounted. We succeed in building bridges, in forming roads, and making -them smoother by pavements, iron rails, etc. But all this is costly, and -the commodity must be made to bear the cost. Then there are robbers who -infest the roads, and a body of police must be kept up, etc. - -Now, among these _obstacles_ there is one which we have ourselves set -up, and at no little cost, too, between Brussels and Paris. There are -men who lie in ambuscade along the frontier, armed to the teeth, and -whose business it is to throw _difficulties_ in the way of transporting -merchandise from the one country to the other. They are called -Customhouse officers, and they act in precisely the same way as ruts -and bad roads. They retard, they trammel commerce, they augment the -difference we have remarked between the price paid by the consumer and -the price received by the producer--that very difference, the reduction -of which, as far as possible, forms the subject of our problem. - -That problem is resolved in three words: Reduce your tariff. - -You will then have done what is equivalent to constructing the Northern -Railway without cost, and will immediately begin to put money in your -pocket. - -In truth, I often seriously ask myself how anything so whimsical could -ever have entered into the human brain, as first of all to lay out many -millions for the purpose of removing the _natural obstacles_ which -lie between France and other countries, and then to lay out many more -millions for the purpose of substituting _artificial obstacles_, which -have exactly the same effect; so much so, indeed, that the obstacle -created and the obstacle removed neutralize each other, and leave -things as they were before, the residue of the operation being a double -expense. - -A Belgian product is worth at Brussels 20 francs, and the cost of -carriage would raise the price at Paris to 30 francs. The same article -made in Paris costs 40 francs. And how do we proceed? - -In the first place, we impose a duty of 10 francs on the Belgian -product, in order to raise its cost price at Paris to 40 francs; and we -pay numerous officials to see the duty stringently levied, so that, on -the road, the commodity is charged 10 francs for the carriage, and 10 -francs for the tax. - -Having done this, we reason thus: The carriage from Brussels to Paris, -which costs 10 francs, is very dear. Let us expend two or three hundred -millions [of francs] in railways, and we shall reduce it by one half. -Evidently, all that we gain by this is that the Belgian product would -sell in Paris for 35 francs, viz. - - 20 francs, its price at Brussels. - 10 " duty. - 5 " reduced carriage by railway. - Total, 35 francs, representing cost price at Paris. - -Now, I ask, would we not have attained the same result by lowering the -tariff by 5 francs? We should then have-- - - 20 francs, the price at Brussels. - 5 " reduced duty. - 10 " carriage by ordinary roads. - Total, 35 francs, representing cost price at Paris. - -And by this process we should have saved the 200 millions which the -railway cost, plus the expense of Customhouse surveillance, for this -last would be reduced in proportion to the diminished encouragement held -out to smuggling. - -But it will be said that the duty is necessary to protect Parisian -industry. Be it so; but then you destroy the effect of your railway. - -For, if you persist in desiring that the Belgian product should cost -at Paris 40 francs, you must raise your duty to 15 francs, and then you -have-- - - 20 francs, the price at Brussels. - 15 " protecting duty. - 5 " railway carriage. - Total, 40 francs, being the equalized price. - -Then, I venture to ask, what, under such circumstances, is the good of -your railway? - -In sober earnestness, let me ask, is it not humiliating that the -nineteenth century should make itself a laughing-stock to future ages by -such puerilities, practised with such imperturbable gravity? To be -the dupe of other people is not very pleasant, but to employ a -vast representative apparatus in order to dupe, and double dupe, -ourselves--and that, too, in an affair of arithmetic--should surely -humble the pride of this _age of enlightenment_. - - - - -X. RECIPROCITY. - -We have just seen that whatever increases the expense of conveying -commodities from one country to another--in other words, whatever -renders transport more onerous--acts in the same way as a protective -duty; or if you prefer to put it in another shape, that a protective -duty acts in the same way as more onerous transport. - -A tariff, then, may be regarded in the same light as a marsh, a rut, -an obstruction, a steep declivity--in a word, it is an _obstacle_, the -effect of which is to augment the difference between the price which the -producer of a commodity receives, and the price which the consumer -pays for it. In the same way, it is undoubtedly true that marshes and -quagmires are to be regarded in the same light as protective tariffs. - -There are people (few in number, it is true, but there are such people) -who begin to understand that obstacles are not less obstacles because -they are artificial, and that our mercantile prospects have more to gain -from liberty than from protection, and exactly for the same reason which -makes a canal more favourable to traffic than a steep, roundabout, and -inconvenient road. - -But they maintain that this liberty must be reciprocal. If we remove -the barriers we have erected against the admission of Spanish goods, -for example, Spain must remove the barriers she has erected against the -admission of ours. They are, therefore, the advocates of _commercial -treaties_, on the basis of exact reciprocity, concession for concession; -let us make the _sacrifice_ of buying, say they, to obtain the advantage -of selling. - -People who reason in this way, I am sorry to say, are, whether they know -it or not, protectionists in principle; only, they are a little -more inconsistent than pure protectionists, as the latter are more -inconsistent than absolute prohibitionists. - -The following apologue will demonstrate this:-- - -STULTA AND PUERA. There were, no matter where, two towns called Stulta -and Puera. They completed at great cost a highway from the one town to -the other. When this was done, Stulta said to herself, "See how Puera -inundates us with her products; we must see to it." In consequence, -they created and paid a body of _obstructives_, so called because their -business was to place _obstacles_ in the way of traffic coming from -Puera. Soon afterwards, Puera did the same. - -At the end of some centuries, knowledge having in the interim made -great progress, the common sense of Puera enabled her to see that such -reciprocal obstacles could only be reciprocally hurtful. She therefore -sent a diplomatist to Stulta, who, laying aside official phraseology, -spoke to this effect: "We have made a highway, and now we throw -obstacles in the way of using it. This is absurd. It would have been -better to have left things as they were. We should not, in that case, -have had to pay for making the road in the first place, nor afterwards -have incurred the expense of maintaining _obstructives_. In the name of -Puera, I come to propose to you, not to give up opposing each other -all at once--that would be to act upon a principle, and we despise -principles as much as you do--but to lessen somewhat the present -obstacles, taking care to estimate equitably the respective _sacrifices_ -we make for this purpose." So spoke the diplomatist. Stulta asked for -time to consider the proposal, and proceeded to consult, in succession, -her manufacturers and agriculturists. At length, after the lapse of some -years, she declared that the negotiations were broken off. - -On receiving this intimation, the inhabitants of Puera held a meeting. -An old gentleman (they always suspected he had been secretly bought by -Stulta) rose and said: The obstacles created by Stulta injure our sales, -which is a misfortune. Those which we have ourselves created injure our -purchases, which is another misfortune. With reference to the first, we -are powerless; but the second rests with ourselves. Let us, at least, -get quit of one, since we cannot rid ourselves of both evils. Let us -suppress our _obstructives_ without requiring Stulta to do the same. -Some day, no doubt, she will come to know her own interests better. - -A second counsellor, a practical, matter-of-fact man, guiltless of -any acquaintance with principles, and brought up in the ways of his -forefathers, replied: "Don't listen to that Utopian dreamer, that -theorist, that innovator, that economist, that _Stultomaniac_." - -We shall all be undone if the stoppages of the road are not equalized, -weighed, and balanced between Stulta and Puera. There would be greater -difficulty in going than in coming, in exporting than in importing. We -should find ourselves in the same condition of inferiority relatively -to Stulta, as Havre, Nantes, Bordeaux, Lisbon, London, Hamburg, and New -Orleans, are with relation to the towns situated at the sources of the -Seine, the Loire, the Garonne, the Tagus, the Thames, the Elbe, and -the Mississippi, for it is more difficult for a ship to ascend than -to descend a river. (_A Voice_: Towns at the _embouchures_ of rivers -prosper more than towns at their source.) This is impossible. (Same -Voice: But it is so.) Well, if it be so, they have prospered _contrary -to rules_. Reasoning so conclusive convinced the assembly, and -the orator followed up his victory by talking largely of national -independence, national honour, national dignity, national labour, -inundation of products, tributes, murderous competition. In short, he -carried the vote in favour of the maintenance of obstacles; and if you -are at all curious on the subject, I can point out to you countries, -where you will see with your own eyes Road-makers and Obstructives -working together on the most friendly terms possible, under the orders -of the same legislative assembly, and at the expense of the same -taxpayers, the one set endeavouring to clear the road, and the other set -doing their utmost to render it impassible. - - - - -XI. NOMINAL PRICES. - -Do you desire to be in a situation to decide between liberty and -protection? Do you desire to appreciate the bearing of an economic -phenomenon? Inquire into its effects _upon the abundance or scarcity -of commodities_, and not _upon the rise or fall of prices_. Distrust -_nominal prices_;* and they will only land you in an inextricable -labyrinth. - - * I have translated the expression des prix absolus, nominal - prices, or actual money prices, because the English - economists do not, so far as I remember, make use of the - term absolute price.--See post, chap. v. of second series, - where the author employs the expression in this sense.-- - Translator. - -M. Matthieu de Dombasle, after having shown that protection raises -prices, adds-- - -"The enhancement of price increases the expense of living, and -_consequently_ the price of labour, and each man receives, in the -enhanced price of his products, compensation for the higher prices he -has been obliged to pay for the things he has occasion to buy. Thus, -if every one pays more as a consumer, every one receives more as a -producer." - -It is evident that we could reverse this argument, and say--"If every -one receives more as a producer, every one pays more as a consumer." - -Now, what does this prove? Nothing but this, that protection _displaces_ -wealth uselessly and unjustly. In so far, it simply perpetrates -spoliation. - -Again, to conclude that this vast apparatus leads to simple -compensations, we must stick to the "consequently" of M. de Dombasle, -and make sure that the price of labour will not fail to rise with the -price of the protected products. This is a question of fact which I -remit to M. Moreau de Jonnés, that he may take the trouble to find out -whether the rate of wages advances along with the price of shares in -the coal-mines of Anzin. For my own part, I do not believe that it -does; because, in my opinion, the price of labour, like the price of -everything else, is governed by the relation of supply to demand. Now, -I am convinced that _restriction_ diminishes the supply of coal, and -consequently enhances its price; but I do not see so clearly that it -increases the demand for labour, so as to enhance the rate of wages; and -that this effect should be produced is all the less likely, because -the quantity of labour demanded depends on the disposable capital. Now, -protection may indeed displace capital, and cause its transference from -one employment to another, but it can never increase it by a single -farthing. - -But this question, which is one of the greatest interest and importance, -will be examined in another place.* I return to the subject of _nominal -price_; and I maintain that it is not one of those absurdities which can -be rendered specious by such reasonings as those of M. de Dombasle. - -Put the case of a nation which is isolated, and possesses a given amount -of specie, and which chooses to amuse itself by burning each year one -half of all the commodities that it possesses. I undertake to prove -that, according to the theory of M. de Dombasle, it will not be less -rich. - -In fact, in consequence of the fire, all things will be doubled in -price, and the inventories of property, made before and after the -destruction, will show exactly the same _nominal_ value. But then what -will the country in question have lost? If John buys his cloth dearer, -he also sells his corn at a higher price; and if Peter loses on his -purchase of corn, he retrieves his losses by the sale of his cloth. -"Each recovers, in the extra price of his products, the extra expense -of living he has been put to; and if everybody pays as a consumer, -everybody receives a corresponding amount as a producer." - -All this is a jingling quibble, and not science. The truth, in plain -terms, is this: that men consume cloth and corn by fire or by using -them, and that the effect is the same _as regards price_, but not _as -regards wealth_, for it is precisely in the use of commodities that -wealth or material prosperity consists. - -In the same way, restriction, while diminishing the abundance of things, -may raise their price to such an extent that each party shall be, -_pecuniarily speaking_, as rich as before. But to set down in an -inventory three measures of corn at 20s., or four measures at 15s., -because the result is still sixty shillings,--would this, I ask, come -to the same thing with reference to the satisfaction of men's wants? - -It is to this, the consumer's point of view, that I shall never cease -to recall the protectionists, for this is the end and design of all our -efforts, and the solution of all problems.** - - * See _post_, ch. v., second series.--Translator. - - ** To this view of the subject the author frequently - reverts. It was, in his eyes, all important; and, four days - before his death, he dictated this recommendation:--"Tell M. - de F. to treat economical questions always from the - consumer's point of view, for the interest of the consumer - is identical with that of the human race."--Editor. - -I shall never cease to say to them: Is it, or is it not, true that -restriction, by impeding exchanges, by limiting the division of labour, -by forcing labour to connect itself with difficulties of climate and -situation, diminishes ultimately the quantity of commodities produced by -a determinate amount of efforts? And what does this signify, it will be -said, if the smaller quantity produced under the _régime_ of protection -has the same _nominal value_ as that produced under the _régime_ of -liberty? The answer is obvious. Man does not live upon nominal values, -but upon real products, and the more products there are, whatever be -their price, the richer he is. - -In writing what precedes, I never expected to meet with an -anti-economist who was enough of a logician to admit, in so many words, -that the wealth of nations depends on the value of things, apart from -the consideration of their abundance. But here is what I find in the -work of M. de Saint-Chamans (p. 210):-- - -"If fifteen millions' worth of commodities, sold to foreigners, are -taken from the total production, estimated at fifty millions, the -thirty-five millions' worth of commodities remaining, not being -sufficient to meet the ordinary demand, will increase in price, and rise -to the value of fifty millions. In that case the revenue of the country -will represent a value of fifteen millions additional.... There would -then be an increase of the wealth of the country to the extent of -fifteen millions, exactly the amount of specie imported." - -This is a pleasant view of the matter! If a nation produces in one year, -from its agriculture and commerce, a value of fifty millions, it has -only to sell a quarter of it to the foreigner to be a quarter richer! -Then if it sells the half, it will be one-half richer! And if it should -sell the whole, to its last tuft of wool and its last grain of wheat, -it would bring up its revenue to 100 millions. Singular way of getting -rich, by producing infinite dearness by absolute scarcity! - -Again, would you judge of the two doctrines? Submit them to the test of -exaggeration. - -According to the doctrine of M. de Saint-Chamans, the French would -be quite as rich--that is to say, quite as well supplied with all -things--had they only a thousandth part of their annual products, -because they would be worth a thousand times more. - -According to our doctrine, the French would be infinitely rich if their -annual products were infinitely abundant, and, consequently, without any -value at all.* - - * See _post_, ch. v. of second series of _Sophismes_; and - ch. vi. of _Harmonies Economiques_. - - - - -XII. DOES PROTECTION RAISE THE RATE OF WAGES? - -An atheist, declaiming one day against religion and priestcraft, became -so outrageous in his abuse, that one of his audience, who was not -himself very orthodox, exclaimed, "If you go on much longer in this -strain, you will make me a convert." - -In the same way, when we see our beardless scribblers, our -novel-writers, reformers, fops, amateur contributors to newspapers, -redolent of musk, and saturated with champagne, stuffing their -portfolios with radical prints, or issuing under gilded covers their own -tirades against the egotism and individualism of the age--when we hear -such people declaim against the rigour of our institutions, groan over -the proletariat and the wages system, raise their eyes to Heaven, and -weep over the poverty of the working classes (poverty which they never -see but when they are paid to paint it),--we are likewise tempted to -exclaim, "If you go on longer in this strain, we shall lose all interest -in the working classes." - -Affectation is the besetting sin of our times. When a serious writer, -in a spirit of philanthropy, refers to the sufferings of the working -classes, his words are caught up by these sentimentalists, twisted, -distorted, and exaggerated, _usque ad 'nauseam_. The grand, the only -remedy, it would seem, lies in the high-sounding phrases, association -and organization. The working classes are flattered--fulsomely, -servilely flattered; they are represented as in the condition of slaves, -and men of common sense will soon be ashamed publicly to espouse their -cause, for how can common sense make itself heard in the midst of all -this insipid and empty declamation? - -Far from us be this cowardly indifference, which would not be justified -even by the sentimental affectation which prompts it. - -Workmen! your situation is peculiar! They make merchandise of you, as I -shall show you immediately.... But no; I withdraw that expression. -Let us steer clear of strong language, which may be misapplied; for -spoliation, wrapt up in the sophistry which conceals it, may be in full -operation unknown to the spoliator, and with the blind assent of his -victim. Still, you are deprived of the just remuneration of your labour, -and no one is concerned to do you _justice_. If all that was wanted to -console you were ardent appeals to philanthropy, to impotent charity, -to degrading almsgiving; or if the grand words, organization, communism, -_phalanstère,_* were enough for you, truly they would not be spared. But -_justice_, simple justice, no one thinks of offering you. And yet, would -it not be _just_ that when, after a long day's toil, you have received -your modest wages, you should have it in your power to exchange them -for the greatest amount of satisfactions and enjoyments which you could -possibly obtain for them from any one in any part of the world? - - * Allusion to a socialist work of the day.--Translator. - -Some day I may have occasion also to talk to you of association and -organization, and we shall then see what you have to expect from those -chimeras which now mislead you. - -In the meantime, let us inquire whether _injustice_ is not done you by -fixing legislatively the people from whom you are to purchase the things -you have need of--bread, meat, linens, or cloth; and in dictating, if -I may say so, the artificial scale of prices which you are to adopt in -your dealings. - -Is it true that protection, which admittedly makes you pay dearer -for everything, and entails a loss upon you in this respect, raises -proportionally your wages? - -On what does the rate of wages depend? - -One of your own class has put it forcibly, thus: When two workmen run -after one master, wages fall; they rise when two masters run after one -workman. - -For the sake of brevity, allow me to make use of this formula, more -scientific, although, perhaps, not quite so clear. The rate of wages -depends on the proportion which the supply of labour bears to the demand -for it. - -Now, on what does the _supply_ of labour depend? - -On the number of men waiting for employment; and on this first element -protection can have no effect. - -On what does the _demand_ for labour depend? - -On the disposable capital of the nation. But does the law which says, -We shall no longer receive such or such a product from abroad, we shall -make it at home, augment the capital? Not in the least degree. It may -force capital from one employment to another, but it does not increase -it by a single farthing. It does not then increase the demand for -labour. - -We point with pride to a certain manufacture. Is it established or -maintained with capital which has fallen from the moon? No; that capital -has been withdrawn from agriculture, from shipping, from the production -of wines. And this is the reason why, under the _régime_ of protective -tariffs, there are more workmen in our mines and in our manufacturing -towns, and fewer sailors in our ports, and fewer labourers in our fields -and vineyards. - -I could expatiate at length on this subject, but I prefer to explain -what I mean by an example. - -A countryman was possessed of twenty acres of land, which he worked with -a capital of £400. He divided his land into four parts, and established -the following rotation of crops:--1st, maize; 2d, wheat; 3d, clover; -4th, rye. He required for his own family only a moderate portion of the -grain, meat, and milk which his farm produced, and he sold the surplus -to buy oil, flax, wine, etc. His whole capital was expended each year -in wages, hires, and small payments to the working classes in his -neighbourhood. This capital was returned to him in his sales, and even -went on increasing year by year; and our countryman, knowing very well -that capital produces nothing when it is unemployed, benefited the -working classes by devoting the annual surplus to enclosing and -clearing his land, and to improving his agricultural implements and farm -buildings. He had even some savings in the neighbouring town with his -banker, who, of course, did not let the money lie idle in his till, but -lent it to shipowners and contractors for public works, so that these -savings were always resolving themselves into wages. - -At length the countryman died, and his son, who succeeded him, said to -himself, "My father was a dupe all his life. He purchased oil, and so -paid _tribute_ to Provence, whilst our own land, with some pains, can -be made to grow the olive. He bought cloth, wine, and oranges, and thus -paid tribute to Brittany, Medoc, and Hyères, whilst we can cultivate -hemp, the vine, and the orange tree with more or less success. He paid -_tribute_ to the miller and the weaver, whilst our own domestics can -weave our linen and grind our wheat." In this way he ruined himself, and -spent among strangers that money which he might have spent at home. - -Misled by such reasoning, the volatile youth changed his rotation of -crops. His land he divided into twenty divisions. In one he planted -olives, in another mulberry trees, in a third he sowed flax, in a fourth -he had vines, in a fifth wheat, and so on. By this means he succeeded -in supplying his family with what they required, and felt himself -independent. He no longer drew anything from the general circulation, -nor did he add anything to it. Was he the richer for this? No; for the -soil was not adapted for the cultivation of the vine, and the climate -was not fitted for the successful cultivation of the olive; and he was -not long in finding out that his family was less plentifully provided -with all the things which they wanted than in the time of his father, -who procured them by exchanging his surplus produce. - -As regarded his workmen, they had no more employment than formerly. -There were five times more fields, but each field was five times -smaller; they produced oil, but they produced less wheat; he no longer -purchased linens, but he no longer sold rye. Moreover, the farmer could -expend in wages only the amount of his capital, and his capital went on -constantly diminishing. A great part of it went for buildings, and the -various implements needed for the more varied cultivation in which he -had engaged. In short, the supply of labour remained the same, but as -the means of remunerating that labour fell off, the ultimate result was -a forcible reduction of wages. - -On a greater scale, this is exactly what takes place in the case of -a nation which isolates itself by adopting a prohibitive _régime_. -It multiplies its branches of industry, I grant, but they become of -diminished importance; it adopts, so to speak, a more complicated -_industrial rotation_, but it is not so prolific, because its capital -and labour have now to struggle with natural difficulties. A greater -proportion of its circulating capital, which forms the wages fund, -must be converted into fixed capital. What remains may have more varied -employment, but the total mass is not increased. It is like distributing -the water of a pond among a multitude of shallow reservoirs--it covers -more ground, and presents a greater surface to the rays of the sun, -and it is precisely for this reason that it is all the sooner absorbed, -evaporated, and lost. - -The amount of capital and labour being given, they create a smaller -amount of commodities in proportion as they encounter more obstacles. It -is beyond doubt, that when international obstructions force capital -and labour into channels and localities where they meet with greater -difficulties of soil and climate, the general result must be, fewer -products created--that is to say, fewer enjoyments for consumers. Now, -when there are fewer enjoyments upon the whole, will the workman's share -of them be augmented? If it were augmented, as is asserted, then the -rich--the men who make the laws--would find their own share not only -subject to the general diminution, but that diminished share would be -still further reduced by what was added to the labourers' share. Is -this possible? Is it credible? I advise you, workmen, to reject such -suspicious generosity.* - - * See _Harmonies Économiques_, ch. xiv. - - - - -XIII. THEORY, PRACTICE. - -As advocates of free trade, we are accused of being theorists, and of -not taking practice sufficiently into account. - -"What fearful prejudices were entertained against M. Say," says M. -Ferrier,* "by that long train of distinguished administrators, and that -imposing phalanx of authors who dissented from his opinions; and M. -Say was not unaware of it. Hear what he says:--'It has been alleged -in support of errors of long standing, that there must have been some -foundation for ideas which have been adopted by all nations. Ought -we not to distrust observations and reasonings which run counter to -opinions which have been constantly entertained down to our own time, -and which have been regarded as sound by so many men remarkable for -their enlightenment and their good intentions? This argument, I allow, -is calculated to make a profound impression, and it might have cast -doubt upon points which we deem the most incontestable, if we had not -seen, by turns, opinions the most false, and now generally acknowledged -to be false, received and professed by everybody during a long series -of ages. Not very long ago all nations, from the rudest to the most -enlightened, and all men, from the street-porter to the _savant_, -admitted the existence of four elements. No one thought of contesting -that doctrine, which, however, is false; so much so, that even the -greenest assistant in a naturalist's class-room would be ashamed to say -that he regarded earth, water, and fire as elements.'" - - * De l'Administration Commerciale opposée à Oeconomie - Politique, p. 5. - -On this M. Ferrier remarks:-- - -"If M. Say thinks to answer thus the very strong objection which he -brings forward, he is singularly mistaken. That men, otherwise well -informed, should have been mistaken for centuries on certain points of -natural history is easily understood, and proves nothing. Water, air, -earth, and fire, whether elements or not, are not the less useful to -man.... Such errors are unimportant: they lead to no popular commotions, -no uneasiness in the public mind; they run counter to no pecuniary -interest; and this is the reason why without any felt inconvenience they -may endure for a thousand years. The physical world goes on as if they -did not exist. But of errors in the moral world, can the same thing -be said? Can we conceive that a system of administration, found to be -absolutely false and therefore hurtful, should be followed out -among many nations for centuries, with the general approval of all -well-informed men? Can it be explained how such a system could coexist -with the constantly increasing prosperity of nations? M. Say admits that -the argument which he combats is fitted to make a profound impression. -Yes, indeed; and the impression remains; for M. Say has rather deepened -than done away with it." - - * Might we not say, that it is a "fearful prejudice" against - MM. Ferrier and Saint-Chamans, that "_economists of all - schools_, that is to say, everybody who has studied the - question, should have arrived at the conclusion, that, after - all, liberty is better than constraint, and the laws of God - wiser than those of Colbert." - -Let us hear what M. de Saint-Chamans says on the same subject:-- - -"It was only in the middle of the last century, of that eighteenth -century which handed over all subjects and all principles without -exception to free discussion, that these _spéculative_ purveyors of -ideas, applied by them to all things without being really applicable -to anything, began to write upon political economy. There existed -previously a system of political economy, not to be found in books, but -which had been put in _practical_ operation by governments. Colbert, it -is said, was the inventor of it, and it was adopted as a rule by all the -nations of Europe. The singular thing is, that in spite of contempt and -maledictions, in spite of all the discoveries of the modern school, it -still remains in practical operation. This system, which our authors -have called the _mercantile system_, was designed to.... impede, by -prohibitions or import duties, the entry of foreign products, which -might ruin our own manufactures by their competition. Economic writers -of all schools* have declared this system untenable, absurd, and -calculated to impoverish any country. It has been banished from all -their books, and forced to take refuge in the _practical_ legislation of -all nations. They cannot conceive why, in measures relating to national -wealth, governments should not follow the advice and opinions of learned -authors, rather than trust to their _experience_ of the tried working -of a system which has been long in operation. Above all, they cannot -conceive why the French government should in economic questions -obstinately set itself to resist the progress of enlightenment, and -maintain in its _practice_ those ancient errors, which all our economic -writers have exposed. But enough of this mercantile system, which -has nothing in its favour but _facts_, and is not defended by any -speculative writer."* - - * Du Système de l'Impot, par M. le Vicomte de Saint-Chamans, - p. 11. - -Such language as this would lead one to suppose that in demanding -for every one _the free disposal of his property_, economists were -propounding some new system, some new, strange, and chimerical social -order, a sort of _phalanstère_, coined in the mint of their own brain, -and without precedent in the annals of the human race. To me it would -seem that if we have here anything factitious or contingent, it is to -be found, not in liberty, but in protection; not in the free power of -exchanging, but in customs duties employed to overturn artificially the -natural course of remuneration. - -But our business at present is not to compare, or pronounce between, the -two systems; but to inquire which of the two is founded on experience. - -The advocates of monopoly maintain that _the facts_ are on their side, -and that we have on our side only _theory_. - -They flatter themselves that this long series of public acts, this -_old experience_ of Europe, which they invoke, has presented itself as -something very formidable to the mind of M. Say; and I grant that he -has not refuted it with his wonted sagacity. For my own part, I am not -disposed to concede to the monopolists the domain of _facts_, for they -have only in their favour facts which are forced and exceptional; and we -oppose to these, facts which are universal, the free and voluntary acts -of mankind at large. - -What do we say; and what do they say? - -We say, - -"You should buy from others what you cannot make for yourself but at a -greater expense." - -And they say, - -"It is better to make things for yourself, although they cost you more -than, the price at which you could buy them from others." - -Now, gentlemen, throwing aside theory, argument, demonstration, all -which seems to affect you with nausea, which of these two assertions has -on its side the sanction of _universal practice?_ - -Visit your fields, your workshops, your forges, your warehouses; look -above, below, and around you; look at what takes place in your own -houses; remark your own everyday acts; and say what is the principle -which guides these labourers, artisans, and merchants; say what is your -own personal _practice_. - -Does the farmer make his own clothes? Does the tailor produce the corn -he consumes? Does your housekeeper continue to have your bread made -at home, after she finds she can buy it cheaper from the baker? Do -you resign the pen for the brush, to save your paying _tribute_ to -the shoeblack? Does the entire economy of society not rest upon the -separation of employments, the division of labour--in a word, upon -_exchange?_ And what is exchange, but a calculation which we make with -a view to discontinuing direct production in every case in which we find -that possible, and in which indirect acquisition enables us to effect a -saving in time and in effort? - -It is not you, therefore, who are the men of _practice_, since you -cannot point to a single human being who acts upon your principle. - -But you will say, we never intended to make our principle a rule for -individual relations. We perfectly understand that this would be to -break up the bond of society, and would force men to live like snails, -each in his own shell. All that we contend for is, that our principle -regulates _de facto_, the regulations which obtain between the different -agglomerations of the human family. - -Well, I affirm that this principle is still erroneous. The family, -the commune, the canton, the department, the province, are so many -agglomerations, which all, without any exception, reject _practically_ -your principle, and have never dreamt of acting on it. All procure -themselves, by means of exchange, those things which it would cost them -dearer to procure by means of production. And nations would do the same, -did you not hinder them _by force_. - -We, then, are the men of practice and of experience; for we oppose -to the restriction which you have placed exceptionally on certain -international exchanges, the practice and experience of all individuals, -and of all agglomerations of individuals, whose acts are voluntary, and -can consequently be adduced as evidence. But you begin by _constraining, -by hindering_, and then you lay hold of acts which are _forced or -prohibited_, as warranting you to exclaim, "We have practice and -experience on our side!" - -You inveigh against our theory, and even against theories in general. -But when you lay down a principle in opposition to ours, you perhaps -imagine you are not proceeding on theory? Clear your heads of that idea. -You in fact form a theory, as we do; but between your theory and ours -there is this difference: - -Our theory consists merely in observing universal _facts_, universal -opinions; calculations and ways of proceeding which universally prevail; -and in classifying these, and rendering them Co-ordinate, with a view to -their being more easily understood. - -Our theory is so little opposed to practice that it is nothing else but -_practice explained_. We observe men acting as they are moved by the -instinct of self-preservation and a desire for progress, and what -they thus do freely and voluntarily we denominate political or social -economy. We can never help repeating, that each individual man is -_practically_ an excellent economist, producing or exchanging according -as he finds it more to his interest to produce or to exchange. Each, -by experience, educates himself in this science; or rather the science -itself is only this same experience accurately observed and methodically -explained. - -But on your side, you construct a _theory_ in the worst sense of the -word. You imagine, you invent, a course of proceeding which is not -sanctioned by the practice of any living man under the canopy of heaven; -and then you invoke the aid of constraint and prohibition. It is quite -necessary that you should have recourse to _force_, for you desire that -men should be made to produce those things which they find it _more -advantageous_ to buy; you desire that they should renounce this -_advantage_, and act upon a doctrine which implies a contradiction in -terms. - -The doctrine which you acknowledge would be absurd in the relations -of individuals; I defy you to extend it, even in speculation, to -transaction between families, communities, or provinces. By your own -admission, it is only applicable to international relations. - -This is the reason why you are forced to keep repeating: - -"There are no absolute principles, no inflexible rules. What is _good_ -for an individual, a family, a province, is _bad_ for a nation. What -is _good_ in detail--namely, to purchase rather than produce, when -purchasing is more advantageous than producing--that same is _bad_ in -the gross. The political economy of individuals is not that of nations;" -and other nonsense _ejusdèm farino_. - -And to what does all this tend? Look at it a little closer. The -intention is to prove that we, the consumers, are your property! that -we are yours body and soul! that you have an exclusive right over our -stomachs and our limbs! that it belongs to you to feed and clothe us on -your own terms, whatever be your ignorance, incapacity, or rapacity! - -No, you are not men of practice; you are men of abstraction--and of -extortion. - - - - -XIV. CONFLICT OF PRINCIPLES. - -There is one thing which confounds me; and it is this: Sincere -publicists, studying the economy of society from the producer's point of -view, have laid down this double formula:-- - -"Governments should order the interests of consumers who are subject to -their laws, in such a way as to be favourable to national industry. - -"They should bring distant consumers under subjection to their laws, for -the purpose of ordering their interests in a way favourable to national -industry." - -The first of these formulas gets the name of protection; the second we -call _débouchés_, or the creating of markets, or vents, for our produce. - -Both are founded on the _datum_ which we denominate the _Balance of -Trade_. - -"A nation is impoverished when it imports; enriched when it exports." - -For if every purchase from a foreign country is a _tribute paid_ and a -national loss, it follows, of course, that it is right to restrain, and -even prohibit, importations. - -And if every sale to a foreign country is a _tribute received_, and a -national profit, it is quite right and natural to create markets for our -products even by force. - -The _system of protection_ and the _colonial system_ are, then, only two -aspects of one and the same theory. To _hinder_ our fellow-citizens -from buying from foreigners, and to _force_ foreigners to buy from -our fellow-citizens, are only two consequences of one and the same -principle. - -Now, it is impossible not to admit that this doctrine, if true, makes -general utility to repose on _monopoly_ or internal spoliation, and on -_conquest_ or external spoliation. - -I enter a cottage on the French side of the Pyrenees. - -The father of the family has received but slender wages. His half-naked -children shiver in the icy north wind; the fire is extinguished, and -there is nothing on the table. There are wool, firewood, and corn on the -other side of the mountain; but these good things are forbidden to the -poor day-labourer, for the other side of the mountain is not in France. -Foreign firewood is not allowed to warm the cottage hearth; and the -shepherd's children can never know the taste of Biscayan corn,* and the -wool of Navarre can never warm their benumbed limbs. General utility -has so ordered it. Be it so; but let us agree that all this is in direct -opposition to the first principles of justice. To dispose legislatively -of the interests of consumers, and postpone them to the supposed -interests of national industry, is to encroach upon their liberty--it is -to prohibit an act; namely, the act of exchange, which has in it -nothing contrary to good morals; in a word, it is to do them an act of -_injustice_. - - * The French word employed is _méture_, probably a Spanish - word Gallicized--_mestûra_, meslin, mixed corn, as wheat and - rye.---Translator. - -And yet this is necessary, we are told, unless we wish to see national -labour at a standstill, and public prosperity sustain a fatal shock. - -Writers of the protectionist school, then, have arrived at the -melancholy conclusion that there is a radical incompatibility between -Justice and Utility. - -On the other hand, if it be the interest of each nation to _sell_, and -not to _buy_, the natural state of their relations must consist in a -violent action and reaction, for each will seek to impose its products -on all, and all will endeavour to repel the products of each. - -A sale, in fact, implies a purchase, and since, according to this -doctrine, to sell is beneficial, and to buy is the reverse, every -international transaction would imply the amelioration of one people, -and the deterioration of another. - -But if men are, on the one hand, irresistibly impelled towards what is -for their profit, and if, on the other, they resist instinctively what -is hurtful, we are forced to conclude that each nation carries in its -bosom a natural force of expansion, and a not less natural force of -resistance, which forces are equally injurious to all other nations; or, -in other words, that antagonism and war are the _natural_ state of human -society. - -Thus the theory we are discussing may be summed up in these two axioms: - -Utility is incompatible with Justice at home. - -Utility is incompatible with Peace abroad. - -Now, what astonishes and confounds me is, that a publicist, a statesman, -who sincerely holds an economical doctrine which runs so violently -counter to other principles which are incontestable, should be able to -enjoy one moment of calm or peace of mind. - -For my own part, it seems to me, that if I had entered the precincts of -the science by the same gate, if I had failed to perceive clearly that -Liberty, Utility, Justice, Peace, are things not only compatible, but -strictly allied with each other, and, so to speak, identical, I should -have endeavoured to forget what I had learned, and I should have asked: - -"How God could have willed that men should attain prosperity only -through Injustice and War? How He could have willed that they should be -unable to avoid Injustice and War except by renouncing the possibility -of attaining prosperity? - -"Dare I adopt, as the basis of the legislation of a great nation, a -science which thus misleads me by false lights, which has conducted me -to this horrible blasphemy, and landed me in so dreadful an alternative? -And when a long train of illustrious philosophers have been conducted by -this science, to which they have devoted their lives, to more consoling -results--when they affirm that Liberty and Utility are perfectly -reconcilable with Justice and Peace--that all these great principles -run in infinitely extended parallels, and will do so to all eternity, -without running counter to each other,--I would ask, Have they not in -their favour that presumption which results from all that we know of the -goodness and wisdom of God, as manifested in the sublime harmony of the -material creation? In the face of such a presumption, and of so many -reliable authorities, ought I to believe lightly that God has been -pleased to implant antagonism and dissonance in the laws of the moral -world? No; before I should venture to conclude that the principles -of social order run counter to and neutralize each other, and are in -eternal and irreconcilable opposition--before I should venture to impose -on my fellow-citizens a system so impious as that to which my reasonings -would appear to lead,--I should set myself to reexamine the whole chain -of these reasonings, and assure myself that at this stage of the -journey I had not missed my way." But if, after a candid and searching -examination, twenty times repeated, I arrived always at this frightful -conclusion, that we must choose between the Bight and the Good, -discouraged, I should reject the science, and bury myself in voluntary -ignorance; above all, I should decline all participation in public -affairs, leaving to men of another temper and constitution the burden -and responsibility of a choice so painful. - - - - -XV. RECIPROCITY AGAIN. - -M. de Saint-Cricq inquires, "Whether it is certain that the foreigner -will buy from us as much as he sells?" - -M. de Dombasle asks, "What reason we have to believe that English -producers will take from us, rather than from some other country of the -world, the commodities they have need of, and an amount of commodities -equivalent in value to that of their exports to France?" - -I wonder how so many men who call themselves _practical_ men should have -all reasoned without reference to practice! - -In practice, does a single exchange take place, out of a hundred, out -of a thousand, out of ten thousand perhaps, which represents the direct -barter of commodity for commodity? Never since the introduction of money -has any agriculturist said: I want to buy shoes, hats, advice, lessons; -but only from the shoemaker, the hat-maker, the lawyer, the professor, -who will purchase from me corn to an exactly equivalent value. And why -should nations bring each other under a yoke of this kind? Practically -how are such matters transacted? - -Let us suppose a people shut out from external relations. A man, we -shall suppose, produces wheat. He sends it to the _home_ market, -and offers it for the highest price he can obtain. He receives in -exchange--what? Coins, which are just so many drafts or orders, varying -very much in amount, by means of which he can draw, in his turn, from -the national stores, when he judges it proper, and subject to due -competition, everything which he may want or desire. Ultimately, and -at the end of the operation, he will have drawn from the mass the -exact equivalent of what he has contributed to it, and, in value, _his -consumption will exactly equal his production_. - -If the exchanges of the supposed nation with foreigners are left free, -it is no longer to the _national_, but to the _general_, market that -each sends his contributions, and, in turn, derives his supplies for -consumption. He has no need to care whether what he sends into the -market of the world is purchased by a fellow-countryman or by a -foreigner; whether the drafts or orders he receives come from a -Frenchman or an Englishman; whether the commodities for which he -afterwards exchanges these drafts or orders are produced on this or on -the other side of the Rhine or the Pyrenees. There is always in each -individual case an exact balance between what is contributed and what is -received, between what is poured into and what is drawn out of the great -common reservoir; and if this is true of each individual, it is true of -the nation at large. - -The only difference between the two cases is, that in the last each has -to face a more extended market both as regards sales and purchases, and -has consequently more chances of transacting both advantageously. - -This objection may perhaps be urged: If everybody enters into a -league not to take from the general mass the commodities of a certain -individual, that individual cannot, in his turn, obtain from the mass -what he is in want of. It is the same of nations. - -The reply to this is, that if a nation cannot obtain what it has need -of in the general market, it will no longer contribute anything to -that market. It will work for itself. It will be forced in that case to -submit to what you want to impose on it beforehand--_isolation_. - -And this will realize the ideal of the prohibitive _régime_. - -Is it not amusing to think that you inflict upon the nation, now and -beforehand, this very _régime_, from a fear that it might otherwise run -the risk of arriving at it independently of your exertions? - - - - -XVI. OBSTRUCTED NAVIGATION PLEADING FOR THE PROHIBITIONISTS. - -Some years ago I happened to be at Madrid, and went to the Cortes. The -subject of debate was a proposed treaty with Portugal for improving -the navigation of the Douro. One of the deputies rose and said: "If the -navigation of the Douro is improved in the way now proposed, the traffic -will be carried on at less expense. The grain of Portugal will, in -consequence, be sold in the markets of Castile at a lower price, and -will become a formidable rival to our _national industry_. I oppose -the project, unless, indeed, our ministers will undertake to raise -the tariff of customs to the extent required to re-establish the -equilibrium." The Assembly found the argument unanswerable. - -Three months afterwards I was at Lisbon. The same question was discussed -in the Senate. A noble hidalgo made a speech: "Mr President," he said, -"this project is absurd. You place guards, at great expense, along the -banks of the Douro to prevent Portugal being invaded by Castilian grain; -and at the same time you propose, also at great expense, to facilitate -that invasion. This is a piece of inconsistency to which I cannot -assent. Let us leave the Douro to our children, as it has come to us -from our fathers." - -Afterwards, when the subject of improving the navigation of the Garonne -was discussed, I remembered the arguments of the Iberian orators, and I -said to myself, If the Toulouse deputies were as good economists as the -Spanish deputies, and the representatives of Bordeaux as acute logicians -as those of Oporto, assuredly they would leave the Garonne - -"Dormir au bruit flatteur de son onde naissante;" - -for the canalisation of the Garonne would favour the invasion of -Toulouse products, to the prejudice of Bordeaux, and the inundation of -Bordeaux products would do the same thing to the detriment of Toulouse. - - - - -XVII. A NEGATIVE RAILWAY. - -I have said that when, unfortunately, one has regard to the interest of -the producer, and not to that of the consumer, it is impossible to -avoid running counter to the general interest, because the demand of the -producer, as such, is only for efforts, wants, and obstacles. - -I find a remarkable illustration of this in a Bordeaux newspaper. - -M. Simiot proposes this question:-- - -Should the proposed railway from Paris to Madrid offer a solution of -continuity at Bordeaux? - -He answers the question in the affirmative, and gives a multiplicity of -reasons, which I shall not stop to examine, except this one: - -The railway from Paris to Bayonne should have a break at Bordeaux, for -if goods and passengers are forced to stop at that town, profits will -accrue to bargemen, pedlars, commissionaires, hotel-keepers, etc. - -Here we have clearly the interest of labour put before the interest of -consumers. - -But if Bordeaux has a right to profit by a gap in the line of railway, -and if such profit is consistent with the public interest, then -Angoulème, Poitiers, Tours, Orleans, nay, more, all the intermediate -places, Ruffec, Châtellerault, etc., should also demand gaps, as being -for the general interest, and, of course, for the interest of national -industry; for the more these breaks in the line are multiplied, -the greater will be the increase of consignments, commissions, -transhipments, etc., along the whole extent of the railway. In this -way, we shall succeed in having a line of railway composed of successive -gaps, and which may be denominated a _Negative Railway_. - -Let the protectionists say what they will, it is not the less certain -that _the principle of restriction_ is the very same as the _principle -of gaps_; the sacrifice of the consumer's interest to that of the -producer,--in other words, the sacrifice of the end to the means. - - - - -XVIII. THERE ARE NO ABSOLUTE PRINCIPLES. - -We cannot wonder enough at the facility with which men resign themselves -to continue ignorant of what it is most important that they should know; -and we may be certain that such ignorance is incorrigible in those who -venture to proclaim this axiom: There are no absolute principles. - -You enter the legislative precincts. The subject of debate is whether -the law should prohibit international exchanges, or proclaim freedom. - -A deputy rises, and says: - -If you tolerate these exchanges, the foreigner will inundate you with -his products: England with her textile fabrics, Belgium with coals, -Spain with wools, Italy with silks, Switzerland with cattle, Sweden -with iron, Prussia with corn; so that home industry will no longer be -possible. - -Another replies: - -If you prohibit international exchanges, the various bounties which -nature has lavished on different climates will be for you as if they -did not exist. You cannot participate in the mechanical skill of the -English, in the wealth of the Belgian mines, in the fertility of the -Polish soil, in the luxuriance of the Swiss pastures, in the cheapness -of Spanish labour, in the warmth of the Italian climate; and you must -obtain from a refractory and misdirected production those commodities -which, through exchange, would have been furnished to you by an easy -production. - -Assuredly, one of these deputies must be wrong. But which? We must take -care to make no mistake on the subject; for this is not a matter of -abstract opinion merely. You have to choose between two roads, and one -of them leads necessarily to _poverty_. - -To get rid of the dilemma, we are told that there are no absolute -principles. - -This axiom, which is so much in fashion nowadays, not only countenances -indolence, but ministers to ambition. - -If the theory of prohibition comes to prevail, or if the doctrine of -free trade comes to triumph, one brief enactment will constitute our -whole economic code. In the first case, the law will proclaim that _all -exchanges with foreign countries are prohibited_; in the second, that -_all exchanges with foreign countries are free_; and many grand and -distinguished personages will thereby lose their importance. - -But if exchange does not possess a character which is peculiar to -it,--if it is not governed by any natural law,--if, capriciously, it -be sometimes useful and sometimes detrimental,--if it does not find its -motive force in the good which it accomplishes, its limit in the good -which it ceases to accomplish,--if its consequences cannot be estimated -by those who effect exchanges;--in a word, if there be no absolute -principles, then we must proceed to weigh, balance, and regulate -transactions, we must equalize the conditions of labour, and try to find -out the average rate of profits--a colossal task, well deserving the -large emoluments and powerful influence awarded to those who undertake -it. - -On entering Paris, which I had come to visit, I said to myself, Here -are a million of human beings, who would all die in a short time if -provisions of every kind ceased to flow towards this great metropolis. -Imagination is baffled when it tries to appreciate the vast multiplicity -of commodities which must enter to-morrow through the barriers in order -to preserve the inhabitants from falling a prey to the convulsions of -famine, rebellion, and pillage. And yet all sleep at this moment, and -their peaceful slumbers are not disturbed for a single instant by the -prospect of such a frightful catastrophe. On the other hand, eighty -departments have been labouring to-day, without concert, without any -mutual understanding, for the provisioning of Paris. How does each -succeeding day bring what is wanted, nothing more, nothing less, to so -gigantic a market? What, then, is the ingenious and secret power which -governs the astonishing regularity of movements so complicated, a -regularity in which everybody has implicit faith, although happiness -and life itself are at stake? That power is an _absolute principle_, the -principle of freedom in transactions. We have faith in that inward light -which Providence has placed in the heart of all men, and to which He has -confided the preservation and indefinite amelioration of our species, -namely, a regard to personal _interest_--since we must give it its right -name--a principle so active, so vigilant, so foreseeing, when it is free -in its action. In what situation, I would ask, would the inhabitants of -Paris be, if a minister should take it into his head to substitute for -this power the combinations of his own genius, however superior we might -suppose them to be--if he thought to subject to his supreme direction -this prodigious mechanism, to hold the springs of it in his hands, to -decide by whom, or in what manner, or on what conditions, everything -needed should be produced, transported, exchanged, and consumed? Truly, -there may be much suffering within the walls of Paris--poverty, despair, -perhaps starvation, causing more tears to flow than ardent charity -is able to dry up; but I affirm that it is probable, nay, that it is -certain, that the arbitrary intervention of government would multiply -infinitely those sufferings, and spread over all our fellow-citizens -those evils which at present affect only a small number of them. - -This faith, then, which we repose in a principle, when the question -relates only to our home transactions, why should we not retain, when -the same principle is applied to our international transactions, which -are undoubtedly less numerous, less delicate, and less complicated? -And if it is not necessary that the _préfecture_ should regulate our -Parisian industries, weigh our chances, balance our profits and losses, -see that our circulating medium is not exhausted, and equalize the -conditions of our home labour, why should it be necessary that the -Customhouse, departing from its fiscal duties, should pretend to -exercise a protective action over our external commerce? - - - - -XIX. NATIONAL INDEPENDENCE. - -Among the arguments which we hear adduced in favour of the restrictive -_régime_, we must not forget that which is founded on _national -independence_. - -"What should we do in case of war," it is said, "if we are placed at the -mercy of England for iron and coal?" - -English monopolists do not fail to cry out in their turn: - -"What would become of Great Britain, in case of war, if she is dependent -on France for provisions?" - -One thing is overlooked, which is this--that the kind of dependence -which results from exchange, from commercial transactions, is a -_reciprocal dependence_. We cannot be dependent on the foreigner without -the foreigner being dependent on us. Now, this is the very essence of -society. To break up natural relations is not to place ourselves in a -state of independence, but in a state of isolation. - -Remark this: A nation isolates itself looking forward to the possibility -of war; but is not this very act of isolating itself the beginning of -war? It renders war more easy, less burdensome, and, it may be, less -unpopular. Let countries be permanent markets for each other's produce; -let their reciprocal relations be such that they cannot be broken -without inflicting on each other the double suffering of privation and -a glut of commodities; and they will no longer stand in need of naval -armaments, which ruin them, and overgrown armies, which crush them; -the peace of the world will not then be compromised by the caprice of -a Thiers or of a Palmerston; and war will disappear for want of what -supports it, for want of resources, inducements, pretexts, and popular -sympathy. - -I am quite aware that I shall be reproached (it is the fashion of -the day) with basing the fraternity of nations on men's personal -interest--vile, prosaic self-interest. Better far, it may be thought, -that it should have had its basis in charity, in love, even in a little -self-abnegation, and that, interfering somewhat with men's material -comforts, it should have had the merit of a generous sacrifice. - -When shall we be done with these puerile declamations? When will -_tartuferie_ be finally banished from science? When shall we cease to -exhibit this nauseous contradiction between our professions and our -practice? We hoot at and execrate personal _interest_; in other words, -we denounce what is useful and good (for to say that all men are -interested in anything is to say that the thing is good in itself), as -if personal interest were not the necessary, eternal, and indestructible -mainspring to which Providence has confided human perfectibility. Are we -not represented as being all angels of disinterestedness? And does the -thought never occur to those who say so, that the public begins to see -with disgust that this affected language disfigures the pages of those -very writers who axe most successful in filling their own pockets at -the public expense? Oh! affectation! affectation! thou art verily the -besetting sin of our times! - -What! because material prosperity and peace are things correlative, -because it has pleased God to establish this beautiful harmony in the -moral world, am I not to admire, am I not to adore His ordinances, am -I not to accept with gratitude laws which make justice the condition -of happiness? You desire peace only in as far as it runs counter to -material prosperity; and liberty is rejected because it does not impose -sacrifices. If abnegation has indeed so many charms for you, why do you -fail to practise it in private life? Society will be grateful to you, -for some one, at least, will reap the fruit; but to desire to impose -it upon mankind as a principle is the very height of absurdity, for the -abnegation of all is the sacrifice of all, which is evil erected into a -theory. - -But, thank Heaven, one can write or read many of these declamations -without the world ceasing on that account to obey the social motive -force, which leads us to shun evil and seek after good, and which, -whether they like it or not, we must denominate personal interest. - -After all, it is singular enough to see sentiments of the most sublime -self-denial invoked in support of spoliation itself. See to what this -boasted disinterestedness tends! These men who are so fantastically -delicate as not to desire peace itself, if it is founded on the vile -interest of mankind, put their hand into the pockets of others, and -especially of the poor; for what article of the tariff protects the -poor? Be pleased, gentlemen, to dispose of what belongs to yourselves -as you think proper, but leave us the disposal of the fruit of our own -toil, to use it or exchange it as we see best. Declaim on self-sacrifice -as much as you choose, it is all very fine and very beautiful, but be at -least consistent. - - - - -XX. HUMAN LABOUR, NATIONAL LABOUR. - -Machine-breaking--prohibition of foreign commodities--are two acts -founded on the same doctrine. - -We see men who clap their hands when a great invention is introduced, -and who nevertheless adhere to the protectionist _régime_. Such men are -grossly inconsistent! - -With what do they reproach free trade? With encouraging the production -by foreigners, more skilled or more favourably situated than we are, of -commodities which, but for free trade, would be produced at home. In a -word, they accuse free trade of being injurious to _national labour?_ - -For the same reason, should they not reproach machinery with -accomplishing by natural agents what otherwise would have been done by -manual labour, and so of being injurious to _human labour?_ - -The foreign workman, better and more favourably situated than the home -workman for the production of certain commodities, is, with reference to -the latter, a veritable _economic machine,_ crushing him by competition. -In like manner, machinery, which executes a piece of work at a lower -price than a certain number of men could do by manual labour, is, in -relation to these manual labourers, a veritable _foreign competitor_, -who paralyzes them by his rivalry. - -If, then, it is politic to protect _national labour_ against the -competition of _foreign labour_, it is not less so to protect _human -labour_ against the rivalry of _mechanical labour_. - -Thus, every adherent of the _régime_ of protection, if he is logical, -should not content himself with prohibiting foreign products; he should -proscribe also the products of the shuttle and the plough. - -And this is the reason why I like better the logic of those men who, -declaiming against the invasion of foreign merchandise, declaim likewise -against the excess of production which is due to the inventive power of -the human mind. - -Such a man is M. de Saint-Chamans. "One of the strongest arguments -against free trade," he says, "is the too extensive employment of -machinery, for many workmen are deprived of employment, either by -foreign competition, which lowers the price of our manufactured goods, -or by instruments which take the place of men in our workshops."* - - * Du Système d'impôts, p. 438. - -M. de Saint-Chamans has seen clearly the analogy, or, we should rather -say, the identity, which obtains between imports and machinery. For this -reason, he proscribes both; and it is really agreeable to have to do -with such intrepid reasoners, who, even when wrong, carry out their -argument to its logical conclusion. - -But here is the mess in which they land themselves. - -If it be true, a priori, that the domain of invention and that of labour -cannot be simultaneously extended but at each other's expense, it must -be in those countries where machinery most abounds--in Lancashire, for -example--that we should expect to find the fewest workmen. And if, on -the other hand, we establish the fact that mechanical power and manual -labour coexist, and to a greater extent, among rich nations than among -savages, the conclusion is inevitable, that these two powers do not -exclude each other. - -I cannot convince myself how any thinking being can enjoy a moment's -repose in presence of the following dilemma: Either the inventions of -man are not injurious to manual labour, as general facts attest, since -there are more of both in England and France than among the Hurons -and Cherokees, and that being so, I am on a wrong road, though I know -neither where nor when I missed my way; at all events, I see I am wrong, -and I should commit the crime of lese-humanity were I to introduce my -error into the legislation of my country. - -Or else, the discoveries of the human mind limit the amount of manual -labour, as special facts appear to indicate; for I see every day some -machine or other superseding twenty or a hundred workmen; and then I -am forced to acknowledge a flagrant, eternal, and incurable antithesis -between the intellectual and physical powers of man--between his -progress and his present wellbeing; and in these circumstances I am -forced to say that the Creator of man might have endowed him with -reason, or with physical strength, with moral force, or with brute -force; but that He mocked him by conferring on him, at the same time, -faculties which are destructive of each other. - -The difficulty is pressing and puzzling; but you contrive to find your -way out of it by adopting the strange apophthegm: - -_In political economy, there are no absolute principles_. - -In plain language, this means: - -"I know not whether it be true or false; I am ignorant of what -constitutes general good or evil. I give myself no trouble about that. -The immediate effect of each measure upon my own personal interest is -the only law which I can consent to recognise." - -There are no principles! You might as well say there are no facts; for -principles are merely formulas which classify such facts as are well -established. - -Machinery, and the importation of foreign commodities, certainly -produce effects. These effects may be good or bad; on that there may be -difference of opinion. But whatever view we take of them, it is reduced -to a formula, by one of these two principles: Machinery is a good; or, -machinery is an evil: Importations of foreign produce are beneficial; -or, such importations are hurtful. But to assert that there are no -principles, certainly exhibits the lowest degree of abasement to which -the human mind can descend; and I confess that I blush for my country -when I hear such a monstrous heresy proclaimed in the French Chambers, -and with their assent; that is to say, in the face and with the assent -of the _élite_ of our fellow-citizens; and this in order to justify -their imposing laws upon us in total ignorance of the real state of the -case. - -But then I am told to destroy the sophism, by proving that machinery is -not hurtful to human labour, nor the importation of foreign products to -national labour. - -A work like the present cannot well include very full or complete -demonstrations. My design is rather to state difficulties than to -resolve them; to excite reflection rather than to satisfy doubts. No -conviction makes so lasting an impression on the mind as that which -it works out for itself. But I shall endeavour nevertheless to put the -reader on the right road. - -What misleads the adversaries of machinery and foreign importations -is, that they judge of them by their immediate and transitory -effects, instead of following them out to their general and definitive -consequences. - -The immediate effect of the invention and employment of an ingenious -machine is to render superfluous, for the attainment of a given result, -a certain amount of manual labour. But its action does not stop there. -For the very reason that the desired result is obtained with fewer -efforts, the product is handed over to the public at a lower price; and -the aggregate of savings thus realized by all purchasers, enables them -to procure other satisfactions; that is to say, to encourage manual -labour in general to exactly the extent of the manual labour which has -been saved in the special branch of industry which has been recently -improved. So that the level of labour has not fallen, while that of -enjoyments has risen. - -Let us render this evident by an example. - -Suppose there are used annually in this country ten millions of hats -at 15 shillings; this makes the sum which goes to the support of this -branch of industry £7,500,000 sterling. A machine is invented which -allows these hats to be manufactured and sold at 10 shillings. The sum -now wanted for the support of this industry is reduced to £5,000,000, -provided the demand is not augmented by the change. But the remaining -sum of £2,500,000 is not by this change withdrawn from the support of -_human labour_. That sum, economized by the purchasers of hats, will -enable them to satisfy other wants, and, consequently, to that extent -will go to remunerate the aggregate industry of the country. With the -five shillings saved, John will purchase a pair of shoes, James a book, -Jerome a piece of furniture, etc. Human labour, taken in the aggregate, -will continue, then, to be supported and encouraged to the extent of -£7,500,000; but this sum will yield the same number of hats, plus all -the satisfactions and enjoyments corresponding to £2,500,000 that the -employment of the machine has enabled the consumers of hats to save. -These additional enjoyments constitute the clear profit which the -country will have derived from the invention. This is a free gift, a -tribute which human genius will have derived from nature. We do not at -all dispute, that in the course of the transformation a certain amount -of labour will have been _displaced_; but we cannot allow that it has -been destroyed or diminished. - -The same thing holds of the importation of foreign commodities. Let us -revert to our former hypothesis. - -The country manufactures ten millions of hats, of which the cost price -was 15 shillings. The foreigner sends similar hats to our market, and -furnishes them at 10 shillings each. I maintain that the _national -labour_ will not be thereby diminished. - -For it must produce to the extent of £5,000,000, to enable it to pay for -10 millions of hats at 10 shillings. - -And then there remains to each purchaser five shillings saved on -each hat, or in all, £2,500,000, which will be spent on other -enjoyments--that is to say, which will go to support labour in other -departments of industry. - -Then the aggregate labour of the country will remain what it was, and -the additional enjoyments represented by £2,500,000 saved upon hats, -will form the clear profit accruing from imports under the system of -free trade. - -It is of no use to try to frighten us by a picture of the sufferings -which, on this hypothesis, the displacement of labour will entail. - -For, if the prohibition had never been imposed, the labour would have -found its natural place under the ordinary law of exchange, and no -displacement would have taken place. - -If, on the other hand, prohibition has led to an artificial and -unproductive employment of labour, it is prohibition, and not liberty, -which is to blame for a displacement which is inevitable in the -transition from what is detrimental to what is beneficial. - -At all events, let no one pretend that because an abuse cannot be done -away with, without inconvenience to those who profit by it, what has -been suffered to exist for a time should be allowed to exist for ever. - - - - -XXI. RAW MATERIALS. - -It is said that the most advantageous of all branches of trade is that -which supplies manufactured commodities in exchange for raw materials. -For these raw materials are the aliment and support of _national -labour_. - -Hence the conclusion is drawn: - -That the best law of customs is that which gives the greatest possible -facility to the importation of raw materials, and which throws most -obstacles in the way of importing finished goods. - -There is no sophism in political economy more widely disseminated than -this. It is cherished not only by the protectionist school, but also, -and above all, by the school which dubs itself liberal; and it is -unfortunate that it should be so, for what can be more injurious to a -good cause than that it should be at the same time vigorously attacked -and feebly defended? - -Commercial liberty is likely to have the fate of liberty in general; it -will only find a place in the statute-book after it has taken possession -of men's minds and convictions. But if it be true that a reform, in -order to be solidly established, should be generally understood, it -follows that nothing can so much retard reform as that which misleads -public opinion; and what is more calculated to mislead public opinion -than works which, in advocating freedom, invoke aid from the doctrines -of monopoly? - -Some years ago three of the great towns of France--Lyons, Bordeaux, and -Havre--united in a movement against the restrictive _régime_. All Europe -was stirred on seeing raised what they took for the banner of liberty. -Alas! it proved to be also the banner of monopoly--of a monopoly a -little more niggardly and much more absurd than that of which they -seemed to desire the overthrow. By the aid of the sophism which I -have just endeavoured to expose, the petitioners did nothing more than -reproduce the doctrine of protection to national industry, tacking to it -an additional inconsistency. - -It was, in fact, nothing else than the _régime_ of prohibition. Just -listen to M. de Saint-Cricq:-- - -"Labour constitutes the wealth of a nation, because labour alone creates -those material objects which our wants demand; and universal ease and -comfort consist in the abundance of these things." So much for the -principle. - -"But this abundance must be produced by _national labour_. If it were -the result of foreign labour, national labour would be immediately -brought to a stand." Here lies the error. _(See the preceding sophism.)_ - -"What course should an agricultural and manufacturing country take under -such circumstances? Reserve its markets for the products of its own soil -and of its own industry." Such is the end and design. - -"And for that purpose, restrain by duties, and, if necessary, prohibit -importation of the products of the soil and industry of other nations." -Such are the means. - -Let us compare this system with that which the Bordeaux petition -advocates. - -Commodities are there divided into three classes:-- - -"The first includes provisions, and _raw materials upon which no human -labour has been bestowed. In principle, a wise economy would demand -that this class should be free of duties_. Here we have no labour, no -protection. - -"The second consists of products which have, _to some extent, been -prepared_. This preparation warrants such products being _charged with -a certain amount of duty_." Here protection begins, because here, -according to the petitioners, begins _national labour_. - -"The third comprises goods and products in their finished and perfect -state. These contribute nothing to national labour, and we regard this -class as the most taxable." Here labour, and production along with it, -reach their maximum. - -We thus see that the petitioners profess their belief in the doctrine, -that foreign labour is injurious to national labour; and this is the -_error_ of the prohibitive system. - -They demand that the home market should be reserved for home industry. -That is the _design_ of the system of prohibition. - -They demand that foreign labour should be subjected to restrictions and -taxes. These are the means employed by the system of prohibition. - -What difference, then, can we possibly discover between the Bordeaux -petitioners and the Corypheus of restriction? One difference, and one -only--the greater or less extension given to the word labour. - -M. de Saint-Cricq extends it to everything, and so he wishes to protect -all. - -"Labour constitutes all the wealth of a people," he says; "to protect -agricultural industry, and all agricultural industry; to protect -manufacturing industry, and all manufacturing industry, is the cry which -should never cease to be heard in this Chamber." - -The Bordeaux petitioners take no labour into account but that of the -manufacturers; and for that reason they would admit them to the benefits -of protection. - -"Raw materials are commodities upon which no human labour has been -bestowed. In principle, we should not tax them. Manufactured products -can no longer serve the cause of national industry, and we regard them -as the best subjects for taxation." - -It is not our business in this place to inquire whether protection to -national industry is reasonable. M. de Saint-Cricq and the Bordeaux -gentlemen are at one upon this point, and, as we have shown in the -preceding chapters, we on this subject differ from both. - -Our present business is to discover whether it is by M. de Saint-Cricq, -or by the Bordeaux petitioners, that the word labour is used in a -correct sense. - -Now, in this view of the question, we think that M. de Saint-Cricq has -very much the best of it; and to prove this, we may suppose them to hold -some such dialogue as the following:-- - -M. de Saint-Cricq: You grant that national labour should be protected. -You grant that the products of no foreign labour can be introduced into -our market without superseding a corresponding amount of our national -labour. Only, you contend that there are a multiplicity of products -possessed of value (for they sell), but upon which no human labour has -been bestowed [vierges de tout travail humain]. And you enumerate, among -other things, com, flour, meat, cattle, tallow, salt, iron, copper, -lead, coal, wools, hides, seeds, etc. - -If you will only prove to me that the value of these things is not due -to labour, I will grant that it is useless to protect them. - -But, on the other hand, if I demonstrate to you that there is as much -labour worked up in a 100 fr. worth of wool as in a 100 fr. worth of -textile fabrics, you will allow that the one is as worthy of protection -as the other. - -Now, why is this sack of wool worth 100 fr.? Is it not because that -is its cost price? and what does its cost price represent, but the -aggregate wages of all the labour, and profits of all the capital, which -have contributed to the production of the commodity? - -The Bordeaux Petitioners: Well, perhaps as regards wool you may -be right. But take the case of a sack of corn, a bar of iron, a -hundredweight of coals,--are these commodities produced by labour? Are -they not created by nature? - -M. de Saint-Cricq: Undoubtedly nature creates the elements of all these -things, but it is labour which produces the value. I was wrong myself -in saying that labour created material objects, and that vicious form -of expression has led me into other errors. It does not belong to man -to create, to make anything out of nothing, be he agriculturist or -manufacturer; and if by production is meant creation, all our labour -must be marked down as unproductive, and yours, as merchants, more -unproductive than all others, excepting perhaps my own. - -The agriculturist, then, cannot pretend to have created corn, but he -has created value; I mean to say, he has, by his labour, and that of -his servants, labourers, reapers, etc., transformed into corn substances -which had no resemblance to it whatever. The miller who converts the -corn into flour, the baker who converts the flour into bread, do the -same thing. - -In order that man may be enabled to clothe himself, a multitude of -operations are necessary. Prior to all intervention of human labour, the -true raw materials of cloth are the air, the water, the heat, the gases, -the light, the salts, which enter into its composition. These are the -raw materials upon which strictly speaking, no human labour has been -employed. They are _vierges de tout travail humain_; and since they -have no value, I should never dream of protecting them. But the -first application of labour converts these substances into grass and -provender, a second into wool, a third into yarn, a fourth into a woven -fabric, a fifth into clothing. Who can assert that the whole of these -operations, from the first furrow laid open by the plough, to the last -stitch of the tailor's needle, do not resolve themselves into labour? - -And it is because these operations are spread over several branches of -industry, in order to accelerate and facilitate the accomplishment of -the ultimate object, which is to furnish clothing to those who have -need of it, that you desire, by an arbitrary distinction, to rank the -importance of such works in the order in which they succeed each other, -so that the first of the series shall not merit even the name of labour, -and that the last, being labour _par excellence_, shall be worthy of the -favours of protection? - -The Petitioners: Yes; we begin to see that corn, like wool, is not -exactly a product of which it can be said that no human labour has been -bestowed upon it; but the agriculturist has not, at least, like the -manufacturer, done everything himself or by means of his workmen; nature -has assisted him, and if there is labour worked up in corn, it is not -the simple product of labour. - -M. de Saint-Cricq: But its value resolves itself exclusively into -labour. I am happy that nature concurs in the material formation of -grain. I could even wish that it were entirely her work; but you must -allow that I have constrained this assistance of nature by my labour, -and when I sell you my corn you will remark this, that it is not for the -labour of nature that I ask you to pay, but for my own. - -But, as you state the case, manufactured commodities are no longer the -exclusive products of labour. Is the manufacturer not beholden to nature -in his processes? Does he not avail himself of the assistance of the -steam-engine, of the pressure of the atmosphere, just as, with the -assistance of the plough, I avail myself of its humidity? Has he created -the laws of gravitation, of the transmission of forces, of affinity? - -The Petitioners: Well, this is the case of the wool over again; but coal -is assuredly the work, the exclusive work, of nature. It is indeed a -product upon which no human labour has ever been bestowed. - -M. de Saint-Cricq: Yes; nature has undoubtedly created the coal, but -labour has imparted value to it. For the millions of years during which -it was buried 100 fathoms under ground, unknown to everybody, it was -destitute of value. It was necessary to search for it--that is labour; -it was necessary to send it to market--that is additional labour. -Then the price you pay for it in the market is nothing else than the -remuneration of the labour of mining and transport.* - - * I do not particularize the parts of the remuneration - falling to the lessee, the capitalist, etc., for several - reasons:--1st, Because, on looking at the thing more - closely, you will see that the remuneration always resolves - itself into the reimbursement of advances or the payment of - anterior labour. 2dly, Because, under the term labour, I - include not only the wages of the workmen, but the - legitimate recompense of everything which co-operates in the - work of production. 3dly (and above all), Because the - production of manufactured products is, like that of raw - materials, burdened with auxiliary remunerations other than - the mere expense of manual labour; and, moreover, this - objection, frivolous in itself, would apply as much to the - most delicate processes of manufacture, as to the rudest - operations of agriculture. - -Thus far we see that M. de Saint-Cricq has the best of the argument; -that the value of raw materials, like that of manufactured commodities, -represents the cost of production, that is to say, the labour worked -up in them; that it is not possible to conceive of a product possessing -value, which has had no human labour bestowed on it; that the -distinction made by the petitioners is futile in theory; that, as the -basis of an unequal distribution of favours, it would be iniquitous in -practice, since the result would be that one-third of our countrymen, -who happened to be engaged in manufactures, would obtain the advantages -of monopoly, on the alleged ground that they produce by labour, whilst -the other two-thirds--namely, the agricultural population--would be -abandoned to competition under the pretext that they produce without -labour. - -The rejoinder to this, I am quite sure, will be, that a nation derives -more advantages from importing what are called raw materials, whether -produced by labour or not, and exporting manufactured commodities. -This will be repeated and insisted on, and it is an opinion very widely -accredited. - -"The more abundant raw materials are," says the Bordeaux petition, "the -more are manufactures promoted and multiplied." - -"Raw materials," says the same document in another place, "open up an -unlimited field of work for the inhabitants of the countries into which -they are imported." - -"Raw materials," says the Havre petition, "constituting as they do the -elements of labour, must be submitted to a different treatment, and -be gradually admitted at the lowest rate of duty." The same petition -expresses a wish that manufactured products should be admitted, not -gradually, but after an indefinite lapse of time, not at the lowest rate -of duty, but at a duty of 20 per cent. - -"Among other articles, the low price and abundance of which are a -necessity," says the Lyons petition, "manufacturers include all raw -materials." - -All this is founded on an illusion. - -We have seen that all value represents labour. Now, it is quite true -that manufacturing labour increases tenfold, sometimes a hundredfold, -the value of the raw material; that is to say, it yields ten times, a -hundred times, more profit to the nation. Hence men are led to reason -thus: The production of a hundredweight of iron brings in a gain of -only fifteen shillings to workmen of all classes. The conversion of -this hundredweight of iron into the mainsprings of watches raises their -earnings to £500; and will any one venture to say that a nation has -not a greater interest to secure for its labour a gain of five -hundred pounds than a gain of fifteen shillings? We do not exchange a -hundredweight of unwrought iron for a hundredweight of watch-springs, -nor a hundredweight of unwashed wool for a hundredweight of cashmere -shawls; but we exchange a certain value of one of these materials for an -equal value of another. Now, to exchange equal value for equal value is -to exchange equal labour for equal labour. It is not true, then, that -a nation which sells five pounds' worth of wrought fabrics or -watch-springs, gains more than a nation which sells five pounds' worth -of wool or iron. - -In a country where no law can be voted, where no tax can be imposed, -but with the consent of those whose dealings the law is to regulate, and -whose pockets the tax is to affect, the public cannot be robbed without -first being imposed on and misled. Our ignorance is the raw material of -every extortion from which we suffer, and we may be certain beforehand, -that every sophism is the precursor of an act of plunder. My good -friends I when you detect a sophism in a petition, button up your -breeches-pocket, for you may be sure that this is the mark aimed at. - -Let us see, then, what is the real object secretly aimed at by the -shipowners of Bordeaux and Havre, and the manufacturers of Lyons, and -which is concealed under the distinction which they attempt to draw -between agricultural and manufactured commodities. - -"It is principally this first class (that which comprises raw materials, -upon which no human labour has been bestowed) which affords," say -the Bordeaux petitioners, "the principal support to our merchant -shipping...." In principle, a wise economy would not tax this class.... -The second (commodities partly wrought up) may be taxed to a certain -extent. The third (commodities which call for no more exertion of -labour) we regard as the fittest subjects of taxation. - -The Havre petitioners "consider that it is indispensable to reduce -gradually the duty on raw materials to the lowest rate, in order -that our manufacturers may gradually find employment for the shipping -interest, which furnishes them with the first and indispensable -materials of labour." - -The manufacturers could not remain behindhand in politeness towards the -shipowners. So the Lyons petition asks for the free introduction of raw -materials, "in order to prove," as they express it, "that the interests -of the manufacturing are not always opposed to those of the maritime -towns." - -No; but then the interests of both, understood as the petitioners -understand them, are in direct opposition to the interests of -agriculture and of consumers. - -Well, gentlemen, we have come at length to see what you are aiming at, -and the object of your subtle economical distinctions. You desire that -the law should restrain the transport of finished goods across the -ocean, in order that the more costly conveyance of raw and rough -materials, bulky, and mixed up with refuse, should afford greater -scope for your merchant shipping, and more largely employ your marine -resources. This is what you call a wise economy. - -On the same principle, why do you not ask that the pines of Russia -should be brought to you with their branches, bark, and roots; the -silver of Mexico in its mineral state; the hides of Buenos Ayres -sticking to the bones of the diseased carcases from which they have been -torn? - -I expect that railway shareholders, the moment they are in a majority in -the Chambers, will proceed to make a law forbidding the manufacture -of the brandy which is consumed in Paris. And why not? Would not a law -enforcing the conveyance of ten casks of wine for every cask of brandy -afford Parisian industry the indispensable materials of its labour, and -give employment to our locomotive resources? - -How long will men shut their eyes to this simple truth? - -Manufactures, shipping, labour--all have for end the general, the public -good; to create useless industries, to favour superfluous conveyances, -to support a greater amount of labour than is necessary, not for the -good of the public, but at the expense of the public--is to realize a -true _petitio principii_. It is not labour which is desirable for its -own sake; it is consumption. All labour without a commensurate result is -a loss. You may as well pay sailors for pitching stones into the sea as -pay them for transporting useless refuse. Thus, we arrive at the result -to which all economic sophisms, numerous as they are, conduct us, -namely, confounding the means with the end, and developing the one at -the expense of the other. - - - - -XXII. METAPHORS. - -A sophism sometimes expands, and runs through the whole texture of a -long and elaborate theory. More frequently, it shrinks and contracts, -assumes the guise of a principle, and lurks in a word or a phrase. - -May God protect us from the devil and from metaphors! was the -exclamation of Paul-Louis. And it is difficult to say which of them has -done most mischief in this world of ours. The devil, you will say; for -he has put the spirit of plunder into all our hearts. True, but he has -left free the means of repressing abuses by the resistance of those who -suffer from them. It is the sophism which paralyzes this resistance. The -sword which malice puts into the hands of assailants would be powerless, -did sophistry not break the buckler which should shield the party -assailed. It was with reason, therefore, that Malebranche inscribed on -the title-page of his work this sentence: _L'erreur est la cause de la -misère des hommes_. - -Let us see in what way this takes place. Ambitious men are often -actuated by sinister and wicked intentions; their design, for example, -may be to implant in the public mind the germ of international hatred. -This fatal germ may develop itself, light up a general conflagration, -arrest civilization, cause torrents of blood to be shed, and bring upon -the country the most terrible of all scourges, invasion. At any -rate, and apart from this, such sentiments of hatred lower us in the -estimation of other nations, and force Frenchmen who retain any sense of -justice to blush for their country. These are undoubtedly most serious -evils; and to guard the public against the underhand practices of those -who would expose the country to such hazard, it is only necessary to see -clearly into their designs. How do they manage to conceal them? By the -use of metaphors. They twist, distort, and pervert the meaning of three -or four words, and the thing is done. - -The word _invasion_ itself is a good illustration of this. - -A French ironmaster exclaims: Preserve us from the invasion of English -iron. An English landowner exclaims in return: Preserve us from the -invasion of French corn. And then they proceed to interpose barriers -between the two countries. These barriers create isolation, isolation -gives rise to hatred, hatred to war, war to invasion. What does it -signify? cry the two sophists; is it not better to expose ourselves to -an eventual invasion than accept an invasion which is certain? And the -people believe them, and the barriers are kept up. - -And yet what analogy is there between an exchange and an invasion? What -possible similarity can be imagined between a ship of war which comes to -vomit fire and devastation on our towns, and a merchant ship which comes -to offer a free voluntary exchange of commodities for commodities? - -The same thing holds of the use made of the word _inundation_. This word -is ordinarily used in a bad sense, for we often see our fields injured, -and our harvests carried away by floods. If, however, they leave on -our soil something of greater value than what they carry away, like -the inundations of the Nile, we should be thankful for them, as the -Egyptians are. Before we declaim, then, against the inundations of -foreign products--before proceeding to restrain them by irksome and -costly obstacles--we should inquire to what class they belong, and -whether they ravage or fertilize. What should we think of Mehemet Ali, -if, instead of raising, at great cost, bars across the Nile, to extend -wider its inundations, he were to spend his money in digging a deeper -channel to prevent Egypt being soiled by the foreign slime which -descends upon her from the Mountains of the Moon? We display exactly -the same degree of wisdom and sense, when we desire, at the cost of -millions, to defend our country.... From what? From the benefits which -nature has bestowed on other climates. - -Among the metaphors which conceal a pernicious theory, there is no one -more in use than that presented by the words _tribute and tributary_. - -These words have now become so common that they are used as synonymous -with _purchase and purchaser_, and are employed indiscriminately. - -And yet a tribute is as different from a purchase as a theft is from an -exchange; and I should like quite as well to hear it said, Cartouche has -broken into my strong-box and purchased a thousand pounds, as to hear -one of our deputies repeat, We have paid Germany tribute for a thousand -horses which she has sold us. - -For what distinguishes the act of Cartouche from a purchase is, that he -has not put into my strong-box, and with my consent, a value equivalent -to what he has taken out of it. - -And what distinguishes our remittance of £20,000 which we have made to -Germany from a tribute paid to her is this, that she has not received -the money gratuitously, but has given us in exchange a thousand horses, -which we have judged to be worth the £20,000. - -Is it worth while exposing seriously such an abuse of language? Yes; for -these terms are used seriously both in newspapers and in books. - -Do not let it be supposed that these are instances of a mere _lapsus -linguo_ on the part of certain ignorant writers! For one writer who -abstains from so using them, I will point you out ten who admit them, -and amongst the rest, the D'Argouts, the Dupins, the Villeles--peers, -deputies, ministers of state,--men, in short, whose words are laws, -and whose sophisms, even the most transparent, serve as a basis for the -government of the country. - -A celebrated modern philosopher has added to the categories of Aristotle -the sophism which consists in employing a phrase which includes a -_petitio pinncipii_. He gives many examples of it; and he should have -added the word tributary to his list. The business, in fact, is to -discover whether purchases made from foreigners are useful or hurtful. -They are hurtful, you say. And why? Because they render us tributaries -to the foreigner. This is just to use a word which implies the very -thing to be proved. - -It may be asked how this abuse of words first came to be introduced into -the rhetoric of the monopolists? - -Money leaves the country to satisfy the rapacity of a victorious enemy. -Money also leaves the country to pay for commodities. An analogy is -established between the two cases by taking into account only the points -in which they resemble each other, and keeping out of view the points in -which they differ. - -Yet this circumstance--that is to say, the non-reimbursement in the -first case, and the reimbursement voluntarily agreed upon in the -second--establishes betwixt them such a difference that it is really -impossible to class them in the same category. To hand over a hundred -pounds by force to a man who has caught you by the throat, or to hand -them over voluntarily to a man who furnishes you with what you want, are -things as different as light and darkness. You might as well assert that -it is a matter of indifference whether you throw your bread into the -river, or eat it, for in both cases the bread is destroyed. The vice -of this reasoning, like that applied to the word tribute, consists in -asserting an entire similitude between two cases, looking only at their -points of resemblance, and keeping out of sight the points in which they -differ. - - - - -CONCLUSION. - -All the sophisms which I have hitherto exposed have reference to a -single question--the system of restriction. There are other tempting -subjects, such as _vested interests, inopportuneness, draining away -our money_, etc., etc., with which I shall not at present trouble the -reader. - -Nor does Social Economy confine herself to this limited circle. -_Fourierisme, Saint-Simonisme_, communism, mysticism, sentimentalism, -false philanthropy, affected aspirations after a chimerical equality and -fraternity; questions relating to luxury, to wages, to machinery, to -the pretended tyranny of capital, to colonies, to markets and vents for -produce, to conquests, to population, to association, emigration, taxes, -and loans,--have encumbered the field of science with a multiplicity of -parasitical arguments, of sophisms which afford work to the hoe and the -grubber of the diligent economist. - -I am quite aware of the inconvenience attending this plan, or rather of -this absence of plan. To attack one by one so many incoherent sophisms, -which sometimes run foul of each other, and more frequently run into -each other, is to enter into an irregular and capricious struggle, and -involve ourselves in perpetual repetitions. - -How much I should prefer to explain simply the situation in which things -are, without occupying myself with the thousand aspects under which -ignorance sees them!... To explain the laws under which societies -prosper or decay, is to demolish virtually all these sophisms at once. -When Laplace described all that was then known of the movements of -the heavenly bodies, he dissipated, without even naming them, all -the reveries of the Egyptian, Greek, and Hindoo astrologers far more -effectually than he could have done by refuting them directly in -innumerable volumes. Truth is one, and the work which explains it is an -edifice at once durable and imposing: - - Il brave les tyrans avides, - Plus hardi que les Pyramides - Et plus durable que l'airain. - -Error is multifarious and of an ephemeral nature; and the work which -combats it does not carry in itself a principle of greatness and -duration. - -But if the power, and perhaps the occasion, have been wanting to -enable me to proceed in the manner of Laplace and of Say, I cannot help -thinking that the form I have adopted has also its modest utility. It -seems to me well suited to the wants of our day, and the occasional -moments which are set aside for study. - -A treatise has no doubt unquestionable superiority, but on one -condition--namely, that it is read and carefully pondered and thought -over. It is addressed to a select class of readers. Its mission is to -fix first of all, and afterwards enlarge, the circle of our acquired -knowledge. - -A refutation of vulgar errors and prejudices cannot occupy this high -position. It aspires merely to clear the road before the march of truth, -to prepare men's minds for its reception, to rectify public opinion, and -disarm dangerous ignorance. - -It is, above all, in the department of Social Economy that this -hand-to-hand struggle, that these constantly-recurring battles with -popular errors, are of true practical utility. - -The sciences may be divided into two classes. - -One of these classes may be known only to _savans_. It includes those -sciences the application of which constitutes the business of special -professions. The vulgar reap the fruit, in spite of their ignorance. -A man may find use for a watch, though ignorant of mechanics and -astronomy, and he may be carried along by a locomotive or a steamer, -trusting to the skill of the engineer and the pilot. We walk according -to the laws of equilibrium, although unacquainted with these laws, just -as M. Jourdain had talked prose all his life without knowing it. - -But there are sciences which exercise on the public mind an influence -which is only in proportion to public enlightenment, and derive all -their efficacy, not from knowledge accumulated in some gifted minds, but -from knowledge diffused over the general masses. Among these we include -morals, medicine, social economy, and, in countries where men are their -own masters, Politics. It is to such sciences that the saying of Bentham -specially applies, "To disseminate them is better than to advance them." -What signifies it, that some great man, or even that God himself, should -have promulgated the laws of morality, as long as men, imbued with false -notions, mistake virtues for vices, and vices for virtues? What matters -it that Smith, Say, and, according to M. de Saint-Chamans, economists of -all schools, have proclaimed, in reference to commercial transactions, -the superiority of liberty over constraint, if the men who make our -laws, and for whom our laws are made, think differently? - -Those sciences, which have been correctly named social, have also this -peculiarity, that being of universal and daily application, no one will -confess himself ignorant of them. When the business is to resolve a -question in chemistry or geometry, no one pretends to have acquired -these sciences by intuition, no one is ashamed to consult M. Thénard, or -makes any difficulty about referring to the works of Legendre or Bezout. -But in the social sciences, authority is scarcely acknowledged. As -each man daily takes charge of his morals, whether good or bad, of his -health, of his purse, of his politics, whether sound or absurd, so -each man believes himself qualified to discuss, comment, and pronounce -judgment on social questions. Are you ill? There is no old woman who -will not at once tell you the cause of your ailment, and the remedy -for it. "Humours," she will say; "you must take physic." But what are -humours? and is there any such disease? About this she gives herself -no concern. I cannot help thinking of this old woman when I hear social -maladies explained by these hackneyed phrases:--"The superabundance of -products," "the tyranny of capital," "an industrial plethora," and -other such commonplaces, of which we cannot even say, _Verba et voces, -protereaque nihil_, for they are so many pestilent errors. - -From what I have said, two things result--1st, That the social sciences -must abound more in sophisms than others, because in them each man -takes counsel of his own judgment and instincts; 2d, That it is in these -sciences that sophisms are especially mischievous, because they mislead -public opinion, and in a matter, too, with reference to which public -opinion is force, is law. - -In these sciences, then, we have need of two sorts of books, those which -explain them, and those which further and advance them--those which -establish truth, and those which combat error. - -It seems to me that the inherent fault of this little work, repetition, -is exactly what will make it useful. - -In the question I have treated, each sophism has undoubtedly its own -formula, and its special bearing, but all may be traced to a common -root, which is, _forgetting men's interests as consumers_. To point out -that a thousand errors may be traced to this prolific sophism, is to -teach the public to detect it, to estimate it at its true worth, and to -distrust it, under all circumstances. - -After all, the design of my present work is not exactly to implant -convictions, but rather to awaken doubts. - -I have no expectation that the reader, on laying down the book, will -exclaim _I know_; I would much rather that he should say candidly, _I am -ignorant!_ - -"I am ignorant, for I begin to fear that there is something illusory in -the flattering promises of scarcity." (Sophism I.) - -"I am not so much charmed with obstacles as I once was. (Sophism II.) - -"_Effort without result_ no longer appears to me so desirable as _result -without effort_." (Sophism III.) - -"It is very possible that the secret of trade does not consist, like -the secret of arms (if we adopt the definition of the bully in the -_Bourgeois Gentilhomme_), in giving and not receiving." (Sophism VI.) - -"I can understand that a commodity is worth more in proportion as it has -had more labour bestowed upon it; but in exchange, will two equal values -cease to be equal values, because the one proceeds from the plough, and -the other from the loom?" (Sophism XXI.) - -"I confess that I begin to think it singular that the human race should -be improved by shackles, and enriched by taxes; and, truth to say, -I should be relieved of a troublesome weight, I should experience -unmitigated satisfaction, were it proved to me, as the author of the -_Sophismes_ asserts, that there is no incompatibility between thriving -circumstances and justice, between peace and liberty, between the -extension of labour and the progress of intelligence." (Sophisms XIV. -and XX.) - -"Then, without being quite convinced by his arguments, to which I know -not whether to give the name of reasonings or of paradoxes, I shall -apply myself to the acknowledged masters of the science." - -Let us conclude this monography of sophism with a final and important -observation. - -The world is not sufficiently alive to the influence exercised over it -by sophisms. - -If I must speak my mind, when the _right of the strongest_ has been -put aside, sophisms have set up in its place _the right of the most -cunning_; and it is difficult to say which of these two tryants has been -the more fatal to humanity. - -Men have an immoderate love of enjoyment, of influence, of -consideration, of power--in a word, of wealth. - -At the same time, they are urged on by a strong, an overpowering, -inclination to procure the things they so much desire, at the expense of -other people. - -But these other people--in plain language, the public--have an equally -strong desire to keep what they have got, if they can, and if they know -it. - -Spoliation, which plays so great a part in this world's affairs, has, -then, only two agents at command, _force and cunning_; and two limits, -_courage and intelligence_. - -Force employed to effect spoliation forms the groundwork of human -annals. To trace back its history, would be to reproduce very nearly -the history of all nations--Assyrians, Babylonians, Medes, Persians, -Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, Goths, Franks, Huns, Turks, Arabs, Monguls, -Tartars; not to speak of Spaniards in America, Englishmen in India, -Frenchmen in Africa, Russians in Asia, etc. - -But civilized nations, at least, composed of men who produce wealth, -have become sufficiently numerous, and sufficiently strong to defend -themselves. Does this mean that they are no longer plundered? Not at -all; they are plundered as much as ever, and, what is more, they plunder -one another. - -Only, the agent employed has been changed; it is no longer by _force, -but by cunning_, that they seize upon the public wealth. - -To rob the public, we must first deceive it. The trick consists in -persuading the public that the theft is for its advantage; and by this -means inducing it to accept, in exchange for its property, services -which are fictitious, and often worse. Hence comes the Sophism,--Sophism -theocratic, Sophism economic, Sophism political, Sophism financial. -Since; then, force is held in check, the Sophism is not only an evil, -but the very genius of evil It must in its turn be held in check -also. And for that end we must render the public more cunning than the -cunning, as it has already become stronger than the strong. - -Good Public! it is under the influence of this conviction that I -dedicate to you this first essay--although the preface is strangely -transposed, and the dedication somewhat late. - -END OF THE FIRST SERIES. - - - - - -SECOND SERIES. - - - - -I. PHYSIOLOGY OF SPOLIATION. - -Why should I go on tormenting myself with this dry and dreary science of -_Political Economy?_ - -Why? The question is reasonable. Labour of every kind is in itself -sufficiently repugnant to warrant one in asking to what result it leads? - -Let us see, then, how it is. - -I do not address myself to those philosophers who profess to adore -poverty, if not on their own account, at least on the part of the human -race. - -I speak to those who deem wealth, of some importance. We understand by -that word, not the opulence of some classes, but the ease, the material -prosperity, the security, the independence, the instruction, the dignity -of all. - -There are only two means of procuring the necessaries, conveniences, and -enjoyments of life: Production and Spoliation. - -There are some people who represent Spoliation as an accident, a local -and transient abuse, branded by the moralist, denounced by the law, and -unworthy of the Economist's attention. - -In spite of benevolence, in spite of optimism, we are forced to -acknowledge that Spoilation plays too prominent a part in the world, and -mingles too largely in important human affairs, to warrant the social -sciences, especially Political Economy, in holding it as of no account. - -I go further. That which prevents the social order from attaining that -perfection of which it is susceptible, is the constant effort of its -members to live and enjoy themselves at the expense of each other. -So that if Spoliation did not exist, social science would be without -object, for society would then be perfect. - -I go further still. When Spoliation has once become the recognised means -of existence of a body of men united and held together by social ties, -they soon proceed to frame a law which sanctions it, and to adopt a -system of morals which sanctities it. - -It is sufficient to enumerate some of the more glaring forms which -Spoliation assumes, in order to show the place which it occupies in -human transactions. - -There is first of all War. Among savages the conqueror puts to death the -vanquished, in order to acquire a right, which, if not incontestable, -is, at least, uncontested, to his enemy's hunting grounds. - -Then comes Slavery. When man comes to find that the land may be made -fertile by means of labour, he says to his brother man, "Thine be the -labour, and mine the product." - -Next we have Priestcraft. "According as you give or refuse me a portion -of your substance, I will open to you the gate of Heaven or of Hell." - -Lastly comes Monopoly. Its distinguishing character is to leave in -existence the great social law of service for service, but to bring -force to bear upon the bargain, so as to impair the just proportion -between the service received and the service rendered. - -Spoliation bears always in its bosom that germ of death by which it is -ultimately destroyed. It is rarely the many who despoil the few. Were -it so, the few would soon be reduced to such a state as to be no longer -able to satisfy the cupidity of the many, and spoliation would die out -for want of support. - -It is almost always the majority who are oppressed, but spoliation is -not the less on this account subject to an inevitable check. - -For, if the agent be Force, as in the cases of War and Slavery, it is -natural that Force, in the long run, should pass to the side of the -greatest number. - -And, if the agent be Cunning, as in the case of Priestcraft and -Monopoly, it is natural that the majority should become enlightened, -otherwise intelligence would cease to be intelligence. - -Another natural law deposits a second germ of death in the heart of -spoliation, which is this: - -Spoliation not only _displaces_ wealth, but always partially _destroys_ -it. - -War annihilates many values. - -Slavery paralyzes, to a great extent, men's faculties. - -Priestcraft diverts men's efforts towards objects which are puerile or -hurtful. - -Monopoly transfers wealth from one pocket to another, but much is lost -in the transference. - -This is an admirable law. Without it, provided there existed an -equilibrium between the forces of the oppressors and oppressed, -spoliation would have no limits. In consequence of the operation of -this law, the equilibrium tends always to be upset; either because the -spoliators have the fear of such a loss of wealth, or because, in the -absence of such fear, the evil constantly increases, and it is in the -nature of anything which constantly gets worse and worse, ultimately to -perish and be annihilated. - -There comes at last a time when, in its progressive acceleration, this -loss of wealth is such that the spoliator finds himself poorer than he -would have been had there been no spoliation. - -Take, for example, a people to whom the expense of war costs more than -the value of the booty. - -A master who pays dearer for slave labour than for free labour. - -A system of priestcraft, which, renders people so dull and stupid, -and destroys their energy to such an extent, that there is no longer -anything to be got from them. - -A monopoly which increases its efforts at absorption in proportion as -there is less to absorb, just as one should endeavour to milk a cow more -vigorously in proportion as there is less milk to be got. - -Monopoly, it will be seen, is a species of the genus spoliation. There -are many varieties; among others, Sinecures, Privileges, Restrictions. - -Among the forms which it assumes, there are some which are very simple -and primitive. Of this kind are feudal rights. Under this _régime_ the -masses are despoiled, and they know it. It implies an abuse of force, -and goes down when force is wanting. - -Others are very complicated. The masses are frequently despoiled without -knowing it. They may even imagine that they owe all to spoliation--not -only what is left to them, but what is taken from them, and what is lost -in the process. Nay more, I affirm that, in course of time, and owing to -the ingenious mechanism to which they become accustomed, many men become -spoliators without knowing that they are so, or desiring to be so. -Monopolies of this kind are engendered by artifice and nourished by -error. They disappear only with advancing enlightenment. - -I have said enough to show that political economy has an evident -practical utility. It is the torch which, by exposing craft and -dissipating error, puts an end to this social disorder of spoliation. -Some one--I rather think a lady--has rightly described our science as -"_la serrure de sûreté du pécule populaire_." - -COMMENTARY. - -Were this little book destined to last for three or four thousand years, -and, like a new Koran, to be read, re-read, pondered over, and studied -sentence by sentence, word by word, letter by letter; if it were -destined to a place in all the libraries of the world, and to be -explained by avalanches of annotations and paraphrases, I might abandon -to their fate the preceding observations, though somewhat obscure from -their conciseness; but since they require a gloss, I think it as well to -be my own commentator. - -The true and equitable law of human transactions is the _exchange, -freely bargained for, of service for service_. Spoliation consists -in banishing by force or artifice this liberty of bargaining, for -the purpose of enabling a man or a class to receive a service without -rendering an equivalent service. - -Spoliation by force consists in waiting till a man has produced a -commodity, and then depriving him of it by the strong hand. - -This kind of spoliation is formally forbidden by the decalogue--_Thou -shalt not steal_. - -When this takes place between individuals, it is called theft, and -leads to the hulks; when it takes place between nations, it is called -_conquest, and leads to glory_. - -Whence this difference? It is proper to search out its caùse, for -it will reveal to us the existence of an irresistible power, public -opinion, which, like the atmosphere, surrounds and envelops us so -thoroughly that we cease to perceive it. Rousseau never said anything -truer than this: _Il faut beaucoup de philosophie pour observer les -faits qui sont trop près de nous_---"You need much philosophy to observe -accurately things which are under your nose." - -A thief for the very reason that he does his work secretly, has always -public opinion against him. He frightens all who are within his reach. -Yet if he has associates, he takes pride in displaying before them his -skill and prowess. Here we begin to perceive the force of opinion; for -the applause of his accomplices takes away the sense of guilt, and even -prompts him to glory in his shame. - -The _warrior_ lives in a different medium. The public opinion which -brands him is elsewhere, among the nations he has conquered, and he does -not feel its pressure. The public opinion at home applauds and sustains -him. He and his companions in arms feel sensibly the bond which imites -them. The country which has created enemies, and brought danger upon -herself, feels it necessary to extol the bravery of her sons. She -decrees to the boldest, who have enlarged her frontiers, or brought her, -in the greatest amount of booty, honours, renown, and glory. Poets sing -their exploits, and ladies twine wreaths and garlands for them. And such -is the power of public opinion that it takes from spoliation all idea of -injustice, and from the spoliator all sense of wrongdoing. - -The public opinion which reacts against military spoliation makes -itself felt, not in the conquering, but in the conquered, country, and -exercises little influence. And yet it is not altogether inoperative, -and makes itself the more felt in proportion as nations have more -frequent intercourse, and understand each other better. In consequence, -we see that the study of languages, and a freer communication between -nations, tends to bring about and render predominant a stronger feeling -against this species of spoliation. - -Unfortunately, it not unfrequently happens that the nations which -surround an aggressive and warlike people are themselves given to -spoliation when they can accomplish it, and thus become imbued with the -same prejudices. - -In that case there is only one remedy--time; and nations must be taught -by painful experience the enormous evils of mutual spoliation. - -We may note another check--a superior and growing morality. But the -object of this is to multiply virtuous actions. How then can morality -restrain acts of spoliation when public opinion places such acts in the -rank of the most exalted virtue? What more powerful means of rendering -a people moral than religion? And what religion more favourable to -peace than Christianity? Yet what have we witnessed for eighteen hundred -years? During all these ages we have seen men fight, not only in spite -of their religion, but in name of religion itself. - -The wars waged by a conquering nation are not always offensive and -aggressive wars. Such a nation is sometimes so unfortunate as to be -obliged to send its soldiers into the field to defend the domestic -hearth, and to protect its families, its property, its independence, and -its liberty. War then assumes a character of grandeur and sacredness. -The national banner, blessed by the ministers of the God of peace, -represents all that is most sacred in the land; it is followed as -the living image of patriotism and of honour; and warlike virtues are -extolled above all other virtues. But when the danger is past, public -opinion still prevails; and by the natural reaction of a spirit of -revenge, which is mistaken for patriotism, the banner is paraded from -capital to capital. It is in this way that nature seems to prepare a -punishment for the aggressor. - -It is the fear of this punishment, and not the progress of philosophy, -which retains arms in the arsenals; for we cannot deny that nations the -most advanced in civilization go to war, and think little of justice -when they have no reprisals to fear, as the Himalaya, the Atlas, and the -Caucasus bear witness. - -If religion is powerless, and if philosophy is equally powerless, how -then are wars to be put an end to? - -Political economy demonstrates, that even as regards the nation which -proves victorious; war is always made in the interest of the few, and -at the expense of the masses. When the masses, then, shall see this -clearly, the weight of public opinion, which is now divided, will come -to be entirely on the side of peace. - -Spoliation by force assumes still another form. No man will engage -voluntarily in the business of production in order to be robbed of -what he produces. Man himself is therefore laid hold of, robbed of his -freedom and personality, and forced to labour. The language held to -him is not, "_If you do this for me, I will do that for you;" but this, -"Yours be the fatigue, and mine the enjoyment_." This is slavery, which -always implies abuse of force. - -It is important to inquire whether it is not in the very nature of a -force which is incontestably dominant to commit abuses. For my own part, -I should be loath to trust it, and would as soon expect a stone pitched -from a height to stop midway of its own accord, as absolute power to -prescribe limits to itself. - -I should like, at least, to have pointed out to me a country and an -epoch in which slavery has been abolished by the free, graceful, and -voluntary act of the masters. - -Slavery affords a second and striking example of the insufficiency of -religious and philanthropical sentiments, when set in opposition to the -powerful and energetic sentiment of self-interest. This may appear a -melancholy view of the subject to certain modern schools who seek for -the renovating principle of society in self-sacrifice. Let them begin, -then, by reforming human nature. - -In the West Indies, ever since the introduction of slavery, the masters, -from father to son, have professed the Christian religion. Many times -a day they repeat these words, "All men are brethren: to love your -neighbour is to fulfil the whole law." - -And they continue to have slaves. Nothing appears to them more natural -and legitimate. Do modern reformers expect that their system of -morals will ever be as universally accepted,' as popular, of as great -authority, and be as much on men's lips, as the Gospel? And if the -Gospel has not been able to penetrate from the lips to the heart, by -piercing or surmounting the formidable barrier of self-interest, how can -they expect that their system of morals is to work this miracle? - -What! is slavery then invulnerable? No; what has introduced it will -destroy it, I mean self-interest; provided that, in favouring the -special interests which have created this scourge, we do not run counter -to the general interests from which we look for the remedy. - -It is one of the truths which political economy has demonstrated, that -free labour is essentially progressive, and slave labour necessarily -stationary. The triumph of the former, therefore, over the latter is -inevitable. What has become of the culture of indigo by slave labour? - -Free labour directed to the production of sugar will lower its price -more and more, and slave property will become less and less valuable to -the owners. Slavery would long since have gone down of its own accord -in America, if in Europe our laws had not raised the price of sugar -artificially. It is for this reason that we see the masters, their -creditors, and their delegates working actively to maintain these laws, -which are at present the pillars of the edifice. - -Unfortunately, they still carry along with them the sympathies of those -populations from among whom slavery has disappeared, and this again -shows how powerful an agent public opinion is. - -If public opinion is sovereign, even in the region of Force, it is very -much more so in the region of Craft [_Ruse_], In truth, this is its true -domain. Cunning is the abuse of intelligence, and public opinion is -the progress of intelligence. These two powers are at least of the same -nature. Imposture on the part of the spoliator implies credulity on the -part of those despoiled, and the natural antidote to credulity is truth. -Hence it follows that to enlighten men's minds is to take away from this -species of spoliation what supports and feeds it. - -I shall pass briefly in review some specimens of spoliation which are -due to craft exercised on a very extensive scale. - -The first which presents itself is spoliation by priestcraft [_ruse -thêocratique_]. - -What is the object in view? The object is to procure provisions, -vestments, luxury, consideration, influence, power, by exchanging -fictitious for real services. - -If I tell a man, "I am going to render you great and immediate -services," I must keep my word, or this man will soon be in a situation -to detect the imposture, and my artifice will be instantly unmasked. - -But if I say to him, "In exchange for your services I am going to render -you immense service, not in this world, but in another; for after this -life is ended, your being eternally happy or miserable depends upon me. -I am an intermediate being between God and His creature, and I can, at -my will, open the gates of heaven or of hell." If this man only believes -me, I have him in my power. - -This species of imposture has been practised wholesale since the -beginning of the world, and we know what plenitude of power was -exercised by the Egyptian priests. - -It is easy to discover how these impostors proceed. We have only to ask -ourselves what we should do were we in their place. - -If I arrived among an ignorant tribe with views of this sort, and -succeeded by some extraordinary and marvellous act to pass myself off -for a supernatural being, I should give myself out for an envoy of God, -and as possessing absolute control over the future destinies of man. - -Then I should strictly forbid any inquiry into the validity of my titles -and pretensions. I should do more. As reason would be my most dangerous -antagonist, I should forbid the use of reason itself, unless applied -to this formidable subject. In the language of the savages, I should -_taboo_ this question and everything relating to it. To handle it, or -even think of it, should be declared an unpardonable sin. - -It would be the very triumph of my art to guard with a _taboo_ barrier -every intellectual avenue which could possibly lead to a discovery of -my imposture; and what better security than to declare even doubt to be -sacrilege? - -And still to this fundamental security I should add others. For example, -effectually to prevent enlightenment ever reaching the masses, I should -appropriate to myself and my accomplices the monopoly of all knowledge, -which I would conceal under the veil of a dead language and hieroglyphic -characters; and in order that I should never be exposed to any danger, -I would take care to establish an institution which would enable me, day -after day, to penetrate the secrets of all consciences. - -It would not be amiss that I should at the same time satisfy some of the -real wants of my people, especially if, in doing so, I could increase -my influence and authority. Thus, as men have great need of instruction, -and of being taught morals, I should constitute myself the dispenser of -these. By this means I should direct as I saw best the minds and hearts -of my people. I should establish an indissoluble connexion between -morals and my authority. I should represent them as incapable of -existing, except in this state of union; so that, if some bold man were -to attempt to stir a tabooed question, society at large, which could -not dispense with moral teaching, would feel the earth tremble under its -feet, and would turn with rage against this frantic innovator. - -When things had come to this pass, it is obvious that the people would -become my property in a stricter sense than if they were my slaves. -The slave curses his chains--they would hug theirs; and I should thus -succeed in imprinting the brand of servitude, not on their foreheads, -but on their innermost consciences. - -Public opinion alone can overturn such an edifice of iniquity; but where -can it make a beginning, when every stone of the edifice is tabooed? It -is obviously an affair of time and the printing-press. - -God forbid that I should desire to shake the consoling religious -convictions which connect this life of trial with a life of felicity. -But that our irresistible religious aspirations have been abused, is -what no one, not even the head of the Church himself, can deny. It -appears to me that there is a sure test by which a people can discover -whether they are duped or not. Examine Religion and the Priest, in order -to discover whether the priest is the instrument of religion, or whether -religion is not rather the instrument of the priest. - -_If the priest is the instrument of religion_, if his sole care is -to spread over the country morals and blessings, he will be gentle, -tolerant, humble, charitable, full of zeal; his life will be a -reflection of his Divine Model; he will preach liberty and equality -among men, peace and fraternity between nations; he will repel the -seductions of temporal power, desiring no alliance with what of all -things in the world most requires to be kept in check; he will be a man -of the people, a man of sound counsels, a man of consolation, a man of -public opinion, a man of the Gospel. - -If, on the contrary, _religion is the instrument of the priest_, he -will treat it as we treat an instrument, which we alter, bend, and twist -about in all directions, so as to make it available for the purpose -we have in view. He will increase the number of questions which are -tabooed; his morals will change with times, men, and circumstances. He -will endeavour to impose upon people by gestures and studied attitudes; -and will mumble a hundred times a day words, the meaning of which -has evaporated, and which have come to be nothing better than a vain -conventionalism. He will traffic in sacred things, but in such a way -as not to shake men's faith in their sacredness; and he will take care, -when he meets with acute, clear-sighted people, not to carry on this -traffic so openly or actively as in other circumstances. He will mix -himself up with worldly intrigues; and he will take the side of men in -power, provided they embrace his side. In a word, in all his actions, we -shall discover that his object is not to advance the cause of religion -through the clergy, but the cause of the clergy through religion; and -as so many efforts must have an object, and as this object, on our -hypothesis, can be nothing else than wealth and power, the most -incontestable sign of the people having been duped is that the priest -has become rich and powerful. - -It is quite evident that a true religion may be abused as well as a -false religion. The more respectable its authority is, the more is it -to be feared that the proofs of that respectability will be pressed too -far. But the results will be widely different. Abuses have a tendency to -excite the sound, enlightened, and independent portion of the population -to rebellion. And it is a much more serious thing to shake public belief -in a true than in a false religion. - -Spoliation by such means, and the intelligence of a people, are always -in an inverse ratio to each other; for it is of the nature of abuses to -be carried as far only as safety permits. Not that in the midst of the -most ignorant people pure and devoted priests are never to be found; but -the question is, how can we prevent a knave from assuming the cassock, -and ambition from encircling his brow with a mitre? Spoliators obey the -Malthusian law: they multiply as the means of existence increase; and a -knave's means of existence is the credulity of his dupes. Public opinion -must be enlightened. There is no other remedy. - -Another variety of spoliation by craft and artifice is to be found in -what are called _commercial frauds_, an expression, as it appears to me, -not sufficiently broad; for not only is the merchant who adulterates -his commodities, or uses a false measure, guilty of fraud, but the -physician who gets paid for bad advice, and the advocate who fans and -encourages lawsuits. In an exchange between two services, one of them -may be of bad quality; but here, the services received being stipulated -for beforehand, spoliation must evidently recede before the advance of -public enlightenment. - -Next in order come abuses of _public services_--a vast field of -spoliation, so vast that we can only glance at it. - -Had man been created a solitary animal, each man would work for himself. -Individual wealth would, in that case, be in proportion to the services -rendered by each man to himself. - -_But, man being a sociable animal, services are exchanged for other -services_; a proposition which you may, if you choose, construe -backwards [_à rebours_]. - -There exist in society wants so general, so universal, that its members -provide for them by organizing public services. Such, for example, is -the need of security. We arrange, we club together, to remunerate by -services of various kinds those who render us the service of watching -over the general security. - -There is nothing which does not come within the domain of political -economy. Do this for me, and I will do that for you. The essence of the -transaction is the same, the remunerative process alone is different; -but this last is a circumstance of great importance. - -In ordinary transactions, each man is the judge, both of the service he -receives and the service he renders. He can always refuse an exchange, -or make it elsewhere; whence the necessity of bringing to market -services which will be willingly accepted. - -It is not so in state matters, especially before the introduction of -representative government. Whether we have need of such services as the -government furnishes or not, whether they are good or bad, we are forced -always to accept them such as they are, and at the price at which the -government estimates them. - -Now it is the tendency of all men to see through the small end of the -telescope the services which they render, and through the large end the -services which they receive. In private transactions, then, we should be -led a fine dance, if we were without the security afforded by _a price -freely and openly bargained for_. - -Now this guarantee we have either not at all or to a very limited -extent in public transactions. And yet the government, composed of men -(although at the present day they would persuade us that legislators are -something more than men), obeys the universal tendency. The government -desires to render us great service, to serve us more than we need, and -to make us accept, as true services, services which are sometimes very -far from being so, and to exact from us in return other services or -contributions. - -In this way the state is also subject to the Malthusian law. It tends to -pass the level of its means of existence, it grows great in proportion -to these means, and these means consist of the people's substance. Woe, -then, to those nations who are unable to set bounds to the action of the -government! Liberty, private enterprise, wealth, thrift, independence, -all will be wanting in such circumstances. - -For there is one circumstance especially which it is very necessary -to mark--it is this: Among the services which we demand from the -government, the principal one is security. To ensure this there -is needed a force which is capable of overcoming all other forces, -individual or collective, internal or external, which can be brought -against it. Combined with that unfortunate disposition, which we -discover in men to live at other people's expense, there is here a -danger which is self-evident. - -Just consider on what an immense scale, as we learn from history, -spoliation has been exercised through the abuse and excess of the powers -of government. Consider what services have been rendered to the people, -and what services the public powers have exacted from them, among the -Assyrians, the Babylonians, Egyptians, Romans, Persians, Turks, Chinese, -Russians, English, Spaniards, Frenchmen. Imagination is startled at the -enormous disproportion. - -At length, representative government has been instituted, and we should -have thought, _a priori_, that these disorders would have disappeared as -if by enchantment. - -In fact, the principle of representative government is this: "The people -themselves, by their representatives, are to decide on the nature and -extent of the functions which they judge it right to regard as public -services, and the amount of remuneration to be attached to such -services." - -The tendency to appropriate the property of others, and the tendency to -defend that property, being thus placed in opposite scales, we should -have thought that the second would have outweighed the first. - -I am convinced that this is what must ultimately happen, but it has not -happened hitherto. - -Why? For two very simple reasons. Governments have had too much, and the -people too little, sagacity. - -Governments are very skilful. They act with method and consistency, -upon a plan well arranged, and constantly improved by tradition and -experience. They study men, and their passions. If they discover, for -example, that they are actuated by warlike impulses, they stimulate this -fatal propensity, and add fuel to the flame. They surround the nation -with dangers through the action of diplomacy, and then they very -naturally demand more soldiers, more sailors, more arsenals and -fortifications; sometimes they have not even to solicit these, but -have them offered; and then they have rank, pensions, and places to -distribute. To meet all this, large sums of money are needed, and taxes -and loans are resorted to. - -If the nation is generous, government undertakes to cure all the ills -of humanity; to revive trade, to make agriculture flourish, to develop -manufactures, encourage arts and learning, extirpate poverty, etc., -etc. All that requires to be done is to create offices, and pay -functionaries. - -In short, the tactics consist in representing restraints as effective -services; and the nation pays, not for services, but for disservices. -Governments, assuming gigantic proportions, end by eating up half the -revenues they exact. And the people, wondering at being obliged to work -so hard, after hearing of inventions which are to multiply products _ad -infinitum_.... continue always the same overgrown children they were -before. - -While the government displays so much skill and ability, the people -display scarcely any. When called upon to elect those whose province it -is to determine the sphere and remuneration of governmental action, whom -do they choose? The agents of the government. Thus, they confer on -the executive the power of fixing the limits of its own operations and -exactions. They act like the _Bourgeois Gentilhomme_, who, in place of -himself deciding on the number and cut of his coats, referred the whole -thing--to his tailor. - -And when matters have thus gone on from bad to worse, the people at -length have their eyes opened, not to the remedy--(they have not got -that length yet)--but to the evil. - -To govern is so agreeable a business, that every one aspires to it. -The counsellors of the people never cease telling them: We see your -sufferings, and deplore them. It would be very different if we governed -you. - -In the meantime, and sometimes for a long period, there are rebellions -and _émeutes_. When the people are vanquished, the expense of the war -only adds to their burdens. When they are victorious, the _personnel_ of -the government is changed, and the abuses remain unreformed. - -And this state of things will continue until the people shall learn to -know and defend their true interests--so that we always come back -to this, that there is no resource but in the progress of public -intelligence. - -Certain nations seem marvellously disposed to become the prey of -government spoliation; those especially where the people, losing sight -of their own dignity and their own energy, think themselves undone if -they are not _governed and controlled_ in everything. Without having -travelled very much, I have seen countries where it is believed -that agriculture can make no progress unless experimental farms are -maintained by the government; that there would soon be no horses but for -the state _haras_; and that fathers of families would either not educate -their children, or have them taught immorality, if the state did -not prescribe the course of education, etc., etc. In such a country, -revolutions succeed each other, and the governing powers are changed in -rapid succession. But the governed continue nevertheless to be governed -on the principle of mercy and compassion (for the tendency which I am -here exposing is the very food upon which governments live), until -at length the people perceive that it is better to leave the greatest -possible number of services in the category of those which the parties -interested exchange at _a price fixed by free and open bargaining_. - -We have seen that an exchange of services constitutes society; and it -must be an exchange of good and loyal services. But we have shown also -that men have a strong interest, and consequently an irresistible bent, -to exaggerate the relative value of the services which they render. -And, in truth, I can perceive no other cure for this evil but the free -acceptance or the free refusal of those to whom these services are -offered. - -Whence it happens that certain men have recourse to the law in order -that it may control this freedom in certain branches of industry. This -kind of spoliation is called Privilege or Monopoly. Mark well its origin -and character. - -Everybody knows that the services which he brings to the general market -are appreciated and remunerated in proportion to their rarity. The -intervention of law is invoked to drive out of the market all those who -come to offer analogous services; or, which comes to the same thing, if -the assistance of an instrument or a machine is necessary to enable such -services to be rendered, the law interposes to give exclusive possession -of it. - -This variety of spoliation being the principal subject of the present -volume, I shall not enlarge upon it in this place, but content myself -with one remark. - -When monopoly is an isolated fact, it never fails to enrich the man -who is invested with it. It may happen, then, that other classes of -producers, in place of waiting for the downfall of this monopoly, demand -for themselves similar monopolies. This species of spoliation, thus -erected into a system, becomes the most ridiculous of mystifications for -everybody; and the ultimate result is, that each man believes himself to -be deriving greater profit from a market which is impoverished by all. - -It is unnecessary to add, that this strange _régime_ introduces a -universal antagonism among all classes, all professions, and all -nations; that it calls for the interposition (constant, but always -uncertain) of government action; that it gives rise to all the abuses we -have enumerated; that it places all branches of industry in a state of -hopeless insecurity; and that it accustoms men to rely upon the law, -and not upon themselves, for their means of subsistence. It would be -difficult to imagine a more active cause of social perturbation. - -But it may be said, Why make use of this ugly term, Spoliation? It -is coarse, it wounds, irritates, and turns against you all calm and -moderate men--it envenoms the controversy. - -To speak plainly, I respect the persons, and I believe in the sincerity -of nearly all the partisans of protection; I claim no right to call in -question the personal probity, the delicacy, the philanthropy, of any -one whatsoever. I again repeat that protection is the fruit, the fatal -fruit, of a common error, of which everybody, or at least the majority -of men, are at once the victims and the accomplices. But with all this I -cannot prevent things being as they are. - -Figure Diogenes putting his head out of his tub, and saying, "Athenians, -you are served by slaves. Has it never occurred to you, that you thereby -exercise over your brethren the most iniquitous species of spoliation?" - -Or, again, figure a tribune speaking thus in the forum: "Romans, you -derive all your means of existence from the pillage of all nations in -succession." - -JUSTIFICATION. - -In saying so, they would only speak undoubted truth. But are we to -conclude from this that Athens and Rome were inhabited only by bad and -dishonest people, and hold in contempt Socrates and Plato, Cato and -Cincinnatus? - -Who could entertain for a moment any such thought? But these great men -lived in a social medium which took away all consciousness of injustice. -We know that Aristotle could not even realize the idea of any society -existing without slavery. - -Slavery in modern times has existed down to our own day without exciting -many scruples in the minds of planters. Armies serve as the instruments -of great conquests, that is to say, of great spoliations. But that is -not to say that they do not contain multitudes of soldiers and officers -personally of as delicate feelings as are usually to be found in -industrial careers, if not indeed more so; men who would blush at the -very thought of anything dishonest, and would face a thousand deaths -rather than stoop to any meanness. - -We must not blame individuals, but rather the general movement which -carries them along, and blinds them to the real state of the case; a -movement for which society at large is responsible. - -The same thing holds of monopoly. I blame the system, and not -individuals--society at large, and not individual members of society. If -the greatest philosophers have been unable to discover the iniquity of -slavery, how much more easily may agriculturists and manufacturers have -been led to take a wrong view of the nature and effects of a system of -restriction! - - - - -II. TWO PRINCIPLES OF MORALITY. - -Having reached, if he has reached, the end of the last chapter, I fancy -I hear the reader exclaim: - -"Well, are we wrong in reproaching economists with being dry and -cold? What a picture of human nature! What! Is spoliation, then, to be -regarded as an inevitable, almost normal, force, assuming all forms, -at work under all pretexts, by law and without law, jobbing and abusing -things the most sacred, working on feebleness and credulity by turns, -and making progress just in proportion as these are prevalent! Is there -in the world a more melancholy picture than this?" - -The question is not whether the picture be melancholy, but whether it is -true. History will tell us. - -It is singular enough that those who decry political economy (or -_economisme_, as they are pleased to call it), because that science -studies man and the world as they are, are themselves much further -advanced in pessimism, at least as regards the past and the present, -than the economists whom they disparage. Open their books and their -journals; and what do you find? Bitterness, hatred of society, carried -to such a pitch that the very word civilization is in their eyes the -synonym of injustice, dis-order, and anarchy. They go the length even of -denouncing liberty, so little confidence have they in the development of -the human race as the natural result of its organization. Liberty! it is -liberty, as they think, which is impelling us nearer and nearer to ruin. - -True, these writers are optimists in reference to the future. For if the -human race, left to itself, has pursued a wrong road for six thousand -years, a discoverer has appeared, who has pointed out the true way of -safety; and however little the flock may regard the pastor's crook, -they will be infallibly led towards the promised land, where happiness, -without any effort on their part, awaits them, and where order, -security, and harmony are the cheap reward of improvidence. - -The human race have only to consent to these reformers changing (to use -Rousseau's expression) _its physical and moral constitution_. - -It is not the business of political economy to inquire what society -might have become had God made man otherwise than He has been pleased to -make him. It may perhaps be a subject of regret that in the beginning, -Providence should have forgotten to call to its counsels some of our -modern _organisateurs_. And as the celestial mechanism would have been -very differently constructed had the Creator consulted Alphonsus the -Wise, in the same way had He only taken the advice of Fourrier, the -social order would have had no resemblance to that in which we are -forced to breathe, live, and move. But since we are here--since _in -eo vivimus, movemur, et minus_--all we have to do is to study and make -ourselves acquainted with the laws of the social order in which we find -ourselves, especially if its amelioration depends essentially on our -knowledge of these laws. - -We cannot prevent the human heart from being the seat of insatiable -desires. - -We cannot so order it that these desires should be satisfied without -labour. - -We cannot so order it that man should not have as much repugnance to -labour as desire for enjoyment. - -We cannot so order it that from this organization there should not -result a perpetual effort on the part of certain men to increase their -own share of enjoyments at the expense of others; throwing over upon -them, by force or cunning, the labour and exertion which are the -necessary condition of such enjoyments being obtained. - -It is not for us to go in the face of universal history, or stifle the -voice of the past, which tells us that such has been the state of -things from the beginning. We cannot deny that war, slavery, thraldom, -priestcraft, government abuses, privileges, frauds of every kind, and -monopolies, have been the incontestable and terrible manifestations -of these two sentiments combined in the heart of man--_desire of -enjoyments, and repugnance to fatigue_. - -_In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread_. Yes, but every one -desires to have the greatest possible quantity of bread, with the least -possible amount of sweat. Such is the testimony of history. - -But let us be thankful that history also shows us that the diffusion of -enjoyments and of efforts has a tendency to become more and more equal -among men. - -Unless we shut our eyes to the light of the sun, we must admit that -society has in this respect made progress. - -If this be so, there must be in society a natural and providential -force, a law which repels more and more the principle of dishonesty, and -realizes more and more the principle of justice. - -We maintain that this force exists in society, and that God has placed -it there. If it did not exist, we should be reduced, like Utopian -dreamers, to seek for it in artificial arrangements, in arrangements -which imply a previous alteration in the physical and moral constitution -of man; or rather, we should conclude that the search was useless and -vain, for the simple reason that we cannot understand the action of a -lever without its fulcrum. - -Let us try, then, to describe the beneficent force which tends gradually -to surmount the mischievous and injurious force to which we have given -the name of spoliation, and the presence of which is only too well -explained by reasoning, and established by experience. - -Every injurious or hurtful act has necessarily two terms: the point -whence it comes, and the point to which it tends--the _terminus a quo, -and the terminus ad quern_--the man who acts, and the man acted upon; -or, in the language of the schoolmen, the _agent and the patient_. - -We may be protected, then, from an injurious act in two ways: by the -voluntary abstention of the agent; or by the resistance of the patient. - -These two moral principles, far from running counter to each other, -concur in their action, namely, the religious or philosophical moral -principle, and the moral principle which I shall venture to term -economic. - -The religious moral principle, in order to ensure the suppression of an -injurious act, addresses its author, addresses man in his capacity of -agent, and says to him: "Amend your life; purify your conduct; cease -to do evil; learn to do well; subdue your passions; sacrifice -self-interest; oppress not your neighbour, whom it is your duty to love -and assist; first of all, be just, and be charitable afterwards." This -species of moral principle will always be esteemed the most beautiful -and touching, that which best displays the human race in its native -majesty, which will be most extolled by the eloquent, and call forth the -greatest amount of admiration and sympathy. - -The economic moral principle aspires at attaining the same result; but -addresses man more especially in the capacity of patient. It points out -to him the effects of human actions, and by that simple explanation, -stimulates him to react against those who injure him, and honour those -who are useful to him. It strives to disseminate among the oppressed -masses enough of good sense, information, and well-founded distrust, to -render oppression more and more difficult and dangerous. - -We must remark, too, that the economic principle of morality does not -fail to act likewise on the oppressor. An injurious act is productive of -both good and evil; evil for the man who is subject to it, and good for -the man who avails himself of it; without which indeed it would not have -been thought of. But the good and the evil are far from compensating -each other. The sum total of evil always and necessarily preponderates -over the good; because the very fact that oppression is present entails -a loss of power, creates dangers, provokes reprisals, and renders, -costly precautions necessary. The simple explanation of these effects, -then, not only provokes reaction on the part of the oppressed, but -brings over to the side of justice all whose hearts are not perverted, -and disturbs the security of the oppressors themselves. - -But it is easy to understand that this economic principle of morality, -which is rather virtual than formal; which is only, after all, a -scientific demonstration, which would lose its efficacy if it changed -its character; which addresses itself not to the heart, but to the -intellect; which aims at convincing rather than persuading; which does -not give advice, but furnishes proofs; whose mission is not to touch the -feelings, but enlighten the judgment, which obtains over vice no other -victory than that of depriving it of support; it is easy, I say, to -understand why this principle of morality should be accused of being dry -and prosaic. - -The reproach is well founded in itself, without being just in its -application. It just amounts to saying that political economy does not -discuss everything, that it does not comprehend everything--that it -is not, in short, universal science. But who ever claimed for it this -character, or put forward on its behalf so exorbitant a pretension? - -The accusation would be well founded only if political economy presented -its processes as exclusive, and had the presumption, if we may so speak, -to deny to philosophy and religion their own proper and peculiar means -of working for the cultivation and improvement of man. - -Let us admit, then, the simultaneous action of morality, properly so -called, and of political economy; the one branding the injurious act in -its motive, and exposing its unseemliness, the other discrediting it in -our judgment, by a picture of its effects. - -Let us admit even that the triumph of the religious moralist, when -achieved, is more beautiful, more consoling, more fundamental But we -must at the same time acknowledge that the triumph of the economist is -more easy and more certain. - -In a few lines, which are worth many large volumes, J. B. Say has said -that, to put an end to the disorder introduced into an honourable family -by hypocrisy there are only two alternatives: to _reform Tartuffe, or -sharpen the wits of Orgon_. Molière, that great painter of the human -heart, appears constantly to have regarded the second of these processes -as the more efficacious. - -It is the same thing in real life, and on the stage of the world. - -Tell me what Cæsar did, and I will tell you what the character was of -the Romans of his time. - -Tell me what modern diplomacy accomplishes, and I will tell you what is -the moral condition of the nations among whom it is exercised. - -We should not be paying nearly two milliards [£80,000,000 sterling] of -taxes, if we did not empower those who live upon them to vote them. - -We should not have been landed in all the difficulties and charges to -which the African question has given rise, had we had our eyes open to -the fact that _two and two make four, in political economy, as well as -in arithmetic_. - -M. Guizot would not have felt himself authorized to say that _France is -rich enough to pay for her glory_, if France had never been smitten with -the love of false glory. - -The same statesman would never have ventured to say that liberty is -too precious a thing for France to stand higgling about its price, -had France only reflected that a _heavy budget and liberty are -incompatible_. - -It is not by monopolists, but by their victims, that monopolies are -maintained. - -In the matter of elections, it is not because there are parties who -offer bribes that there are parties open to receive them, but the -contrary; and the proof of this is, that it is the parties who receive -the bribes who, in the long run, defray the cost of corruption. Is it -not their business to put an end to the practice? - -Let the religious principle of morality, if it can, touch the hearts of -the Tartuffes, the Cæsars, the planters of colonies, the sinecurists, -the monopolists, etc. The clear duty of political economy is to -enlighten their dupes. - -Of these two processes, which exercises the more efficacious influence -on social progress? I feel it almost unnecessary to say, that I believe -it is the second; and I fear we can never exempt mankind from the -necessity of learning first of all _defensive morality_. - -After all I have heard and read and observed, I have never yet met -with an instance of an abuse which had been in operation on a somewhat -extensive scale, put an end to by the voluntary renunciation of those -who profit by it. - -On the other hand, I have seen many abuses put down by the determined -resistance of those who suffered from them. - -To expose the effects of abuses, then, is the surest means of putting -an end to them. And this holds especially true of abuses like the policy -of restriction, which, whilst inflicting real evils on the masses, -are productive of nothing to those who imagine they profit by them but -illusion and deception! - -After all, can the kind of morality we are advocating of itself enable -us to realize all that social perfection which the sympathetic nature of -the soul of man and its noble faculties authorize us to look forward to -and hope for? I am far from saying so. Assume the complete diffusion of -defensive morality, it resolves itself simply into the conviction that -men's interests, rightly understood, are always in accord with justice -and general utility. Such a society, although certainly well ordered, -would not be very attractive. There would be fewer cheats simply because -there would be fewer dupes. Vice always lurking in the background, and -starved, so to speak, for want of support, would revive the moment that -support was restored to it. - -The prudence of each would be enforced by the vigilance of all; and -reform, confining itself to the regulation of external acts, and never -going deeper than the skin, would fail to penetrate men's hearts and -consciences. Such a society would remind us of one of those exact, -rigorous, and just men, who are ready to resent the slightest invasion -of their rights, and to defend themselves on all sides from attacks. You -esteem them; you perhaps admire them; you would elect them as deputies; -but you would never make them your friends. - -But the two principles of morality I have described, instead of running -counter to each other, work in concert, attacking vice from opposite -directions. Whilst the economists are doing their part, sharpening the -wits of the Orgons, eradicating prejudices, exciting just and necessary -distrust, studying and explaining the true nature of things and of -actions, let the religious moralist accomplish on his side his more -attractive, although more difficult, labours. Let him attack dishonesty -in a hand-to-hand fight; let him pursue it into the most secret -recesses of the heart; let him paint in glowing colours the charms -of beneficence, of self-sacrifice, of devotion; let him open up the -fountains of virtue, where we can only dry up the fountains of vice. -This is his duty, and a noble duty it is. But why should he contest the -utility of the duty which has devolved upon us? - -In a society which, without being personally and individually virtuous, -would nevertheless be well ordered through the action of the economic -principle of morality (which means a knowledge of the economy of the -social body), would not an opening be made for the work of the religious -moralist? - -Habit, it is said, is a second nature. - -A country might still be unhappy, although for a long time each man may -have been unused to injustice through the continued resistance of an -enlightened public. But such a country, it seems to me, would be well -prepared to receive a system of teaching more pure and elevated. We get -a considerable way on the road to good, when we become unused to evil. -Men can never remain stationary. Diverted from the path of vice, feeling -that it leads only to infamy, they would feel so much the more sensibly -the attractions of virtue. - -Society must perhaps pass through this prosaic state of transition, in -which men practise virtue from motives of prudence, in order to rise -afterwards to that fairer and more poetic region where such calculating -motives are no longer wanted. - - - - -III. THE TWO HATCHETS. - -_Petition of Jacques Bonhomme, Carpenter, to M. Cunin-Gridaine, Minister -of Commerce_. - -Monsieur le Fabricant-Ministre, - -I am a carpenter to trade, as was St Joseph of old; and I handle the -hatchet and adze, for your benefit. - -Now, while engaged in hewing and chopping from morning to night upon the -lands of our Lord the King, the idea has struck me that my labour may be -regarded as _national_, as well as yours. - -And, in these circumstances, I cannot see why protection should not -visit my woodyard as well as your workshop. - -For, sooth to say, if you make cloths I make roofs; and both, in their -own way, shelter our customers from cold and from rain. - -And yet I run after customers; and customers run after you. You have -found out the way of securing them by hindering them from supplying -themselves elsewhere, while mine apply to whomsoever they think proper. - -What is astonishing in all this? Monsieur Cunin, the Minister of State, -has not forgotten M. Cunin, the manufacturer--all quite natural. But, -alas! my humble trade has not given a Minister to France, although -practised, in Scripture times, by far more august personages. - -And in the immortal code which I find embodied in Scripture, I cannot -discover the slightest expression which could be quoted by carpenters, -as authorizing them to enrich themselves at the expense of other people. - -You see, then, how I am situated. I earn fifteen pence a day, when it -is not Sunday or holiday. I offer you my services at the same time as -a Flemish carpenter offers you his, and, because he abates a halfpenny, -you give him the preference. - -But I desire to clothe myself; and if a Belgian weaver presents his -cloth alongside of yours, you drive him and his cloth out of the -country. - -So that, being forced to frequent your shop, although the dearest, my -poor fifteen pence go no further in reality than fourteen. - -Nay, they are not worth more than thirteen! for in place of expelling -the Belgian weaver at your own cost (which was the least you could do), -you, for your own ends, make me pay for the people you set at his heels. - -And as a great number of your co-legislators, with whom you are on -a marvellously good footing, take each a halfpenny or a penny, under -pretext of protecting iron, or coal, or oil, or corn, I find, when -everything is taken into account, that of my fifteen pence, I have only -been able to save seven pence or eight pence from pillage. - -You will no doubt tell me that these small halfpence, which pass in this -way from my pocket to yours, maintain workpeople who reside around your -castle, and enable you to live in a style of magnificence. To which I -will only reply, that if the pence had been left with me, the -person who earned them, they would have maintained workpeople in my -neighbourhood. - -Be this as it may, Monsieur le Ministre-fabricant, knowing that I should -be but ill received by you, I have not come to require you, as I had -good right to do, to withdraw the restriction which you impose on your -customers. I prefer following the ordinary course, and I approach you to -solicit a little bit of protection for myself. - -Here, of course, you will interpose a difficulty. "My good friend," -you will say, "I would protect you and your fellow-workmen with all my -heart; but how can I confer customhouse favours on carpenter-work? -What use would it be to prohibit the importation of houses by sea or by -land?" - -That would be a good joke, to be sure; but, by dint of thinking, I have -discovered another mode of favouring the children of St Joseph; which -you will welcome the more willingly, I hope, as it differs in nothing -from that which constitutes the privilege which you vote year after year -in your own favour. - -The means of favouring us, which I have thus marvellously discovered, is -to prohibit the use of sharp axes in this country. - -I maintain that such a restriction would not be in the least more -illogical or more arbitrary than the one to which you subject us in the -case of your cloth. - -Why do you drive away the Belgians? Because they sell cheaper than -you. And why do they sell cheaper than you? Because they have a certain -degree of superiority over you as manufacturers. - -Between you and a Belgian, therefore, there is exactly the same -difference as in my trade there would be between a blunt and a sharp -axe. - -And you force me, as a tradesman, to purchase from you the product of -the blunt hatchet? - -Regard the country at large as a workman who desires, by his labour, to -procure all things he has want of, and, among others, cloth. - -There are two means of effecting this. - -The first is to spin and weave the wool. - -The second is to produce other articles, as, for example, French clocks, -paper-hangings, or wines, and exchange them with the Belgians for the -cloth wanted. - -Of these two processes, the one which gives the best result may be -represented by the sharp axe, and the other by the blunt one. - -You do not deny that at present, in France, we obtain a piece of stuff -by the work of our own looms (that is the blunt axe) _with more labour_ -than by producing and exchanging wines (that is the sharp axe). So far -are you from denying this, that it is precisely because of this _excess -of labour_ (in which you make wealth to consist) that you recommend, -nay, that you _compel_ the employment of the worse of the two hatchets. - -Now, only be consistent, be impartial, and if you mean to be just, treat -the poor carpenters as you treat yourselves. - -Pass a law to this effect: - -"_No one shall henceforth be permitted to employ any beams or rafters, -but such as are produced and fashioned by blunt hatchets_." - -And see what will immediately happen. - -Whereas at present we give a hundred blows of the axe, we shall then -give three hundred. The work which we now do in an hour will then -require three hours. What a powerful encouragement will thus be given to -labour! Masters, journeymen, apprentices! our sufferings are now at an -end. We shall be in demand; and, therefore, well paid. Whoever shall -henceforth desire to have a roof to cover him must comply with our -exactions, just as at present whoever desires clothes to his back must -comply with yours. - -And should the theoretical advocates of free trade ever dare to call -in question the utility of the measure, we know well where to seek for -reasons to confute them Your Inquiry of 1834 is still to be had. With -that weapon, we shall conquer; for you have there admirably pleaded the -cause of restriction, and of blunt axes, which are in reality the same -thing. - - - - -IV. LOWER COUNCIL OF LABOUR. - -"What! you have the face to demand for all citizens a right to sell, -buy, barter, and exchange; to render and receive service for service, -and to judge for themselves, on the single condition that they do all -honestly, and comply with the demands of the public treasury? Then you -simply desire to deprive our workmen of employment, of wages, and of -bread?" - -This is what is said to us. I know very well what to think of it; but -what I wish to know is, what the workmen themselves think of it. - -I have at hand an excellent instrument of inquiry. Not those Upper -Councils of Industry, where extensive proprietors who call themselves -labourers, rich shipowners who call themselves sailors, and wealthy -shareholders who pass themselves off for workmen, turn their -philanthropy to account in a way which we all know. - -No; it is with workmen, who are workmen in reality, that we have -to do--joiners, carpenters, masons, tailors, shoemakers, dyers, -blacksmiths, innkeepers, grocers, etc., etc.,--and who, in my village, -have founded a friendly society. - -I have transformed this friendly society, at my own hand, into a Lower -Council of Labour, and instituted an inquiry which will be found of -great importance, although it is not crammed with figures, or inflated -to the bulk of a quarto volume, printed at the expense of the State. - -My object was to interrogate these plain, simple people as to the manner -in which they are, or believe themselves to be, affected by the policy -of protection. The president pointed out that this would be infringing -to some extent on the fundamental conditions of the Association. For in -France, this land of liberty, people who associate give up their right -to talk politics--in other words, their right to discuss their common -interests. However, after some hesitation, he agreed to include the -question in the order of the day. - -They divided the assembly into as many committees as there were groups -of distinct trades, and delivered to each committee a schedule to be -filled up after fifteen days' deliberation. - -On the day fixed, the worthy president (we adopt the official style) -took the chair, and there were laid upon the table (still the official -style) fifteen reports, which he read in succession. - -The first which was taken into consideration was that of the tailors. -Here is an exact and literal copy of it:-- - -EFFECTS OF PROTECTION.--REPORT OF THE TAILORS. - -Inconveniences. - -1st, In consequence of the policy of protection, we pay dearer for -bread, meat, sugar, firewood, thread, needles, etc., which is equivalent -in our case to a considerable reduction of wages. - -2d, In consequence of the policy of 'protection, our customers also pay -dearer for everything, and this leaves them less to spend upon clothing; -whence it follows that we have less employment, and, consequently, -smaller returns. - -3d, In consequence of the policy of protection, the stuffs which we make -up are dear, and people on that account wear their clothes longer, or -dispense with part of them. This, again, is equivalent to a diminution -of employment, and forces us to offer our services at a lower rate of -remuneration. - -Advantages. - -None. - -Note.--After all our inquiries, deliberations, and discussions, we have -been quite unable to discover that in any respect whatever the policy of -protection has been of advantage to our trade. - -Here is another report:-- - -EFFECTS OF PROTECTION.--REPORT OF THE BLACKSMITHS. - -Inconveniences. - -1st, The policy of protection imposes a tax upon us every time we eat, -drink, or warm or clothe ourselves, and this tax does not go to the -treasury. - -2d, It imposes a like tax upon all our fellow-citizens who are not of -our trade, and they, being so much the poorer, have recourse to cheap -substitutes for our work, which deprives us of the employment we should -otherwise have had. None. - -3d, It keeps up iron at so high a price, that it is not employed in -the country for ploughs, grates, gates, balconies, etc.; and our trade, -which might furnish employment to so many other people who are in want -of it, no longer furnishes employment to ourselves. - -4th, The revenue which the treasury fails to obtain from commodities -which are not imported is levied upon the salt we use, postages, etc. - -All the other reports (with which it is unnecessary to trouble the -reader) are to the same tune. Gardeners, carpenters, shoemakers, -clogmakers, boatmen, millers, all give vent to the same complaints. - -I regret that there are no agricultural labourers in our association. -Their report would assuredly have been very instructive. - -But, alas! in our country of the Landes, the poor labourers, protected -though they be, have not the means of joining an association, and, -having insured their cattle, they find they cannot themselves become -members of a friendly society. The boon of protection does not hinder -them from being the parias of our social order. What shall I say of the -vine-dressers? - -What I remark, especially, is the good sense displayed by our villagers -in perceiving not only the direct injury which the policy of protection -does them, but the indirect injury, which, although in the first -instance affecting their customers, falls back, _par ricochet_, upon -themselves. - -This is what the economists of the _Moniteur Industriel_ do not appear -to understand. - -And perhaps those men whose eyes a dash of protection has fascinated, -especially our agriculturists, would be willing to give it up, if they -were enabled to see this side of the question. - -In that case they might perhaps say to themselves, "Better far to be -self-supported in the midst of a set of customers in easy circumstances, -than to be protected in the midst of an impoverished clientèle." - -For to desire to enrich by turns each separate branch of industry by -creating a void round each in succession, is as vain an attempt as it -would be for a man to try to leap over his own shadow. - - - - -V. DEARNESS-CHEAPNESS. - -I think it necessary to submit to the reader some theoretical remarks -on the illusions to which the words dearness and cheapness give rise. At -first sight, these remarks may, I feel, be regarded as subtle, but the -question is not whether they are subtle or the reverse, but whether they -are true. Now, I not only believe them to be perfectly true, but to be -well fitted to suggest matter of reflection to men (of whom there are -not a few) who have sincere faith in the efficacy of a protectionist -policy. - -The advocates of Liberty and the defenders of Restriction are both -obliged to employ the expressions, dearness, cheapness. The former -declare themselves in favour of cheapness with a view to the interest of -the consumer; the latter pronounce in favour of dearness, having regard -especially to the interest of the producer. Others content themselves -with saying, The producer and consumer are one and the same person; -which leaves undecided the question whether the law should promote -cheapness or dearness. - -In the midst of this conflict, it would seem that the law has only -one course to follow, and that is to allow prices to settle and adjust -themselves naturally. But then we are attacked by the bitter enemies of -_laissez faire_. At all hazards they want the law to interfere, without -knowing or caring in what direction. And yet it lies with those who -desire to create by legal intervention an artificial dearness or an -unnatural cheapness, to explain the grounds of their preference. The -_onus probandi_ rests upon them exclusively. Liberty is always esteemed -good, till the contrary is proved; and to allow prices to settle and -adjust themselves naturally, is liberty. - -But the parties to this dispute have changed positions. The advocates of -dearness have secured the triumph of their system, and it lies with the -defenders of natural prices to prove the goodness of their cause. On -both sides, the argument turns on two words; and it is therefore very -essential to ascertain what these two words really mean. - -But we must first of all notice a series of facts which are fitted to -disconcert the champions of both camps. - -To engender dearness, the restrictionists have obtained protective -duties, and a cheapness, which is to them inexplicable, has come to -deceive their hopes. - -To create cheapness, the free-traders have occasionally succeeded in -securing liberty, and, to their astonishment, an elevation of prices has -been the consequence. - -For example, in France, in order to favour agriculture, a duty of 22 per -cent has been imposed on foreign wool, and it has turned out that French -wool has been sold at a lower price after the measure than before it. - -In England, to satisfy the consumer, they lowered, and ultimately -removed, the duty on foreign wool; and it has come to pass that in that -country the price of wool is higher than ever. - -And these are not isolated facts; for the price of wool is governed by -precisely the same laws which govern the price of everything else. The -same result is produced in all analogous cases. Contrary to expectation, -protection has, to some extent, brought about a fall, and competition, -to some extent, a rise of prices. - -When the confusion of ideas thence arising had reached its height, the -protectionists began saying to their adversaries, "It is our system -which brings about the cheapness of which you boast so much." To which -the reply was, "It is liberty which has induced the dearness which you -find so useful."* - -At this rate, would it not be amusing to see cheapness become the -watch-word of the Rue Hauteville, and dearness the watchword of the Rue -Choiseul? - -Evidently there is in all this a misconception, an illusion, which it is -necessary to clear up; and this is what I shall now endeavour to do. - -Put the case of two isolated nations, each composed of a million of -inhabitants. Grant that, _coteris paribus_, the one possesses double -the quantity of everything,--corn, meat, iron, furniture, fuel, books, -clothing, etc.,--which the other possesses. - -It will be granted that the one is twice as rich as the other. - -And yet there is no reason to affirm that a difference in _actual money -prices_** exists in the two countries. Nominal prices may perhaps -be higher in the richer country. It may be that in the United States -everything is nominally dearer than in Poland, and that the population -of the former country should, nevertheless, be better provided with -all that they need; whence we infer that it is not the nominal price -of products, but their comparative abundance, which constitutes wealth. -When, then, we desire to pronounce an opinion on the comparative merits -of restriction and free-trade, we should not inquire which of the two -systems engenders dearness or cheapness, but which of the two brings -abundance or scarcity. - - * Recently, M. Duchâtel, who had formerly advocated free - trade, with a view to low prices, said to the Chamber: It - would not be difficult for me to prove that protection leads - to cheapness. - - **The expression, _prix absolus_ (absolute prices), which - the author employs here and in chap. xi. of the First Series - (ante), is not, I think, used by English economists, and - from the context in both instances I take it to mean _actual - money prices;_ or what Adam Smith terms _nominal prices_,-- - Translator. - -For, observe this, that products being exchanged for each other, a -relative scarcity of all, and a relative abundance of all, leave the -nominal prices of commodities in general at the same point; but this -cannot be affirmed of the relative condition of the inhabitants of the -two countries. - -Let us dip a little deeper still into this subject. - -When we see an increase and a reduction of duties produce effects -so different from what we had expected, depreciation often following -taxation, and enhancement following free trade, it becomes the -imperative duty of political economy to seek an explanation of phenomena -so much opposed to received ideas; for it is needless to say that a -science, if it is worthy of the name, is nothing else than a faithful -statement and a sound explanation of facts. - -Now the phenomenon we are here examining is explained very -satisfactorily by a circumstance of which we must never lose sight. - -Dearness is due to two causes, and not to one only. - -The same thing holds of cheapness. - -It is one of the least disputed points in political economy that price -is determined by the relative state of supply and demand. - -There are then two terms which affect price--supply and demand. These -terms are essentially variable. They may be combined in the same -direction, in contrary directions, and in infinitely varied proportions. -Hence the combinations of which price is the result are inexhaustible. - -High price may be the result, either of diminished supply, or of -increased demand. - -Low price may be the result of increased supply, or of diminished -demand. - -Hence there are two kinds of dearness, and two kinds of cheapness. - -There is a _dearness_ of an injurious kind, that which proceeds from a -diminution of supply, for that implies scarcity, privation (such as has -been felt this year* from the scarcity of corn); and there is a dearness -of a beneficial kind, that which results from an increase of demand, for -the latter presupposes the development of general wealth. - - * This was written in 1847.--Translator. - -In the same way, there is a _cheapness_ which is desirable, that which -has its source in abundance; and an injurious cheapness, that has for -its cause the failure of demand, and the impoverishment of consumers. - -Now, be pleased to remark this; that restriction tends to induce, at the -same time, both the injurious cause of dearness, and the injurious cause -of cheapness: injurious dearness, by diminishing the supply, for this -is the avowed object of restriction; and injurious cheapness, by -diminishing also the demand; seeing that it gives a false direction to -labour and capital, and fetters consumers with taxes and trammels. - -So that, as regards price, these two tendencies neutralize each other; -and this is the reason why the restrictive system, restraining, as it -does, demand and supply at one and the same time, does not in the long -run realize even that dearness which is its object. - -But, as regards the condition of the population, these causes do not -at all neutralize each other; on the contrary, they concur in making it -worse. - -The effect of freedom of trade is exactly the opposite. In its general -result, it may be that it does not realize the cheapness it promises; -for it has two tendencies, one towards desirable cheapness through -the extension of supply, or abundance; the other towards appreciable -dearness by the development of demand, or general wealth. These two -tendencies neutralize each other in what concerns nominal price, but -they concur in what regards the material prosperity of the population. - -In short, under the restrictive system, in as far as it is operative, -men recede towards a state of things, in which both demand and supply -are enfeebled. Under a system of freedom, they progress towards a -state of things in which both are developed simultaneously, and without -necessarily affecting nominal prices. Such prices form no good criterion -of wealth. They may remain the same whilst society is falling into a -state of the most abject poverty, or whilst it is advancing towards a -state of the greatest prosperity. - -We shall now, in a few words, show the practical application of this -doctrine. - -A cultivator of the south of France believes himself to be very rich, -because he is protected by duties from external competition. He may be -as poor as Job; but he nevertheless imagines that sooner or later he -will get rich by protection. In these circumstances, if we ask him the -question which was put by the Odier Committee in these words,-- - -"Do you desire--yes or no--to be subject to foreign competition?" His -first impulse is to answer "No," and the Odier Committee proudly welcome -his response. - -However, we must go a little deeper into the matter. Unquestionably, -foreign competition--nay, competition in general--is always -troublesome; and if one branch of trade alone could get quit of it, that -branch of trade would for some time profit largely. - -But protection is not an isolated favour; it is a system. If, to the -profit of the agriculturist, protection tends to create a scarcity of -corn and of meat, it tends likewise to create, to the profit of other -industries, a scarcity of iron, of cloth, of fuel, tools, etc.,--a -scarcity, in short, of everything. - -Now, if a scarcity of corn tends to enhance its price through a -diminution of supply, the scarcity of all other commodities for which -corn is exchanged tends to reduce the price of corn by a diminution of -demand, so that it is not at all certain that ultimately corn will be a -penny dearer than it would have been under a system of free trade. There -is nothing certain in the whole process but this--that as there is upon -the whole less of every commodity in the country, each man will be less -plentifully provided with everything he has occasion to buy. - -The agriculturist should ask himself whether it would not be more -for his interest that a certain quantity of corn and cattle should be -imported from abroad, and that he should at the same time find himself -surrounded by a population in easy circumstances, able and willing to -consume and pay for all sorts of agricultural produce. - -Suppose a department in which the people are clothed in rags, fed upon -chesnuts, and lodged in hovels. How can agriculture flourish in such -a locality? What can the soil be made to produce with a well-founded -expectation of fair remuneration? Meat? The people do not eat it. Milk? -They must content themselves with water. Butter? It is regarded as a -luxury. Wool? The use of it is dispensed with as much as possible. Does -any one imagine that all the ordinary objects of consumption can thus be -put beyond the reach of the masses, without tending to lower prices as -much as protection is tending to raise them? - -What has been said of the agriculturist holds equally true of the -manufacturer. Our manufacturers of cloth assure us that external -competition will lower prices by increasing the supply. Granted; but -will not these prices be again raised by an increased demand? Is the -consumption of cloth a fixed and invariable quantity? Has every man as -much of it as he would wish to have? And if general wealth is advanced -and developed by the abolition of all these taxes and restrictions, will -the first use to which this emancipation is turned by the population not -be to dress better? - -The question,--the constantly-recurring question,--then, is not to -find out whether protection is favourable to any one special branch of -industry, but whether, when everything is weighed, balanced, and taken -into account, restriction is, in its own nature, more productive than -liberty. - -Now, no one will venture to maintain this. On the contrary, we are -perpetually met with the admission, "You are right in principle." - -If it be so, if restriction confers no benefit on individual branches of -industry without doing a greater amount of injury to general wealth, -we are forced to conclude that actual money prices, considered by -themselves, only express a relation between each special branch of -industry and industry in general, between supply and demand; and that, -on this account, a remunerative price, which is the professed object of -protection, is rather injured than favoured by the system. - -SUPPLEMENT.* - - * What follows appeared in the _Libre Échange_ of 1st August - 1847.--Editor. - -The article which we have published under the title of Dearness, -Cheapness, has brought us several letters. We give them, along with our -replies:-- - -Mr Editor,--You upset all our ideas. I endeavoured to aid the cause -of free trade, and found it necessary to urge the consideration of -cheapness. I went about everywhere, saying, "When freedom of trade is -accorded, bread, meat, cloth, linen, iron, fuel, will go on falling in -price." This displeased those who sell, but gave great pleasure to those -who buy these commodities. And now you throw out doubts as to whether -free trade will bring us cheapness or not. What, then, is to be gained -by it? What gain will it be to the people if foreign competition, which -may damage their sales, does not benefit them in their purchases? - -Mr Free-trader,--Allow us to tell you that you must have read only half -the article which has called forth your letter. We said that free trade -acts exactly in the same way as roads, canals, railways, and everything -else which facilitates communication by removing obstacles. Its first -tendency is to increase the supply of the commodity freed from duty, and -consequently to lower its price. But by augmenting at the same time the -supply of all other commodities for which this article is exchanged, it -increases the demand, and the price by this means rises again. You ask -what gain this would be to the people? Suppose a balance with several -scales, in each of which is deposited a certain quantity of the articles -you have enumerated. If you add to the corn in one scale it will tend -to fall; but if you add a little cloth, a little iron, a little fuel, -to what the other scales contained, you will redress the equilibrium. -If you look only at the beam, you will find nothing changed. But if you -look at the people for whose use these articles are produced, you will -find them better fed, clothed, and warmed. - -Mr Editor,--I am a manufacturer of cloth, and a protectionist. I confess -that your article on dearness and cheapness has made me reflect. It -contains something specious which would require to be well established -before we declare ourselves converted. - -Mr Protectionist,--We say that your restrictive measures have an -iniquitous object in view, namely, artificial dearness. But we do not -affirm that they always realize the hopes of those who promote them. -It is certain that they inflict on the consumer all the injurious -consequences of scarcity. It is not certain that they always confer a -corresponding advantage on the producer. Why? Because if they diminish -the supply, they diminish also the demand. - -This proves that there is in the economic arrangement of this world a -moral force, a _vis medieatrix_, which causes unjust ambition in the -long run to fall a prey to self-deception. - -Would you have the goodness, Sir, to remark that one of the elements -of the prosperity of each individual branch of industry is the -general wealth of the community. The value of a house is not always in -proportion to what it has cost, but likewise in proportion to the number -and fortune of the tenants. Are two houses exactly similar necessarily -of the same value? By no means, if the one is situated in Paris and -the other in Lower Brittany. Never speak of price without taking into -account collateral circumstances, and let it be remembered that no -attempt is so bootless as to endeavour to found the prosperity of parts -on the ruin of the whole. And yet this is what the policy of restriction -pretends to do. - -Consider what would have happened at Paris, for example, if this strife -of interests had been attended with success. - -Suppose that the first shoemaker who established himself in that city -had succeeded in ejecting all others; that the first tailor, the first -mason, the first printer, the first watchmaker, the first physician, -the first baker, had been equally successful. Paris would at this moment -have been still a village of 1200 or 1500 inhabitants. It has turned out -very differently. The market of Paris has been open to all (excepting -those whom you still keep out), and it is this freedom which has -enlarged and aggrandized it. The struggles of competition have been -bitter and long continued, and this is what has made Paris a city of a -million of inhabitants. The general wealth has increased, no doubt; but -has the individual wealth of the shoemakers and tailors been diminished? -This is the question you have to ask. You may say that according as the -number of competitors increased, the price of their products would go on -falling. Has it done so? No; for if the supply has been augmented, the -demand has been enlarged. - -The same thing will hold good of your commodity, cloth; let it enter -freely. You will have more competitors in the trade, it is true; but -you will have more customers, and, above all, richer customers. Is it -possible you can never have thought of this, when you see nine-tenths of -your fellow-citizens underclothed in winter, for want of the commodity -which you manufacture? - -If you wish to prosper, allow your customers to thrive. This is a -lesson which you have* been very long in learning. When it is thoroughly -learnt, each man will seek his own interest in the general good; -and then jealousies between man and man, town and town, province and -province, nation and nation, will no longer trouble the world. - - - - -VI. TO ARTISANS AND WORKMEN. - -Many journals have attacked me in your presence and hearing. Perhaps you -will not object to read my defence? - -I am not suspicious. When a man writes or speaks, I take for granted -that he believes what he says. - -And yet, after reading and re-reading the journals to which I now reply, -I seem unable to discover any other than melancholy tendencies. - -Our present business is to inquire which is more favourable to your -interests,--liberty or restriction. - -I believe that it is liberty,--they believe that it is restriction. It -is for each party to prove his own thesis. - -Was it necessary to insinuate that we free-traders are the agents of -England, of the south of France, of the government? - -On this point, you see how easy recrimination would be. - -We are the agents of England, they say, because some of us employ the -words meeting and free-trader! - -And do they not make use of the words drawback and budget? - -We, it would seem, imitate Cobden and the English democracy! - -And do they not parody Lord George Bentinck and the British aristocracy? - -We borrow from perfidious Albion the doctrine of liberty! - -And do they not borrow from the same source the quibbles of protection? - -We follow the lead of Bordeaux and the south! - -And do they not avail themselves of the cupidity of Lille and the north? - -We favour the secret designs of the ministry, whose object is to divert -public attention from their real policy! - -And do they not act in the interest of the civil list, which profits -most of all from the policy of protection? - -You see, then, very clearly, that if we did not despise this war of -disparagement, arms would not be wanting to carry it on. But this is -beside the question. - -The question, and we must never lose sight of it, is this: _Whether -is it better for the working classes to be free, or not to be free to -purchase foreign commodities?_ - -Workmen! they tell you that "If you are free to purchase from the -foreigner those things which you now produce yourselves, you will cease -to produce them; you will be without employment, without wages, and -without bread; it is therefore for your own good to restrain your -liberty." - -This objection returns upon us under two forms:--They say, for example, -"If we clothe ourselves with English cloth; if we make our ploughs of -English iron; if we cut our bread with English knives; if we wipe our -hands with English towels,--what will become of French workmen, what -will become of national labour?" - -Tell me, workmen! if a man should stand on the quay at Boulogne, and -say to every Englishman who landed, "If you will give me these English -boots, I will give you this French hat;" or, "If you will give me that -English horse, I will give you this French tilbury;" or ask him, "Will -you exchange that machine made at Birmingham, for this clock made -at Paris?" or, again, "Can you arrange to barter this Newcastle coal -against this champagne wine?" Tell me whether, assuming this man to make -his proposals with discernment, any one would be justified in saying -that our national labour, taken in the aggregate, would suffer in -consequence? - -Nor would it make the slightest difference in this respect were we to -suppose twenty such offers to be made in place of one, or a million such -barters to be effected in place of four; nor would it in any respect -alter the case were we to assume the intervention of merchants and -money, whereby such transactions would be greatly facilitated and -multiplied. - -Now, when one country buys from another wholesale, to sell again in -retail, or buys in retail, to sell again in the lump, if we trace the -transaction to its ultimate results, we shall always find that _commerce -resolves itself into barter, products for products, services for -services. If, then, barter does no injury to national labour, since it -implies as much national labour given as foreign labour received, it -follows that a hundred thousand millions of such acts of barter would do -as little injury as one_. - -But who would profit? you will ask. The profit consists in turning to -most account the resources of each country, so that the same amount -of labour shall yield everywhere a greater amount of satisfactions and -enjoyments. - -There are some who in your case have recourse to a singular system of -tactics. They begin by admitting the superiority of the free to the -prohibitive system, in order, doubtless, not to have the battle to fight -on this ground. - -Then they remark that the transition from one system to another is -always attended with some displacement of labour. - -Lastly, they enlarge on the sufferings, which, in their opinion, such -displacements must always entail. They exaggerate these sufferings, they -multiply them, they make them the principal subject of discussion, they -present them as the exclusive and definitive result of reform, and in -this way they endeavour to enlist you under the banners of monopoly. - -This is just the system of tactics which has been employed to defend -every system of abuse; and one thing I must plainly avow, that it is -this system of tactics which constantly embarrasses those who advocate -reforms, even those most useful to the people. You will soon see the -reason of this. - -When an abuse has once taken root, everything is arranged on the -assumption of its continuance. Some men depend upon it for subsistence, -others depend upon them, and so on, till a formidable edifice is -erected. - -Would you venture to pull it down? All cry out, and remark this--the men -who bawl out appear always at first sight to be in the right, because -it is far easier to show the derangements which must accompany a reform -than the arrangements which must follow it. - -The supporters of abuses cite particular instances of sufferings; they -point out particular employers who, with their workmen, and the people -who supply them with materials, are about to be injured; and the poor -reformer can only refer to the general good which must gradually diffuse -itself over the masses. That by no means produces the same sensation. - -Thus, when the question turns on the abolition of slavery. "Poor men!" -is the language addressed to the negroes, "who is henceforth to support -you. The manager handles the lash, but he likewise distributes the -cassava." - -The slaves regret to part with their chains, for they ask themselves, -"Whence will come the cassava?" - -They fail to see that it is not the manager who feeds them, but their -own labour--which feeds both them and the manager. - -When they set about reforming the convents in Spain, they asked the -beggars, "Where will you now find food and clothing? The prior is your -best friend. Is it not very convenient to be in a situation to address -yourselves to him?" - -And the mendicants replied, "True; if the prior goes away, we see very -clearly that we shall be losers, and we do not see at all so clearly who -is to come in his place." - -They did not take into account that if the convents bestowed alms, -they lived upon them; so that the nation had more to give away than to -receive. - -In the same way, workmen! monopoly, quite imperceptibly, saddles -you with taxes, and then, with the produce of these taxes, finds you -employment. - -And your sham friends exclaim, "But for monopolies, where would you find -employment?" - -And you, like the Spanish beggars, reply, "True, true; the employment -which the monopolists find us is certain. The promises of liberty are of -uncertain fulfilment." - -For you do not see that they take from you in the first instance the -money with part of which they afterwards afford you employment. - -You ask, Who is to find you employment? And the answer is, that you will -give employment to one another! With the money of which he is no -longer deprived by taxation, the shoemaker will dress better, and give -employment to the tailor. The tailor will more frequently renew his -_chaussure_, and afford employment to the shoemaker; and the same thing -will take place in all other departments of trade. - -It has been said that under a system of free trade we should have fewer -workmen in our mines and spinning-mills. - -I do not think so. But if this happened, we should necessarily have a -greater number of people working freely and independently, either in -their own houses or at out-door employment. - -For if our mines and spinning-factories are not capable of supporting -themselves, as is asserted, without the aid of taxes levied from the -_public at large_, the moment these taxes are repealed _everybody_ will -be by so much in better circumstances; and it is this improvement in the -general circumstances of the community which lends support to individual -branches of industry. - -Pardon my dwelling a little longer on this view of the subject; for my -great anxiety is to see you all ranged on the side of liberty. - -Suppose that the capital employed in manufactures yields 5 per cent, -profit. But Mondor has an establishment in which he employs £100,000, -at a loss, instead of a profit, of 5 per cent. Between the loss and -the gain supposed there is a difference of £10,000. What takes place? A -small tax of £10,000 is coolly levied from the public, and handed over -to Mondor. You don't see it, for the thing is skilfully disguised. It -is not the tax-gatherer who waits upon you to demand your share of this -burden; but you pay it to Mondor, the ironmaster, every time that you -purchase your trowels, hatchets, and planes. Then they tell you that -unless you pay this tax, Mondor will not be able to give employment; and -his workmen, James and John, must go without work. And yet, if they -gave up the tax, it would enable you to find employment for one another, -independently of Mondor. - -And then, with a little patience, after this smooth pillow of protection -has been taken from under his head, Mondor, you may depend upon it, will -set his wits to work, and contrive to convert his loss into a profit, -and James and John will not be sent away, in which case there will be -profit for everybody. - -You may still rejoin, "We allow that, after the reform, there will be -more employment, upon the whole, than before; in the meantime, James and -John are starving." - -To which I reply: - -1st, That when labour is only displaced, to be augmented, a man who has -a head and hands is seldom left long in a state of destitution. - -2d, There is nothing to hinder the State's reserving a fund to meet, -during the transition, any temporary want of employment, in which, -however, for my own part, I do not believe. - -3d, If I do not misunderstand the workmen, they are quite prepared to -encounter any temporary suffering necessarily attendant on a transfer of -labour from one department to another, by which the community are more -likely to be benefited and have justice done them. I only wish I could -say the same thing of their employers! - -What! will it be said that because you are workmen you are for that -reason unintelligent and immoral? Your pretended friends seem to think -so. Is it not surprising that in your hearing they should discuss such -a question, talking exclusively of wages and profits without ever once -allowing the word justice to pass their lips? And yet they know that -restriction is unjust. Why have they not the courage to admit it, and -say to you, "Workmen! an iniquity prevails in this country, but it is -profitable to you, and we must maintain it." Why? because they know you -would disclaim it. - -It is not true that this injustice is profitable to you. Give me your -attention for a few moments longer, and then judge for yourselves. - -What is it that we protect in France? Things which are produced on a -great scale by rich capitalists and in large establishments, as iron, -coal, cloth, and textile fabrics; and they tell you that this is done, -not in the interest of employers, but in yours, and in order to secure -you employment. - -And yet whenever _foreign labour_ presents itself in our markets, in -such a shape that it may be injurious to you, but advantageous for your -employers, it is allowed to enter without any restriction being imposed. - -Are there not in Paris thirty thousand Germans who make clothes and -shoes? Why are they permitted to establish themselves alongside of -you while the importation of cloth is restricted? Because cloth is -manufactured in grand establishments which belong to manufacturing -legislators. But clothes are made by workmen in their own houses. -In converting wool into cloth, these gentlemen desire to have no -competition, because that is their trade; but in converting cloth into -coats, they allow it, because that is your trade. - -In making our railways, an embargo was laid on English rails, but -English workmen were brought over. Why was this? Simply because -English rails came into competition with the iron produced in our great -establishments, while the English labourers were only your rivals. - -We have no wish that German tailors and English navvies should be kept -out of France. What we ask is, that the entry of cloth and rails should -be left free. We simply demand justice and equality before the law, for -all. - -It is a mockery to tell us that customs restrictions are imposed for -your benefit. Tailors, shoemakers, carpenters, masons, blacksmiths, -shopkeepers, grocers, watchmakers, butchers, bakers, dressmakers! I defy -you all to point out a single way in which restriction is profitable to -you, and I shall point out, whenever you desire it, four ways in which -it is hurtful to you. - -And, after all, see how little foundation your journalists have for -attributing self-abnegation to the monopolists. - -I may venture to denominate the rate of wages which settles and -establishes itself naturally under a regime of freedom, the _natural -rate of wages_. When you affirm, therefore, that restriction is -profitable to you, it is tantamount to affirming that it adds an -_overplus to your natural_ wages. Now, a surplus of wages beyond the -natural rate must come from some quarter or other; it does not fall from -the skies, but comes from those who pay it. - -You are landed, then, in this conclusion by your pretended friends, that -the policy of protection has been introduced in order that the interests -of capitalists should be sacrificed to those of the workmen. - -Do you think this probable? - -Where is your place, then, in the Chamber of Peers? When did you take -your seat in the Palais Bourbon? Who has consulted you? And where did -this idea of establishing a policy of protection take its rise? - -I think I hear you answer, "It is not we who have established it. -Alas! we are neither Peers, nor Deputies, nor Councillors of State. The -capitalists have done it all." - -Verily, they must have been in a good humour that day! What! these -capitalists have made the law; they have established a policy of -prohibition for the express purpose of enabling you to profit at their -expense! - -But here is something stranger still. - -How does it come to pass that your pretended friends, who hold forth -to you on the goodness, the generosity, and the self-abnegation of -capitalists, never cease condoling with you on your being deprived of -your political rights? From their point of view, I would ask what -you could make of such rights if you had them? The capitalists have a -monopoly of legislation;--granted. By means of this monopoly, they have -adjudged themselves a monopoly of iron, of cloth, of textile fabrics, of -coal, of wood, of meat,--granted likewise. But here are your pretended -friends, who tell you that in acting thus, capitalists have impoverished -themselves, without being under any obligation to do so, in order to -enrich you who have no right to be enriched! Assuredly, if you were -electors and deputies tomorrow, you could not manage your affairs better -than they are managed for you; you could not manage them so well. - -If the industrial legislation under which you live is intended for your -profit, it is an act of perfidy to demand for you political rights; for -these new-fashioned democrats never can get quit of this dilemma--the -law made by the bourgeoisie either gives you more, or it gives you less -than your natural wages. If that law gives you less, they deceive you, -in soliciting you to maintain it. If it gives you more, they still -deceive you, by inviting you to demand political rights at the very time -when the bourgeoisie are making sacrifices for you, which, in common -honesty, you could not by your votes exact, even if you had the power. - -Workmen! I should be sorry indeed if this address should excite in your -minds feelings of irritation against the rich. If self-interest, ill -understood, or too apt to be alarmed, still maintains monopoly, let us -not forget that monopoly has its root in errors which are common to both -capitalists and labourers. - -Instead of exciting the one class against the other, let us try to bring -them together. And for that end what ought we to do? If it be true that -the natural social tendencies concur in levelling inequalities among -men, we have only to allow these tendencies to act, remove artificial -obstructions which retard their operation, and allow the relations -of the various classes of society to be established on principles of -Justice--principles always mixed up, in my mind at least, with the -principle of Liberty. - - - - -VII. A CHINESE STORY. - -We hear a great outcry against the cupidity and the egotism of the age! - -For my own part, I see the world, Paris especially, peopled with -Deciuses. - -Open the thousand volumes, the thousand newspapers of all sorts -and sizes, which the Parisian press vomits forth every day on the -country--are they not all the work of minor saints? - -How vividly they depict the vices of the times! How touching the -tenderness they display for the masses! How liberally they invite the -rich to share with the poor, if not the poor to share with the rich! -How many plans of social reforms, social ameliorations, and social -organizations! What shallow writer fails to devote himself to the -wellbeing of the working classes? We have only to contribute a few -shillings to procure them leisure to deliver themselves up to their -humane lucubrations. - -And then they declare against the egotism and individualism of our age! - -There is nothing which they do not pretend to enlist in the service -of the working classes--there is positively no exception, not even -the Customhouse. You fancy, perhaps, that the Customhouse is merely an -instrument of taxation, like the _octroi_ or the toll-bar? Nothing of -the kind. It is essentially an institution for promoting the march of -civilization, fraternity, and equality. What would you be at? It is -the fashion to introduce, or affect to introduce, sentiment and -sentimentalism everywhere, even into the toll-gatherer's booth. - -The Customhouse, we must allow, has a very singular machinery for -realizing philanthropical aspirations. - -It includes an army of directors, sub-directors, inspectors, -sub-inspectors, comptrollers, examiners, heads of departments, clerks, -supernumeraries, aspirant-supernumeraries, not to speak of the officers -of the active service; and the object of all this complicated machinery -is to exercise over the industry of the people a negative action, which -is summed up in the word obstruct. - -Observe, I do not say that the object is to tax, but to obstruct. To -prevent, not acts which are repugnant to good morals or public order, -but transactions which are in themselves not only harmless, but fitted -to maintain peace and union among nations. - -And yet the human race is so flexible and elastic that it always -surmounts these obstructions. And then we hear of the labour market -being glutted. - -If you hinder a people from obtaining its subsistence from abroad, it -will produce it at home. The labour is greater and more painful, but -subsistence must be had. If you hinder a man from traversing the valley, -he must cross the hills. The road is longer and more difficult, but he -must get to his journey's end. - -This is lamentable, but we come now to what is ludicrous. When the law -has thus created obstacles, and when, in order to overcome them, society -has diverted a corresponding amount of labour from other employments, -you are no longer permitted to demand a reform. If you point to the -obstacle, you are told of the amount of labour to which it has given -employment. And if you rejoin that this labour is not created, but -displaced, you are answered, in the words of the _Esprit Public_, "The -impoverishment alone is certain and immediate; as to our enrichment, it -is more than problematical." - -This reminds me of a Chinese story, which I shall relate to you. - -There were in China two large towns, called _Tchin_ and _Tchan_. - -A magnificent canal united them. The Emperor thought fit to order -enormous blocks of stone to be thrown into it, for the purpose of -rendering it useless. - -On seeing this, Kouang, his first mandarin, said to him: - -"Son of Heaven! this is a mistake." - -To which the Emperor replied: - -"Kouang! you talk nonsense." - -I give you only the substance of their conversation. - -At the end of three months, the Celestial Emperor sent again for the -mandarin, and said to him: - -"Kouang, behold!" - -And Kouang opened his eyes, and looked. - -And he saw at some distance from the canal a multitude of men at work. -Some were excavating, others were filling up hollows, levelling, and -paving; and the mandarin, who was very knowing, said to himself, They -are making a highway. - -When other three months had elapsed, the Emperor again sent for Kouang, -and said to him: - -"Look!" - -And Kouang looked. - -And he saw the road completed, and from one end of it to the other he -saw here and there inns for travellers erected. Crowds of pedestrians, -carts, palanquins, came and went, and innumerable Chinese, overcome -with fatigue, carried backwards and forwards heavy burdens from Tchin -to Tchan, and from Tchan to Tchin; and Kouang said to himself, It is the -destruction of the canal which gives employment to these poor people. -But the idea never struck him that their labour was simply _diverted -from other employments_. - -Three months more passed, and the Emperor said to Kouang: "Look!" - -And Kouang looked. - -And he saw that the hostelries were full of travellers, and that to -supply their wants there were grouped around them butchers' and bakers' -stalls, shops for the sale of edible birds' nests, etc. He also saw -that, the artisans having need of clothing, there had settled among them -tailors, shoemakers, and those who sold parasols and fans; and as they -could not sleep in the open air, even in the Celestial Empire, there -were also masons, carpenters, and slaters. Then there were officers of -police, judges, fakirs; in a word, a town with its faubourgs had risen -round each hostelry. - -And the Emperor asked Kouang what he thought of all this. And Kouang -said that he never could have imagined that the destruction of a canal -could have provided employment for so many people; for the thought never -struck him that this was not employment created, but _labour diverted_ -from other employments, and that men would have eaten and drank in -passing along the canal as well as in passing along the highroad. - -However, to the astonishment of the Chinese, the Son of Heaven at length -died and was buried. - -His successor sent for Kouang, and ordered him to have the canal cleared -out and restored. - -And Kouang said to the new Emperor: - -"Son of Heaven! you commit a blunder." - -And the Emperor replied: - -"Kouang, you talk nonsense." - -But Kouang persisted, and said: "Sire, what is your object?" - -"My object is to facilitate the transit of goods and passengers between -Tchin and Tchan, to render carriage less expensive, in order that the -people may have tea and clothing cheaper." - -But Kouang was ready with his answer. He had received the night before -several numbers of the Moniteur Industriel, a Chinese newspaper. Knowing -his lesson well, he asked and obtained permission to reply, and after -having prostrated himself nine times, he said: - -"Sire, your object is, by increased facility of transit, to reduce the -price of articles of consumption, and bring them within reach of the -people; and to effect that, you begin by taking away from them all the -employment to which the destruction of the canal had given rise. Sire, -in political economy, nominal cheapness-" _The Emperor_: "I believe you -are repeating by rote." _Kouang_: "True, Sire; and it will be better to -read what I have to say." So, producing the _Esprit Public_, he read -as follows: "In political economy, the nominal cheapness of articles of -consumption is only a secondary question. The problem is to establish -an equilibrium between the price of labour and that of the means of -subsistence. The abundance of labour constitutes the wealth of nations; -and the best economic system is that which supplies the people with the -greatest amount of employment. The question is not whether it is better -to pay four or eight cash for a cup of tea, or five or ten tales for -a shirt. These are puerilities unworthy of a thinking mind. Nobody -disputes your proposition. The question is whether it is better to pay -dearer for a commodity you want to buy, and have, through the abundance -of employment and the higher price of labour, the means of acquiring it; -or whether, it is better to limit the sources of employment, and with -them the mass of the national production--to transport, by improved -means of transit, the objects of consumption, cheaper, it is true, but -taking away at the same time from classes of our population the means of -purchasing these objects even at their reduced price." - -Seeing the Emperor still unconvinced, Kouang added, "Sire, deign to give -me your attention. I have still another quotation from the _Moniteur -Industriel_ to bring under your notice." - -But the Emperor said: - -"I don't require your Chinese journals to enable me to find out that to -create _obstacles_ is to divert and misapply labour. But that is not my -mission. Go and clear out the canal; and we shall reform the Customhouse -afterwards." - -And Kouang went away tearing his beard, and appealing to his God, "O Fo! -take pity on thy people; for we have now got an Emperor of the English -school, and I see clearly that in a short time we shall be in want of -everything, for we shall no longer require to do anything." - - - - -VIII. POST HOC, ERGO PROPTER HOC. - -This is the greatest and most common fallacy in reasoning. - -Real sufferings, for example, have manifested themselves in England.* - - * This was written in January 1848.--Translator. - -These sufferings come in the train of two other phenomena: - -1st, The reformed tariff; - -2d, Two bad harvests in succession. - -To which of these two last circumstances are we to attribute the first? - -The protectionists exclaim: - -It is this accursed free-trade which does all the harm. It promised us -wonderful things; we accepted it; and here are our manufactures at a -standstill, and the people suffering: _Cum hoc, ergo propter hoc_. - -Free-trade distributes in the most uniform and equitable manner the -fruits which Providence accords to human labour. If we are deprived -of part of these fruits by natural causes, such as a succession of bad -seasons, free-trade does not fail to distribute in the same manner what -remains. Men are, no doubt, not so well provided with what they want; -but are we to impute this to free-trade, or to the bad harvests? - -Liberty acts on the same principle as insurances. When an accident, like -a fire, happens, insurance spreads over a great number of men, and a -great number of years, losses which, in the absence of insurance, would -have fallen all at once upon one individual. But will any one undertake -to affirm that fire has become a greater evil since the introduction of -insurance? - -In 1842, 1843, and 1844, the reduction of taxes began in England. At the -same time the harvests were very abundant; and we are led to conclude -that these two circumstances concurred in producing the unparalleled -prosperity which England enjoyed during that period. - -In 1845, the harvest was bad; and in 1846, worse still. - -Provisions rose in price; and the people were forced to expend their -resources on first necessaries, and to limit their consumption of other -commodities. Clothing was less in demand, manufactories had less work, -and wages tended to fall. - -Fortunately, in that same year, the barriers of restriction were still -more effectually removed, and an enormous quantity of provisions reached -the English market. Had this not been so, it is nearly certain that a -formidable revolution would have taken place. - -And yet free-trade is blamed for disasters which it tended to prevent, -and in part, at least, to repair! - -A poor leper lived in solitude. Whatever he happened to touch, no -one else would touch. Obliged to pine in solitude, he led a miserable -existence. An eminent physician cured him, and now our poor hermit was -admitted to all the benefits of _free-trade, and had full liberty to -effect exchanges_. What brilliant prospects were opened to him! He -delighted in calculating the advantages which, through his restored -intercourse with his fellow-men, he was able to derive from his own -vigorous exertions. He happened to break both his arms, and was landed -in poverty and misery. The journalists who were witnesses of that misery -said, "See to what this liberty of making exchanges has reduced him! -Verily, he was less to be pitied when he lived alone." "What!" said -the physician, "do you make no allowance for his broken arms? Has that -accident nothing to do with his present unhappy state? His misfortune -arises from his having lost the use of his hands, and not from his -having been cured of his leprosy. He would have been a fitter subject -for your compassion had he been lame, and leprous into the bargain." - -_Post hoc, ergo propter hoc_. Beware of that sophism. - - - - -IX. THE PREMIUM THEFT. - -This little book of Sophisms is found to be too theoretical, scientific, -and metaphysical. Be it so. Let us try the effect of a more trivial and -hackneyed, or, if you will, a ruder style. Convinced that the public is -duped in this matter of protection, I have endeavoured to prove it. But -if outcry is preferred to argument, let us vociferate, - - "King Midas has a snout, and asses' ears."* - - * "_Auriculas asini Mida rex habet_."--Persius, sat. i. The - line as given in the text is from Dryden's translation.-- - Translator. - -A burst of plain speaking has more effect frequently than the most -polished circumlocution. You remember Oronte, and the difficulty which -the _Misanthrope_ had in convincing him of his folly.* - -Alceste. On s'expose à jouer un mauvais personnage. - -Oronte. Est-ce que vous voulez me declarer par là que j'ai tort de -vouloir.... - -Alceste. Je ne dis pas cela. - -Mais.... - -Oronte. Est-ce que j'écris mal? - -Alceste. Je ne dis pas cela. - -Mais enfin.... - -Oronte. Mais ne puis-je savoir ce que dans mon sonnet?... - -Alceste. Franchement, il est bon à mettre au Cabinet. - -To speak plainly, Good Public! _you are robbed_. This is speaking -bluntly, but the thing is very evident. (_C'est cru, mais c'est clair_). - -The words _theft, to steal, robbery_, may appear ugly words to many -people. I ask such people, as Harpagon asks Elise,** "Is it the word or -the thing which frightens you?" - - * See Molière's play of The Misanthrope.--Translator. - - ** See Molière's play of Oevare.--Translator. - -"Whoever has possessed himself fraudulently of a thing which does not -belong to him is guilty of theft." (C. Pen., art. 379.) - -To steal: To take by stealth or by force. (_Dictionnaire de -l'Academie_.) - -Thief: He who exacts more than is due to him. (75.) - -Now, does the monopolist, who, by a law of his own making, obliges me to -pay him 20 francs for what I could get elsewhere for 15, not take from -me fraudulently 5 francs which belonged to me? - -Does he not take them by stealth or by force? - -Does he not exact more than is due to him? - -He takes, purloins, exacts, it may be said; but not by stealth or by -force, which are the characteristics of theft. - -When our bulletins de contributions have included in them 5 francs for -the premium which the monopolist takes, exacts, or abstracts, what can -be more stealthy for the unsuspecting? And for those who are not dupes, -and who do suspect, what savours more of force, seeing that on the first -refusal the tax-gather's bailiff is at the door? - -But let monopolists take courage. Premium thefts, tariff thefts, if they -violate equity as much as theft à l'Américaine, do not violate the law; -on the contrary, they are perpetrated according to law; and if they are -worse than common thefts, they do not come under the cognizance of _la -correctionnelle_. - -Besides, right or wrong, we are all robbed or robbers in this business. -The author of this volume might very well cry "Stop thief!" when he -buys; and with equal reason he might have that cry addressed to him when -he sells;* and if he is in a situation different from that of many of -his countrymen, the difference consists in this, that he knows that he -loses more than he gains by the game, and they don't know it. If they -knew it, the game would soon be given up. - - * Possessing some landed property, on which he lives, he - belongs to the protected class. This circumstance should - disarm criticism. It shows that if he uses hard words, they - are directed against the thing itself, and not against men's - intentions or motives. - -Nor do I boast of being the first to give the thing its right name. Adam -Smith said, sixty years ago, that "when manufacturers hold meetings, we -may be sure a plot is hatching against the pockets of the public." Can -we be surprised at this, when the public winks at it? - -Well, then, suppose a meeting of manufacturers deliberating formally, -under the title of _conseils généraux_. What takes place, and what is -resolved upon? - -Here is an abridged report of one of their meetings:-- - -"Shipowner: Our merchant shipping is at the lowest ebb. (Dissent) That -is not to be wondered at. I cannot construct ships without iron. I can -buy it in the market of the world at 10 francs; but by law the French -ironmaster forces me to pay him 15 francs, which takes 5 francs out of -my pocket. I demand liberty to purchase iron wherever I see proper. - -"Ironmaster: In the market of the world I find freights at 20 francs. By -law I am obliged to pay the French shipowner 30; he takes 10 francs out -of my pocket. He robs me, and I rob him; all quite right. - -"Statesman: The shipowner has arrived at a hasty conclusion. Let us -cultivate union as regards that which constitutes our strength. If we -give up a single point of the theory of protection, the whole theory -falls to the ground. - -"Shipowner: For us shipowners protection has been a failure. I repeat -that the merchant marine is at its lowest ebb. - -"Shipmaster: Well, let us raise the _surtaxe_, and let the shipowner who -now exacts 30 francs from the public for his freight, charge 40. - -"A Minister: The government will make all the use they can of the -beautiful mechanism of the _surtaxe_; but I fear that will not be -sufficient. - -"A Government Functionary: You are all very easily frightened. Does the -tariff alone protect you? and do you lay taxation out of account? If -the consumer is kind and benevolent, the taxpayer is not less so. Let -us heap taxes upon him, and the shipowner will be satisfied. I propose -a premium of five francs to be levied from the public taxpayers, to be -handed over to the shipbuilder for each ton of iron he shall employ. - -"Confused voices: Agreed! agreed! An agriculturist: Three francs premium -upon the hectolitre of corn for me! A manufacturer: Two francs premium -on the yard of cloth for me! etc., etc. - -"The President: This then is what we have agreed upon. Our session has -instituted a system of _premiums_, and it will be to our eternal honour. -What branch of industry can possibly henceforth be a loser, since we -have two means, and both so very simple, of converting our losses into -gains--the tariff and the premium? The sitting is adjourned." - -I really think some supernatural vision must have foreshadowed to me in -a dream the near approach of the premium (who knows but I may have -first suggested the idea to M. Dupin?) when six months ago I wrote these -words:-- - -"It appears evident to me that protection, without changing its nature -or the effects which it produces, might take the form of a direct tax, -levied by the state, and distributed in premiums of indemnification -among privileged branches of industry." - -And after comparing a protective duty to a premium, I added, "I confess -candidly my preference for the last system. It seems to me juster, more -economical, and more fair. Juster, because if society desires to make -presents to some of its members, all ought to bear the expense; -more economical, because it would save a great deal in the cost of -collection, and do away with many of the trammels with which trade is -hampered; more fair, because the public would see clearly the nature of -the operation, and act accordingly."* - - * _Sophismes Economiques_, first series, ch. v. _ante_. - -Since the occasion presents itself to us so opportunely, let us study -this system of _plunder by premium_; for all we say of it applies -equally to the system of plunder by tariff; and as the latter is a -little better concealed, the direct may help us to detect and expose -the indirect system of cheating. The mind will thus be led from what is -simple to what is more complicated. - -But it may be asked, Is there not a species of theft which is more -simple still? Undoubtedly; there is _highway robbery_, which wants only -to be legalized, and made a monopoly of, or, in the language of the -present day, _organized_. - -I have been reading what follows in a book of travels:-- - -"When we reached the kingdom of A., all branches of industry declared -themselves in a state of suffering. Agriculture groaned, manufactures -complained, trade murmured, the shipping interest grumbled, and the -government were at a loss what to do. First of all, the idea was to lay -a pretty smart tax on all the malcontents, and afterwards to divide the -proceeds among them after retaining its own quota; this would have been -on the principle of the Spanish lottery. There are a thousand of you, -and the State takes a piastre from each; then by sleight of hand, it -conveys away 250 piastres, and divides the remaining 750 in larger and -smaller proportions among the ticket-holders. The gallant Hidalgo who -gets three-fourths of a piastre, forgetting that he had contributed a -whole piastre, cannot conceal his delight, and rushes off to spend his -fifteen reals at the alehouse. This is very much the same thing as -we see taking place in France. But the government had overrated the -stupidity of the population when it endeavoured to make them accept such -a species of protection, and at length it lighted upon the following -expedient. - -"The country was covered with a network of highroads. The government -had these roads accurately measured; and then it announced to the -agriculturist, 'All that you can steal from travellers between these two -points is yours; let that serve as a _premium_ for your protection and -encouragement.' Afterwards it assigned to each manufacturer, to each -shipowner, a certain portion of road, to be made available for their -profit, according to this formula:-- - - Dono tibi et concedo Virtutem et puissantiam Yolandi, - Pillandi, - Derobandi, - Filoutandi, - Et escroqtîïindi, - Impunè per totam istam Viam." - -Now it has come to pass that the natives of the kingdom of A. have -become so habituated to this system, that they take into account only -what they are enabled to steal, not what is stolen from them, being so -determined to regard pillage only from the standpoint of the thief, that -they look upon the sum total of individual thefts as a national gain, -and refuse to abandon a system of protection, without which they say no -branch of industry could support itself. - -You demur to this. It is not possible, you exclaim, that a whole people -should be led to ascribe a redundancy of wealth to mutual robbery. - -And why not? We see that this conviction pervades France, and that -we are constantly organizing and improving the system of _reciprocal -robbery_ under the respectable names of premiums and protective tariffs. - -We must not, however, be guilty of exaggeration. As regards the mode of -levying, and other collateral circumstances, the system adopted in the -kingdom of A. may be worse than ours; but we must at the same time admit -that, as regards the principle and its necessary consequences, there is -not an atom of difference between these two species of theft; which are -both organized by law for the purpose of supplementing the profits of -particular branches of industry. - -Remark also, that if _highway robbery_ presents some inconveniences in -its actual perpetration, it has likewise some advantages which we do not -find in _robbery by tariff_. - -For example, it is possible to make an equitable division among all the -producers. It is not so in the case of customs duties. The latter are -incapable of protecting certain classes of society, such as artisans, -shopkeepers, men of letters, lawyers, soldiers, labourers, etc. - -It is true that the robbery by premium assumes an infinite number of -shapes, and in this respect is not inferior to highway robbery; but, on -the other hand, it leads frequently to results so whimsical and awkward -that the natives of the kingdom of A. may well laugh at us. - -What the victim of a highway robbery loses, the thief gains, and the -articles stolen remain in the country. But under the system of robbery -by premium, what the tax exacts from the Frenchman is conferred -frequently on the Chinese, on the Hottentots, on the Caffres, etc., and -here is the way in which this takes place: - -A piece of cloth, we shall suppose, is worth 100 francs at Bordeaux. It -cannot be sold below that price without a loss. It is impossible to sell -it above that price because the competition of merchants prevents the -price rising. In these circumstances, if a Frenchman desires to have the -cloth, he must pay 100 francs, or want it. But if it is an Englishman -who wants the cloth, the government steps in, and says to the merchant, -"Sell your cloth, and we will get you 20 francs from the taxpayers." The -merchant who could not get more than 100 francs for his cloth, sells it -to the Englishman for 80. This sum, added to the 20 francs produced by -the premium theft, makes all square. This is exactly the same case as if -the taxpayers had given 20 francs to the Englishmen, upon condition of -his buying French cloth at 20 francs discount, at 20 francs below the -cost of production, at 20 francs below what it has cost ourselves. The -robbery by premium, then, has this peculiarity, that the people robbed -are resident in the country which tolerates it, while the people who -profit by the robbery are scattered over the world. - -Verily, it is marvellous that people should persist in maintaining that -_all which an individual steals from the masses is a general gain_. -Perpetual motion, the philosopher's stone, the quadrature of the circle, -are antiquated problems; but the theory of _progress by plunder_ is -still held in honour. _A priori_, we should have thought that, of all -imaginable puerilities, it was the least likely to survive. - -Some people will say, You are partisans, then, of the _laissez -passer?_--economists of the school of Smith and Say? You do not desire -the organization of labour. Yes, gentlemen, organize labour as much as -you choose, but have the goodness not to organize theft. - -Another, and a more numerous, set keep repeating, premiums, tariffs, all -that has been exaggerated. We should use them without abusing them. A -judicious liberty, combined with a moderate protection, that is -what discreet and practical men desire. Let us steer clear of fixed -principles and inflexible rules. - -This is precisely what the traveller tells us takes place in the kingdom -of A. "Highway robbery," say the sages, "is neither good nor bad in -itself; that depends upon circumstances. All we are concerned with is -to weigh things, and see our functionaries well paid for the work of -weighing. It may be that we have given too great latitude to pillage; -perhaps we have not given enough. Let us examine and balance the -accounts of each man employed in the work of pillage. To those who do -not earn enough, let us assign a larger portion of the road. To those -who gain too much, we must limit the days or months of pillage." - -Those who talk in this way gain a great reputation for moderation, -prudence, and good sense. They never aspire to the highest offices in -the state. - -Those who say, Repress all injustice, whether on a greater or a smaller -scale, suffer no dishonesty, to however small an extent, are marked down -for _idéologues_, idle dreamers, who keep repeating over and over again -the same thing. The people, moreover, find their arguments too clear, -and why should they be expected to believe what is so easily understood? - - - - -X. THE TAXGATHERER. - -Jacques Bonhomme, a Vinedresser. - -M. Lasouche, Taxgatherer. - -L.: You have secured twenty tuns of wine? - -J.: Yes; by dint of my own skill and labour. - -L.: Have the goodness to deliver up to me six of the best. - -J.: Six tuns out of twenty! Good Heaven! you are going to ruin me. And, -please, Sir, for what purpose do you intend them? - -L.: The first will be handed over to the creditors of the State. When -people have debts, the least thing they can do is to pay interest upon -them. - -J.: And what becomes of the capital? - -L.: That is too long a story to tell you at present. One part used to be -converted into cartridges, which emitted the most beautiful smoke in the -world. Another went to pay the men who had got crippled in foreign wars. -Then, when this expenditure brought invasion upon us, our polite friend, -the enemy, was unwilling to take leave of us without carrying away some -of our money as a _soutenir_, and this money had to be borrowed. - -J.: And what benefit do I derive from this now? - -L.: The satisfaction of saying-- - - Que je suis fier d'être Français - Quand je regarde la colonne! - -J.: And the humiliation of leaving to my heirs an estate burdened with -a perpetual rent-charge. Still, it is necessary to pay one's debts, -whatever foolish use is made of the proceeds. So much for the disposal -of one tun; but what about the five others? - -L.: One goes to support the public service, the civil list, the judges -who protect your property when your neighbour wishes wrongfully to -appropriate it, the gendarmes who protect you from robbers when you are -asleep, the cantonnier who maintains the highways, the curé who baptizes -your children, the schoolmaster who educates them, and, lastly, your -humble servant, who cannot be expected to work exactly for nothing. - -J.: All right; service for service is quite fair, and I have nothing to -say against it. I should like quite as well, no doubt, to deal directly -with the rector and the schoolmaster on my own account; but I don't -stand upon that. This accounts for the second tun--but we have still -other four to account for. - -L.: Would you consider two tuns as more than your fair contribution to -the expense of the army and navy? - -J.: Alas! that is a small affair, compared with what the two services -have cost me already, for they have deprived me of two sons whom I -dearly loved. - -L.: It is necessary to maintain the balance of power. - -J.: And would that balance not be quite as well maintained if the -European powers were to reduce their forces by one-half or three --fourths? We should preserve our children and our money. All that is -requisite is to come to a common understanding. - -L.: Yes; but they don't understand one another. - -J.: It is that which fills me with astonishment, for they suffer from it -in common. - -L.: It is partly your own doing, Jacques Bonhomme. - -J.: You are joking, Mr Taxgatherer. Have I any voice in the matter? - -L.: Whom did you vote for as deputy? - -J.: A brave general officer, who will soon be a marshal, if God spares -him. - -L.: And upon what does the gallant general live? - -J.: Upon my six tuns, I should think. - -L.: What would happen to him if he voted a reduction of the army, and of -your contingent? - -J.: Instead of being made a marshal, he would be forced to retire. - -L.: Do you understand now that you have yourself.... - -J.: Let us pass on to the fifth tun, if you please. - -L.: That goes to Algeria. - -J.: To Algeria! And yet they tell us that all the Mussulmans are -wine-haters, barbarians as they are! I have often inquired whether it -is their ignorance of claret which has made them infidels, or their -infidelity which has made them ignorant of claret. And then, what -service do they render me in return for this nectar which has cost me so -much toil? - -L.: None at all; nor is the wine destined for the Mussulman, but for -good Christians who spend their lives in Barbary. - -J.: And what service do they render me? - -L.: They make _razzias_, and suffer from them in their turn; they kill -and are killed; they are seized with dysentery and sent to the hospital; -they make harbours and roads, build villages, and people them with -Maltese, Italians, Spaniards, and Swiss, who live upon your wine; for -another supply of which, I can tell you, I will soon come back to you. - -J.: Good gracious! that is too much. I shall give you a flat refusal A -vinedresser who could be guilty of such folly would be sent to Bicétre. -To make roads over Mount Atlas--good Heavens! when I can scarcely -leave my house for want of roads! To form harbours in Barbary, when the -Garonne is silted up! To carry off my children whom I love, and send -them to torment the Kabyles! To make me pay for houses, seed, and -cattle, to be handed over to Greeks and Maltese, when we have so many -poor people to provide for at home! - -L.: The poor! Just so; they rid the country of the _trop plein_, and -prevent a redundant population. - -J.: And we are to send after them to Algeria the capital on which they -could live at home! - -L.: But then you are laying the foundations of a great empire, you -carry civilization into Africa, thus crowning your country with immortal -glory. - -J.: You are a poet, Mr Taxgatherer. I am a plain vinedresser, and I -refuse your demand. - -L.: But think, that in the course of some thousands of years, your -present advances will be recouped and repaid a hundredfold to your -descendants. The men who direct the enterprise assure us that it will be -so. - -J.: In the meantime, in order to defray the expense, they ask me first -of all for one cask of wine, then for two, then for three, and now I am -taxed by the tun! I persist in my refusal. - -L.: Your refusal comes too late. Your _representative_ has stipulated -for the whole quantity I demand. - -J.: Too true. Cursed weakness on my part! Surely, in making him my -proxy, I was guilty of a piece of folly; for what is there in common -between a general officer and a poor vinedresser? - -L.: Oh, yes; there is something in common, namely, the wine, which he -has voted to himself in your name. - -J.: You may well laugh at me, Mr Taxgatherer, for I richly deserve it. -But be reasonable. Leave me at least the sixth tun. You have already -secured payment of the interest of the debt, and provided for the civil -list and the public service, besides perpetuating the war in Africa. -What more would you have? - -L.: It is needless to higgle with me. Communicate your views to Monsieur -le General, your representative. For the present, he has voted away your -vintage. - -J.: Confound the fellow! But tell me what you intend to make of this -last cask, the best of my whole stock? Stay, taste this wine. How ripe, -mellow, and full-bodied it is! - -L.: Excellent! delicious! It will suit Mons. D., the cloth-manufacturer, -admirably. - -J.: Mons. D., the cloth-manufacturer? What do you mean? - -L.: That he will reap the benefit. - -J.: How? What? I'll be hanged if I understand you! - -L.: Don't you know that Mons. D. has set on foot a grand undertaking, -which will prove most useful to the country, but which, when everything -is taken into account, causes each year a considerable pecuniary loss? - -J.: I am sorry to hear it, but what can I do? - -L.: The Chamber has come to the conclusion that, if this state of things -continues, Mons. D. will be under the necessity of either working -more profitably, or of shutting up his manufacturing establishment -altogether. - -J.: But what have these losing speculations of Mons. D. to do with my -wine? - -L.: The Chamber has found out that, by making over to Mons. D. some wine -taken from your cellar, some corn taken from your neighbour's granaries, -some money kept off the workmen's wages, the losses of that enterprising -patriot may be converted into profits. - -J.: The recipe is as infallible as it is ingenious. But, zounds! -it is awfully iniquitous. Mons. D., forsooth, is to make up his losses -by laying hold of my wine? - -L.: Not exactly of the wine, but of its price. This is what we -denominate _premiums of encouragement_, or bounties. Don't you see the -great service you are rendering to the country? - -J.: You mean to Mons. D.? - -L.: To the country. Mons. D. assures us that his manufacture prospers -in consequence of this arrangement, and in this way he considers the -country is enriched. He said so the other day in the Chamber, of which -he is a member. - -J.: This is a wretched quibble! A speculator enters into a losing trade, -and dissipates his capital; and then he extorts from me and from my -neighbours wine and corn of sufficient value, not only to repair his -losses, but afford him a profit, and this is represented as a gain to -the country at large. - -L.: Your representative having come to this conclusion, you have nothing -more to do but to deliver up to me the six tuns of wine which I demand, -and sell the remaining fourteen tuns to the best advantage. - -J.: That is my business. - -L.: It will be unfortunate if you do not realize a large price - -J.: I will think of it. - -L.: The higher price will enable you to procure more of other things. - -J.: I am aware of that, Sir. - -L.: In the first place, if you purchase iron to renew your ploughs and -your spades, the law decrees that you must pay the ironmaster double -what the commodity is worth. - -J.: Yes, this is very consolatory. - -L.: Then you have need of coal, of butchers' meat, of cloth, of oil, of -wool, of sugar; and for each of these commodities the law makes you pay -double. - -J.: It is horrible, frightful, abominable! - -L.: Why should you indulge in complaints? You yourself, through your -representative... - -J.: Say nothing more of my representative. I am singularly represented, -it is true. But they will not impose upon me a second time. I shall be -represented by a good and honest peasant. - -L.: Bah! you will re-elect the gallant General. - -J.: Shall I re-elect him, to divide my wine among Africans and -manufacturers? - -L.: I tell you, you will re-elect him. - -J,: This is too much. I am free to re-elect him or not, as I choose. - -L.: But you will so choose. - -J.: Let him come forward again, and he will find whom he has to deal -with. - -L.: Well, we shall see. Farewell. I carry away your six tuns of wine, to -be distributed as your friend, the General, has determined. - - - - -XI. THE UTOPIAN FREE-TRADER. - -"If I were but one of His Majesty's ministers!... - -"Well, what would you do?" - -"I should begin by--by--faith, by being very much at a loss. For it is -clear I could only be a minister in consequence of having the majority -in my favour; I could only have the majority in my favour by securing -the popular suffrage; and I could attain that end, honestly at least, -only by governing in accordance with public opinion. If I should attempt -to carry out my own opinions, I should no longer have the majority; and -if I lost the favour of the majority, I should be no longer one of His -Majesty's ministers." - -"But suppose yourself already a minister, and that you experience no -opposition from the majority, what would you do?" - -"I should inquire on what side _justice_ lay." - -"And then?" - -"I should inquire on what side _utility_ lay." - -"And then?" - -"I should inquire whether justice and utility were in harmony, or ran -counter to one another." - -"And if you found they were not in harmony?" - - "Je dirais au roi Philippe: - Reprenez votre portefeuille. - La rime n'est pas riche et le style en est vieux; - Mais ne voyez-vous pas que cela vaut bien mieux, - Que ces transactions dont le bon sens murmure, - Et que l'honnêteté parle là toute pure." - -"But if you found that the just and the useful were one and the same -thing?" - -"Then I should go straight forward." - -"True; but to realize utility by means of justice, a third thing is -needed." - -"What?" - -"Possibility." - -"You granted me that." - -"When?" - -"Just now." - -"How?" - -"In assuming that I had the majority on my side." - -"A most dangerous concession, I fear; for it implies that the majority -see clearly what is just, see clearly what is useful, and see clearly -that both are in perfect harmony." - -"And if they see clearly all this, good results will work themselves -out, so to speak, of their own accord." - -"You always bring me back to this, that no reform is possible apart from -the progress of general intelligence." - -"Assuming this progress, every needed reform will infallibly follow." - -"True; but this presupposed progress is a work of time. Suppose it -accomplished, what would you do? I am anxious to see you actually and -practically at work." - -"I should begin by reducing the rate of postage to a penny." - -"I have heard you speak of a halfpenny."* - - * See chap. xii. of _Sophismes_, second series, _post_. - -"Yes, but as I have other reforms in view, I should proceed prudently, -in the first instance, to avoid any risk of a deficit." - -"Fine prudence, to be sure! You have already landed yourself in a -deficit of 30 millions of francs." - -"Then I should reduce the salt-tax to 10 francs." - -"Good. Then you land yourself in a deficit of other thirty millions. You -have doubtless invented a new tax?" - -"Heaven forbid! And besides, I do not flatter myself with possessing an -inventive genius." - -"It will be very necessary, however.... Ah! I see. What was I thinking -of? You intend simply to reduce the expenditure. I did not think of -that." - -"You are not singular. I shall come to that; but for the present, that -is not the resource on which I depend." - -"What! you are to diminish the revenue without reducing the expenditure, -and withal avoid a deficit!" - -"Yes; by diminishing other taxes at the same time." - -(Here the interlocutor, raising the forefinger of the right hand to his -forehead, tossed his head, as if beating about for ideas.) - -"By my faith! a most ingenious process. I pay over 100 francs to the -Treasury; you relieve me to the extent of 5 francs upon salt, and 5 -francs upon postages; and in order that the Treasury may still receive -100 francs, you relieve me to the extent of 10 francs on some other -tax." - -"Exactly; I see you understand what I mean." - -"The thing seems so strange that I am not quite sure that I even heard -you distinctly." - -"I repeat, I balance one _dégrèvement_ by another." - -"Well, I happen to have a few minutes to spare, and I should like much -to hear you explain this paradox." - -"Here is the whole mystery. I know a tax which costs the taxpayer 20 -francs, and of which not one farthing ever reaches the Treasury. I -relieve you of one-half, and I see that the other half finds its way to -the _Hôtel des Finances_." - -"Truly you are an unrivalled financier. And what tax, pray, do I pay -which does not reach the Treasury?" - -"How much does this coat cost you?" - -"100 francs." - -"And if you procured the cloth from Verviers, how much would it cost -you?" - -"80 francs." - -"Why, then, did you not order it from Verviers?" - -"Because that is forbidden." - -"And why is it forbidden?" - -"In order that the coat may cost 100 instead of 80 francs." - -"This prohibition, then, costs you 20 francs." - -"Undoubtedly." - -"And where do these 20 francs go to?" - -"Where should they go to, but into the pocket of the -cloth-manufacturer?" - -"Well, then, give me 10 francs for the Treasury, I will abrogate the -prohibition, and you will still be a gainer of 10 francs." - -"Oh! I begin to follow you. The account with the Treasury will then -stand thus: The revenue loses 5 francs upon salt, and 5 upon postages, -and gains 10 francs upon cloth. The one balances the other." - -"And your own account stands thus: You gain 5 francs upon salt, 5 francs -upon postages, and 10 francs upon cloth." - -"Total, 20 francs. I like your plan; but what comes of the poor -cloth-manufacturer?" - -"Oh! I have not lost sight of him. I manage to give him compensation -likewise by means of _dégrèvements_ which are profitable to the revenue; -and what I have done for you as regards cloth, I do for him as regards -wool, coals, machinery, etc., so that he is enabled to reduce his price -without being a loser." - -"But are you sure that the one will balance the other?" - -"The balance will be in his favour. The 20 francs which I enable you to -gain upon cloth, will be augmented by the amount I enable you to save -upon corn, meat, fuel, etc. This will amount to a large sum; and -a similar saving will be realized by each of your 35 millions of -fellow-countrymen. In this way, you will find the means of consuming -all the cloth produced at Verviers and Elbeuf. The nation will be better -clothed; that is all." - -"I shall think over it; for all this, I confess, confuses my head -somewhat." - -"After all, as regards clothing, the main consideration is to -be clothed. Your limbs are your own, and not the property of the -manufacturer. To protect them from the cold is your business and not -his! If the law takes his part against you, the law is unjust; and we -have been reasoning hitherto on the hypothesis that what is unjust is -injurious." - -"Perhaps I make too free with you; but I beg you to complete the -explanation of your financial plan." - -"I shall have a new law of Customs." - -"In two volumes folio?" - -"No, in two articles." - -"For once, then, we may dispense with repeating the famous axiom, 'No -one is supposed to be ignorant of the law'--_Nul n'est cerné ignorer la -loi_; which is a fiction. Let us see, then, your proposed tariff." - -"Here it is: - -"'Art. 1st.--All imported merchandise shall pay a duty of 5 per cent. -_ad valorem_.'" - -"Even raw materials?" - -"Except those which are destitute of value." - -"But they are all possessed of value, less or more." - -"In that case they must pay duty, less or more." - -"How do you suppose that our manufacturers can compete with foreign -manufacturers who have their raw materials free?" - -"The expenditure of the State being given, if we shut up this source of -revenue, we must open another. That will not do away with the relative -inferiority of our manufactures, and we shall have an additional staff -of officials to create and to pay for." - -"True. I reason as if the problem were to do away with taxation, and not -to substitute one tax for another. I shall think over it. What is your -second article?" - -"'Art. 2d.--All merchandise exported shall pay a duty of 5 per cent, _ad -valorem_.'" - -"Good gracious! Monsieur l'Utopiste. You are going to get yourself -pelted, and, if necessary, I myself will cast the first stone." - -"We have taken for granted that the majority are enlightened." - -"Enlightened! Can you maintain that export duties will not be onerous?" - -"All taxes are onerous; but this will be less so than others." - -"The carnival justifies many eccentricities. Please to render plausible, -if that be possible, this new paradox." - -"How much do you pay for this wine?" - -"One franc the litre." - -"How much would you have paid for it outside the barrier?" - -"Half a franc." - -"What is the reason of this difference?" - -"Ask the octroi, which has imposed a tax of half a franc upon it." - -"And who established the octroi?" - -"The Commune of Paris, to enable them to pave and light the streets." - -"It resolves itself, then, into an import duty. But if the neighbouring -communes had erected the octroi for their profit, what would have been -the consequence?" - -"I should not the less have paid one franc for wine worth half a franc, -and the other half franc would have gone to pave and light Montmartre -and the Batignoles." - -"So that, in effect, it is the consumer who pays the tax." - -"That is beyond all doubt." - -"Then, in imposing an export duty, you make the foreigner contribute to -your expenditure." - -"Pardon me, that is _unjust_." - -"Why? Before any commodity can be produced in a country, we must -presuppose as existing in that country education, security, roads, which -are all things that cost money. Why then should not the foreigner -bear the charges necessary to the production of the commodity of which -ultimately he is the consumer?" - -"That is contrary to received ideas." - -"Not in the least. The last buyer must bear the whole cost of -production, direct and indirect." - -"It is in vain that you argue on this subject. It is self-evident that -such a measure would paralyze trade, and shut all markets against us." - -"This is a mistake. If you paid this tax over and above all others, you -might be right. But if the 100 millions levied by this means relieved -the taxpayer to a corresponding extent of other burdens, you would -reappear in the foreign market with all your advantages, and even -with greater advantages, if this tax shall have given rise to less -complication and expense." - -"I shall think over it. And now that we have put salt, postages, and -customs duties on a new footing, does this end your projected reform?" - -"On the contrary, we are only beginning." - -"Pray give me some account of your other utopian schemes." - -"We have already given up 60 millions of francs on salt and postages. -The Customhouse affords compensation, but it gives also something far -more precious." - -"And what is that, if you please?" - -"International relations founded on justice, and a probability of peace -nearly equal to a certainty. I disband the army." - -"The whole army?" - -"Excepting the special arms, which will be recruited voluntarily like -all other professions. You thus see the conscription abolished." - -"Be pleased, Sir, to use the word recruitment." - -"Ah! I had forgotten; how easy it is in some countries to perpetuate and -hand down the most unpopular things by changing their names!" - -"Thus, _droits réunis_ have become _contributions indirectes_." - -"And _gendarmes_ have taken the name of _gardes municipaux_." - -"In short, you would disarm the country on the faith of a utopian -theory." - -"I said that I should disband the army--not that I would disarm the -country. On the contrary, I intend to give it invincible force." - -"And how can you give consistency to this mass of contradictions?" - -"I should call upon all citizens to take part in the service." - -"It would be well worth while to dispense with the services of some of -them, in order to enrol all." - -"You surely have not made me a minister in order to leave things as -they are. On my accession to power, I should say, like Richelieu, 'State -maxims are changed.' And my first maxim, the one I should employ as the -basis of my administration, would be this: Every citizen must prepare -for two things--to provide for his own subsistence, and to defend his -country." - -"It appears to me, at first sight, that there is some show of common -sense in what you say." - -"Consequently, I should base the law of national defence on these two -enactments: - -"'Art. 1st.--Every able-bodied citizen shall remain _sous les drapeaux_ -for four years--namely, from 21 to 25--for the purpose of receiving -military instruction.'" - -"A fine economy, truly! You disband four hundred thousand soldiers to -create ten millions." - -"Listen to my second article: - -"'Art. 2d.--Unless it is proved that at 21 years of age he knows -perfectly the platoon drill.'" - -"Nor do I stop here. It is certain that in order to get quit of four -years' service, there would be a terrible emulation among our youth to -learn the _par le flanc droit and the charge en douze temps_. The idea -is whimsical." - -"It is better than that. For without bringing families to grief, without -encroaching on equality, would it not secure to the country, in a simple -and inexpensive manner, 10 millions of defenders capable of setting at -defiance all the standing armies of the world?" - -"Really, if I were not on my guard, I should end with taking a serious -interest in your conceits." - -_Utopian free-trader getting excited_. "Thank Heaven! here is my Budget -relieved of 200 millions. I suppress the octroi. I remodel indirect -contributions. I..." - -"Oh! Monsieur l'Utopiste!" - -_Utopian free-trader getting more and more excited_. "I should proclaim -freedom of worship, freedom of teaching, and new resources. I would buy -up the railways, pay off the public debtr and starve out stockjobbers." - -"Monsieur l'Utopiste!" - -"Set free from a multiplicity of cares, I should concentrate all -the powers of government in the repression of fraud, and in the -administration of prompt and cheap justice; I.... - -"Monsieur l'Utopiste, you undertake too many things; the nation will not -support you!" - -"You have granted me a majority." - -"I withdraw it." - -"Be it so. Then I am no longer a minister, and my projects will continue -to be what they were--_Utopias_." - - - - -XII. THE SALT-TAX, RATES OF POSTAGE, AND CUSTOMHOUSE DUTIES. - -We expected some time ago to see our representative machinery produce -an article quite new, the manufacture of which had not as yet been -attempted--namely, _the relief of the taxpayer_. - -All was expectation. The experiment was interesting, as well as new. The -motion of the machine disturbed nobody. In this respect, its performance -was admirable, no matter at what time, in what place, or under what -circumstances it was set agoing. - -But as regarded those reforms which were to simplify, equalize, and -lighten the public burdens, no one has yet been able to find out what -has been accomplished. - -It was said: You shall soon see; wait a little; this popular result -involves the labours of four sessions. The year 1842 gave us railways; -1846 is to give us the reduction of the salt-tax and of the rates of -postage; in 1850 we are to have a reformation of the tariff and of -indirect taxation. The fourth session is to be the jubilee of the -taxpayer. - -Men were full of hope, for everything seemed to favour the experiment. -The _Moniteur_ had announced that the revenue would go on increasing -every quarter, and what better use could be made of these unlooked-for -returns than to give the villager a little more salt to his _eau tiede_, -and an additional letter now and then from the battle-field, where his -son was risking his life? - -But what has happened? Like the two preparations of sugar which are said -to hinder each other from crystallizing, or the Kilkenny cats, which -fought so desperately that nothing remained of them but their tails, the -two promised reforms have swallowed up each other. Nothing remains of -them but the tails; that is to say, we have _projets de lois, exposés -des motifs_, reports, statistical returns, and schedules, in which we -have the comfort of seeing our sufferings philanthropically appreciated -and homeopathically reckoned up. But as to the reforms themselves, they -have not crystallized. Nothing has come out of the crucible, and the -experiment has been a failure. - -The chemists will by-and-by come before the jury and explain the causes -of the breakdown. - -One will say, "I proposed a postal reform; but the Chamber wished first -of all to rid us of the salt-tax, and I gave it up." - -Another will say, "I voted for doing away with the salt-tax, but the -Minister had proposed a postal reform, and my vote went for nothing." - -And the jury, finding these reasons satisfactory, will begin the -experiment of new on the same data, and remit the work to the same -chemists. - -This proves that it would be well for us, notwithstanding the sources -from which it is derived, to adopt the practice introduced half a -century ago on the other side of the Channel, of prosecuting only one -reform at a time. It is slow, it is wearisome; but it leads to some -result. - -Here we have a dozen reforms on the anvil at the same time. They hustle -one another, like the ghosts at the Gate of Oblivion, where no one -enters. - - "Ohimè! che lasso Î - Una a la volta, per carità." - -Here is what Jacques Bonhomme said, in a dialogue with John Bull, and it -is worth being reported:-- - -Jacques Bonhomme, John Bull. - -Jacques Bonhomme: Oh! who will deliver me from this hurricane of -reforms? My head is in a whirl. A new one seems to be invented every -day: university reform, financial reform, sanitary reform, parliamentary -reform, electoral reform, commercial reform, social reform, and, last of -all, comes postal reform! - -John Bull: As regards the last, it is so easy and so useful, as we have -found by experience, that I venture to give you some advice upon the -subject. - -Jacques: We are told that postal reform has turned out ill in England, -and that the Exchequer has lost half a million. - -John: And has benefited the public by ten times that sum. - -Jacques: No doubt of that. - -John: We have every sign by which the public satisfaction can be -testified. The nation, following the lead of Sir Robert Peel and -Lord John Russell, have given Rowland Hill, in true British fashion, -substantial marks of the public gratitude. Even the poorer classes -testify their satisfaction by sealing their letters with wafers bearing -this inscription: "Public gratitude for postal reform." The leaders -of the Anti-Corn-Law League have proclaimed aloud in their place in -Parliament that without cheap postage thirty years would have been -required to accomplish their great undertaking, which had for object the -removal of duties on the food of the poor. The officers of the Board of -Trade have declared it unfortunate that the English coin does not admit -of a still greater reduction! What more proofs would you have? - -Jacques: But the Treasury? - -John: Do not the Treasury and the public sail in the same boat? - -Jacques: Not quite. And then, is it quite clear that our postal system -has need to be reformed? - -John: That is the question. Let us see how matters now stand. What is -done with the letters that are put into the post-office? - -Jacques: The routine is very simple. The postmaster opens the letter-box -at a certain hour, and takes out of it, say, a hundred letters. - -John: And then? - -Jacques: Then he inspects them one by one. With a geographical table -before him, and a letter-weigher in his hand, he assigns each letter to -its proper category, according to weight and distance. There are only -eleven postal zones or districts, and as many degrees of weight. - -John: That constitutes simply 121 combinations for each letter. - -Jacques: Yes; and we must double that number, because the letter may, or -may not, belong to the _service rural_. - -John: There are, then, 24,200 things to be inquired into with reference -to every hundred letters. And how does the postmaster then proceed? - -Jacques: He marks the weight on one corner of the letter, and the -postage in the middle of the address, by a hieroglyphic agreed upon at -headquarters. - -John: And then? - -Jacques: He stamps the letters, and arranges them in ten parcels -corresponding with the other post-offices with which he is in -communication. He adds up the total postages of the ten parcels. - -John: And then? - -Jacques: Then he enters the ten sums in a register, with counterfoils. - -John: And then? - -Jacques: Then he writes a letter to each of his ten correspondent -postmasters, telling them with what sums he debits them. - -John: And if the letters are prepaid? - -Jacques: Then, I grant you, the service becomes somewhat complicated. -He must in that case receive the letter, weigh it, and consign it to its -proper category as before, receive payment and give change, select the -appropriate stamp among thirty others, mark on the letter its number, -weight, and postage; transcribe the full address, first in one register, -then in a second, then in a third, then on a detached slip; wrap up the -letter in the slip; send the whole, well secured by a string, to the -correspondent postmaster; and enter each of these details in a -dozen columns, selected from fifty other columns, which indicate the -letter-bag in which prepaid letters are put. - -John: And all this for forty centimes (4d.)! - -Jacques: Yes, on an average. - -John: I see now that the despatch of letters is simple enough. Let us -see now what takes place on their arrival. - -Jacques: The postmaster opens the post-bag. - -John: And then? - -Jacques: He reads the ten invoices of his correspondents. - -John: And after that? - -Jacques: He compares the totals of the invoices with the totals brought -out by each of the ten parcels of letters. - -John: And after that? - -Jacques: He brings the whole to a grand total to find out with what sum, -_en bloc_, he is to debit each letter-carrier. - -John: And after that? - -Jacques: After that, with a table of distances and letter-weigher in -hand, he verifies or rectifies the postage of each letter. - -John: And after that? - -Jacques: He enters in register after register, and in column after -column, the greater or less results he has found. - -John: And after that? - -Jacques: He puts himself in communication with the ten postmasters, his -correspondents, to advise them of errors of 10 or 20 centimes (a penny -or twopence). - -John: And then? - -Jacques: He collects and arranges all the letters he has received, to -hand them to the postman. - -John: And after that? - -Jacques: He states the total postages that each postman is charged with. - -John: And after that? - -Jacques: The postman verifies, or discusses, the signification of the -hieroglyphics. The postman finally advances the amount, and sets out. - -John: Go on. - -Jacques: The postman goes to the party to whom a letter is addressed, -and knocks at the door. A servant opens. There are six letters for -that address. The postages are added up, separately at first, then -altogether. They amount to 2 francs 70 centimes (2s. 3d.). - -John: Go on. - -Jacques: The servant goes in search of his master. The latter proceeds -to verify the hieroglyphics. He mistakes the threes for twos and the -nines for fours. He has doubts about the weights and distances. In -short, he has to ask the postman to walk upstairs, and on the way he -tries to find out the signatures of the letters, thinking it may be -prudent to refuse some of them. - -John: Go on. - -Jacques: The postman when he has got upstairs pleads the cause of -the post-office. They argue, they examine, they weigh, they calculate -distances--at length the party agrees to receive five of the letters, -and refuses one. - -John: Go on. - -Jacques: What remains is to pay the postage. The servant is sent to the -grocer for change. After a delay of twenty minutes he returns, and -the postman is at length set free, and rushes from door to door, to go -through the same ceremony at each. - -John: Go on. - -Jacques: He returns to the post-office. He counts and recounts with the -postmaster. He returns the letters refused, and gets repayment of -his advances for these. He reports the objections of the parties with -reference to weight and distance. - -John: Go on. - -Jacques: The postmaster has to refer to the registers, letter-bags, and -special slips, in order to make up an account of the letters which have -been refused. - -John: Go on, if you please. - -Jacques: I am thankful I am not a postmaster. We now come to accounts in -dozens and scores at the end of the month; to contrivances invented not -only to establish, but to check and control a minute responsibility, -involving a total of 50 millions of francs, made up of postages -amounting on an average to 43 centimes each (less than 4d.), and of -116 millions of letters, each of which may belong to one or other of 242 -categories. - -John: A very complicated simplicity truly! The man who has resolved this -problem must have a hundred times more genius than your Mons. Piron or -our Rowland Hill. - -Jacques: Well, you seem to laugh at our system. Would you explain yours -to me? - -John: In England, the government causes to be sold all over the country, -wherever it is judged useful, stamps, envelopes, and covers at a penny -apiece. - -Jacques: And after that? - -John: You write your letter, fold it, put it in the envelope, and throw -it into the post-office. - -Jacques: And after that? - -John: "After that"--why, that is the whole affair. We have nothing to do -with distances, bulletins, registers, control, or accounting; we have -no money to give or to receive, and no concern with hieroglyphics, -discussions, interpretations, etc., etc. - -Jacques: Truly this is very simple. But is it not too much so? An infant -might understand it. But such reforms as you describe stifle the genius -of great administrators. For my own part, I stick to the French mode -of going to work. And then your _uniform rate_ has the greatest of all -faults. It is unjust. - -John: How so? - -Jacques: Because it is unjust to charge as much for a letter addressed -to the immediate neighbourhood, as for one which you carry three hundred -miles. - -John: At all events you will allow that the injustice goes no further -than to the extent of a penny. - -Jacques: No matter--it is still injustice. - -John: Besides, the injustice, which at the outside cannot extend beyond -a penny in any particular case, disappears when you take into account -the entire correspondence of any individual citizen who sends his -letters sometimes to a great distance and sometimes to places in the -immediate vicinity. - -Jacques: I adhere to my opinion. The injustice is lessened--infinitely -lessened, if you will; it is inappreciable, infinitesimal, homoeopathic; -but it exists. - -John: Does your government make you pay dearer for an ounce of tobacco -which you buy in the Rue de Clichy than for the same quantity retailed -on the Quai d'Orsay? - -Jacques: What connexion is there between the two subjects of comparison? - -John: In the one case as in the other, the cost of transport must be -taken into account. Mathematically, it would be just that each pinch of -snuff should be dearer in the Rue de Clichy than on the Quai d'Orsay by -the millionth part of a farthing. - -Jacques: True; I don't dispute that it may be so. - -John: Let me add, that your postal system is just only in appearance. -Two houses stand side by side, but one of them happens to be within, -and the other just outside, the zone or postal district. The one pays a -penny more than the other, just equal to the entire postage in England. -You see, then, that with you injustice is committed on a much greater -scale than with us. - -Jacques: That is so. My objection does not amount to much; but the loss -of revenue still remains to be taken into account. - -Here I ceased to listen to the two interlocutors. It turned out, -however, that Jacques Bonhomme was entirely converted; for some days -afterwards, the Report of M. Vuitry having made its appearance, Jacques -wrote the following letter to that honourable legislator:-- - -"J. Bonhomme to M. de Vuitry, Deputy, Reporter of the Commission charged -to examine the _projet de loi_ relative to the Postage of Letters. - -"Monsieur,--Although I am not ignorant of the extreme discredit into -which one falls by making oneself the advocate of an absolute theory, I -think it my duty not to abandon the cause of a uniform rate of postage, -reduced to simple remuneration for the service actually rendered. - -"My addressing myself to you will no doubt be regarded as a good joke. -On the one side appears a heated brain, a closet-reformer, who talks -of overturning an entire system all at once and without any gradual -transition; a dreamer, who has never, perhaps, cast his eye on that mass -of laws, ordinances, tables, schedules, and statistical details which -accompany your report,--in a word, a theorist. On the other appears a -grave, prudent, moderate-minded legislator, who has weighed, compared, -and shown due respect for the various interests involved, who has -rejected all systems, or, which comes to the same thing, has constructed -a system of his own, borrowed from all the others. The issue of such a -struggle cannot be doubtful. - -"Nevertheless, as long as the question is pending, every one has a right -to state his opinions. I know that mine are sufficiently decided to -expose me to ridicule. All I can expect from the reader of this letter -is not to throw ridicule away (if, indeed, there be room for ridicule), -before, in place of after, having heard my reasons. - -"For I, too, can appeal to experience. A great people has made the -experiment. What has been the result? We cannot deny that that people is -knowing in such matters, and that its opinion is entitled to weight. - -"Very well, there is not a man in England whose voice is not in favour -of postal reform. Witness the subscription which has been opened for a -testimonial to Mr Rowland Hill. Witness the manner in which John Bull -testifies his gratitude. Witness the oft-repeated declaration of the -Anti-Corn-Law League: - -'Without the penny postage we should never have had developed that -public opinion which has overturned the system of protection." All -this is confirmed by what we read in a work emanating from an official -source:-- - -"' The rates of postage should be regulated, not with a view to revenue, -but for the sole purpose of covering the expense.' - -"To which Mr Macgregor adds:-- - -"'It is true that the rate having come down to our smallest coin, we -cannot lower it further, although it does yield some revenue. But this -source of revenue, which will go on constantly increasing, must be -employed to improve the service, and to develop our system of mail -steamers all over the world.' - -"This brings me to examine the leading idea of the commission, which -is, on the other hand, that the rate of postage should be a source of -revenue to government. - -"This idea runs through your entire report, and I allow that, under -the influence of this prejudice, you could arrive at nothing great or -comprehensive, and you are fortunate if, in trying to reconcile the two -systems, you have not fallen into the errors and drawbacks of both. - -"The first question we have to consider is this: Is the correspondence -which passes between individual citizens a proper subject of taxation? - -"I shall not fall back on abstract principles, or remind you that the -very essence of society being the communication of ideas, the object -of every government, should be to facilitate and not impede this -communication. - -"Let us look to actual facts. - -"The total length of our highways and departmental and country roads -extends to a million of kilomètres (625,000 miles). Supposing that each -has cost 100,000 francs (£4000), this makes a capital of 100 milliards -(£4,000,000,000) expended by the State to facilitate the transport of -passengers and goods. - -"Now, put the question, if one of your honourable colleagues asked leave -of the Chamber to bring in a bill thus conceived: - -"'From and after 1st January next, the Government will levy upon all -travellers a tax sufficient not only to cover the expense of maintaining -the highways, but to bring back to the Exchequer four or five times the -amount of that expense.... - -"Would you not feel such a proposal to be anti-social and monstrous? - -"How is it that this consideration of profits, nay, of simple -remuneration, never presents itself to our minds when the question -regards the circulation of commodities, and yet appears so natural when -the question regards the circulation of ideas? - -"Perhaps it is the result of habit. If we had a postal system to create, -it would most assuredly appear monstrous to establish it on a principle -of revenue. - -"And yet remark that oppression is more glaring in this case than in the -other. - -"When Government has opened a new road it forces no one to make use of -it (It would do so undoubtedly if the use of the road were taxed.) But -while the Post-office regulations continue to be enforced, no one can -send a letter through any other channel, were it to his own mother. - -"The rate of postage, then, in principle, ought to be remunerative, and, -for the same reason, uniform. - -"If we set out with this idea, what marvellous beauty, facility, and -simplicity does not the reform I am advocating present! - -"Here is the whole thing nearly put into the form of a law. - -"'Article 1. From and after 1st January next there will be exposed to -sale, in every place where the Government judges it expedient, stamped -envelopes and covers, at the price of a halfpenny or a penny. - -"'2. Every letter put into one of these envelopes, and not exceeding the -weight of half an ounce, every newspaper or print put into one of these -covers, and not exceeding the weight of... will be transmitted, and -delivered without cost at its address. - -"'3. All Post-office accounting is entirely suppressed. - -"'4. All pains and penalties with reference to the conveyance of letters -are abolished.' - -"That is very simple, I admit--much too simple; and I anticipate a host -of objections. - -"That the system I propose may be attended with drawbacks is not the -question; but whether yours is not attended with more. - -"In sober earnest, can the two (except as regards revenue) be put in -comparison for a moment? - -"Examine both. Compare them as regards facility, convenience, despatch, -simplicity, order, economy, justice, equality, multiplication of -transactions, public satisfaction, moral and intellectual development, -civilizing tendency; and tell me honestly if it is possible to hesitate -a moment. - -"I shall not stop to enlarge on each of these considerations--I give you -the headings of twelve chapters, which I leave blank, persuaded that no -one can fill them up better than yourself. - -"But since there is one objection--namely, revenue--I must say a word on -that head. - -"You have constructed a table in order to show that even at twopence the -revenue would suffer a loss of £880,000. - -"At a penny, the loss Would be £1,120,000, and at a halfpenny, of -£1,320,000; hypotheses so frightful that you do not even formulate them -in detail. - -"But allow me to say that the figures in your report dance about with a -little too much freedom. In all your tables, in all your calculations, -you have the tacit reservation of _coteris paribus_. You assume that the -cost will be the same under a simple as under a complicated system of -administration--the same number of letters with the present average -postage of 4 1/2d. as with the uniform rate of twopence. You confine -yourself to this rule of three: if 87 millions of letters at 4d. yield -so much, then at 2d. the same number will yield so much; admitting, -nevertheless, certain distinctions when they militate against our -proposed reform. - -"In order to estimate the real sacrifice of revenue, we must, first of -all, calculate the economy in the service which will be effected; then -in what proportion the amount of correspondence will be augmented. We -take this last datum solely into account, because we cannot suppose -that the saving of cost which will be realized will not be met by an -increased personnel rendered necessary by a more extended service. - -"Undoubtedly, it is impossible to fix the exact amount of increase in -the circulation of letters which the reduction of postage would cause, -but in such matters a reasonable analogy has always been admitted. - -"You yourself admit that in England a reduction of seven-eighths in the -rate has caused an increase of correspondence to the extent of 360 per -cent. - -"Here, the lowering to 5 centimes (a halfpenny) of the rate which is at -present at an average of something less than 4 1/2d., would constitute -likewise a reduction of seven-eighths. We may therefore be allowed to -expect the same result--that is to say, 417 millions of letters, in -place of 116 millions. - -"But let us count on 300 millions. - -"Is there any exaggeration in assuming that with a rate of postage one -half less, we shall reach an average of 8 letters to each inhabitant -when in England they have reached 13. - -Now 300 millions of letters, at 5 centimes, give, 15 - -100 millions of journals and prints, at 5 centimes, give 5 - -The present expense (which may diminish) is. - -31 Deducting for mail steamers,....5 - -There remains for despatches, travellers, and money parcels,....26 - -Net product,......2 - -At present the net product is.....19 - -"Now I ask whether the Government, which makes a positive sacrifice -of 800 millions (£32,000,000) per annum in order to facilitate the -gratuitous transport of passengers, should not make a negative sacrifice -of 17 millions, in order not to make a gain upon the transmission and -circulation of ideas? - -"But the Treasury, I am aware, has its own habits, and with whatever -complacence it sees its receipts increase, it feels proportional -disappointment in seeing them diminished by a single farthing. It seems -to be provided with those admirable valves which in the human frame -allow the blood to flow in one direction, but prevent its return. Be it -so. The Treasury is perhaps a little too old for us to quicken its pace. -We have no hope, therefore, that it will give in to us. But what will -be said if I, Jacques Bonhomme, show it a way which is simple, easy, -convenient, and essentially practical, of doing a great service to the -country without its costing a single farthing? - -"The Post-office yields a gross return to the Treasury of.....50 -millions - -Total yield of these three services, 280 millions. - -"Now, bring down postages to the uniform rate of 5 centimes (a -halfpenny). - -"Lower the salt-tax to 10 francs (8s.) the hundredweight, as the Chamber -has already voted. - -"Give me power to modify the customs tariff in such a way that I shall -be peremptorily prohibited from increasing any duty, but that I may -lower duties at pleasure. - -"And I, Jacques Bonhomme, guarantee you a revenue, not of 280 millions, -but of 300 millions. Two hundred French bankers will be my sureties, -and all I ask for my reward is as much as these three taxes will produce -over and above 300 millions. - -"Is it necessary for me to enumerate the advantages of my proposal? - -"1. The people will receive all the advantage resulting from cheapness -in the price of an article of the first necessity--salt. - -"2. Fathers will be able to write to their sons, and mothers to their -daughters. Nor will men's affections and sentiments, and the endearments -of love and friendship, be stemmed and driven back into their hearts, as -at present, by the hand of the tax-gatherer. - -"3. To carry a letter from one friend to another will no longer be -inscribed in our code as a crime. - -"4. Trade will revive with liberty, and our merchant shipping will -recover from its humiliation. - -"5. The Treasury will gain at first twenty millions, afterwards it will -gain all that shall accrue to the revenue from other sources through the -saving realized by each citizen on salt, postages, and other things, the -duties on which have been lowered. - -"If my proposal is rejected, what am I to conclude? Provided the bankers -I represent offer sufficient security, under what pretext can my -proposal be refused acceptance? It is impossible to invoke the -equilibrium of budgets. It would indeed be upset, but upset in such a -way that the receipts should exceed the expenses. This is no affair of -theory, of system, of statistics, of probability, of conjecture; it is -an offer, an offer like that of a company which solicits the concession -of a line of railway. The Treasury tells me what it derives from -postages, salt-tax, and customs. I offer to give it more. The objection, -then, cannot come from the Treasury. I offer to reduce the tariff of -salt, postages, and customs; I engage not to raise it; the objection, -then, cannot come from the taxpayers. From whom does it come, then? -From monopolists? It remains to be seen whether their voice shall be -permitted in France to drown the voice of the Government and the people. -To assure us of this, I beg you to transmit my proposal to the Council -of Ministers. Jacques Bonhomme. - -"P.S.--Here is the text of my offer:-- - -"I, Jacques Bonhomme, representing a company of bankers and capitalists, -ready to give all guarantees and deposit whatever security may be -necessary. - -"Having learnt that the Government derives only 280 millions of francs -from customs duties, postages, and salt-tax, by means of the duties at -present fixed; - -"I offer to give the Government 300 millions from the gross produce of -these three sources of revenue; - -"And this while reducing the salt-tax from 30fr. to l0fr.; - -"Reducing the rate of postage from 42 1/2 centimes, at an average, to a -uniform rate of from 5 to 10 centimes, - -"On the single condition that I am permitted not to raise (which will -be formally prohibited), but to lower as much as I please the duties of -customs. Jacques Bonhomme." - -"You are a fool," said I to Jacques Bonhomme, when he read me his -letter. "You can do nothing with moderation. The other day you cried out -against the hurricane of reforms, and here I find you demanding three, -making one of them the condition of the other two. You will ruin -yourself." - -"Be quiet," said he, "I have made all my calculations; I only wish they -may be accepted. But they will not be accepted." Upon this we parted, -our heads full, his of figures, mine of reflections which I forbear to -inflict upon the reader. - - - - -XIII. PROTECTION; OR, THE THREE CITY MAGISTRATES. Demonstration in Four -Tableaux. - -Scene I.--House of Master Peter.--Window looking out on a fine -park.--Three gentlemen seated near a good fire. - -Peter: Bravo! Nothing like a good fire after a good dinner. It does feel -so comfortable. But, alas! how many honest folks, like the Boi d'Yvetot, - - "Soufflent, faute de bois, - Dans leurs doigts." - -Miserable creatures! A charitable thought has just come into my head. -You see these fine trees; I am about to fell them, and distribute the -timber among the poor. - -Paul and John: What! gratis? - -Peter: Not exactly. My good works would soon have an end were I to -dissipate my fortune. I estimate my park as worth £1000. By cutting down -the trees I shall pocket a good sum. - -Paul: Wrong. Your wood as it stands is worth more than that of the -neighbouring forests, for it renders you services which they cannot -render. When cut down it will be only good for firewood, like any other, -and will not bring a penny more the load. - -Peter: Oh! oh! Mr Theorist, you forget that I am a practical man. My -reputation as a speculator is sufficiently well established, I believe, -to prevent me from being taken for a noodle. Do you imagine I am going -to amuse myself by selling my timber at the price of float-wood? - -Paul: It would seem so. - -Peter: Simpleton! And what if I can hinder float-wood from being brought -into Paris? - -Paul: That alters the case. But how can you manage it? - -Peter: Here is the whole secret. You know that float-wood, on entering -the city, pays 5d. the load. To-morrow, I induce the commune to raise -the duty to £4, £8, £12,--in short, sufficiently high to prevent the -entry of a single log. Now, do you follow me? If the good people are -not to die of cold, they have no alternative but to come to my woodyard. -They will bid against each other for my wood, and I will sell it for a -high price; and this act of charity, successfully carried out, will put -me in a situation to do other acts of charity. - -Paul: A fine invention, truly! It suggests to me another of the same -kind. - -John: And what is that? Is philanthropy to be again brought into play? - -Paul: How do you like this Normandy butter? - -John: Excellent. - -Paul: Hitherto I have thought it passable. But do you not find that it -takes you by the throat? I could make better butter in Paris. I shall -have four or five hundred cows, and distribute milk, butter, and cheese -among the poor. - -Peter and John: What! in charity? - -Paul: Bah! let us put charity always in the foreground. It is so fine a -figure that its very mask is a good passport. I shall give my butter to -the people, and they will give me their money. Is that what is called -selling? - -John: No; not according to the Bourgeois Gentilhomme. But, call it what -you please, you will ruin yourself. How can Paris ever compete with -Normandy in dairy produce? - -Paul: I shall be able to save the cost of carriage. - -John: Be it so. Still, while paying that cost, the Normans can beat the -Parisians. - -Paul: To give a man something at a lower price--is that what you call -beating him? - -John: It is the usual phrase; and you will always find yourself beaten. - -Paul: Yes; as Don Quixote was beaten. The blows will fall upon Sancho. -John, my friend, you forget the octroi. - -John: The octroi! What has that to do with your butter? - -Paul: To-morrow, I shall demand _protection_, and induce the commune to -prohibit butter being brought into Paris from Normandy and Brittany. The -people must then either dispense with it, or purchase mine, and at my -own price, too. - -John: Upon my honour, gentlemen, your philanthropy has quite made a -convert of me. - - "On apprend à hurler, dit l'autre, avec les loups." - -My mind is made up. I shall not be thought unworthy of my colleagues. -Peter, this sparkling fire has inflamed your soul. Paul, this butter has -lubricated the springs of your intelligence. I, too, feel stimulated by -this piece of powdered pork; and tomorrow I shall vote, and cause to -be voted, the exclusion of swine, dead and alive. That done, I shall -construct superb sheds in the heart of Paris, - - "Pour l'animal immonde aux Hébreux défendu." - -I shall become a pig-driver and pork-butcher. Let us see how the good -people of Paris can avoid coming to provide themselves at my shop. - -Peter: Softly, my good friends; if you enhance the price of butter and -salt meat to such an extent, you cut down beforehand the profit I expect -from my wood. - -Paul: And my speculation will be no longer so wondrously profitable, if -I am overcharged for my firewood and bacon. - -John: And I, what shall I gain by overcharging you for my sausages, if -you overcharge me for my faggots and bread and butter? - -Peter: Very well, don't let us quarrel Let us rather put our heads -together and make reciprocal concessions. Moreover, it is not good to -consult one's self-interest exclusively--we must exercise humanity, and -see that the people do not want fuel. - -Paul: Very right; and it is proper that the people should have butter to -their bread. - -John: Undoubtedly; and a bit of bacon for the pot. - -All: Three cheers for charity; three cheers for philanthropy; and -to-morrow we take the octroi by assault. - -Peter: Ah! I forgot. One word more; it is essential. My good friends, in -this age of egotism the world is distrustful, and the purest intentions -are often misunderstood. Paul, you take the part of pleading for the -wood; John will do the same for the butter; and I shall devote myself to -the home-bred pig. It is necessary to prevent malignant suspicions. - -Paul and John (leaving): Upon my word, that is a clever fellow. - - -Scene II.--Council Chamber. - -Paul: _Mes chers collègues_, Every day there are brought to Paris great -masses of firewood, which drain away large sums of money. At this rate, -we shall all be ruined in three years, and what will become of the -poorer classes? (Cheers) We must prohibit foreign timber. I don't speak -for myself, for all the wood I possess would not make a tooth-pick. In -what I mean to say, then, I am entirely free from any personal interest -or bias. (Hear, hear) But here is my friend Peter, who possesses a park, -and he will guarantee an adequate supply of fuel to our fellow-citizens, -who will no longer be dependent on the charcoal-burners of the Yonne. -Have you ever turned your attention to the risk which we run of dying -of cold, if the proprietors of forests abroad should take it into their -heads to send no more firewood to Paris? Let us put a prohibition, then, -on bringing in wood. By this means we shall put a stop to the draining -away of our money, create an independent interest charged with -supplying the city with firewood, and open up to workmen a new source of -employment and remuneration. (Cheers) - -John: I support the proposal of my honourable friend, the preceding -speaker, which is at once so philanthropic, and, as he himself has -explained, so entirely disinterested. It is indeed high time that we -should put an end to this insolent _laissez passer_, which has brought -immoderate competition into our markets, and to such an extent that -there is no province which possesses any special facility for providing -us with a product, be it what it may, which does not immediately -inundate us, undersell us, and bring ruin on the Parisian workman. It -is the duty of Government to equalize the conditions of production by -duties wisely adapted to each case, so as not to allow to enter from -without anything which is not dearer than in Paris, and so relieve us -from an unequal struggle. How, for example, can we possibly produce milk -and butter in Paris, with Brittany and Normandy at our door? Remember, -gentlemen, that the agriculturists of Brittany have cheaper land, a more -abundant supply of hay, and manual labour on more advantageous terms. - -Does not common sense tell us that we must equalize the conditions by -a protective octroi tariff? I demand that the duty on milk and butter -should be raised by 1000 per cent., and still higher if necessary. The -workman's breakfast will cost a little more, but see to what extent his -wages will be raised! We shall see rising around us cow-houses, dairies, -and barrel chums, and the foundations laid of new sources of industry. -Not that I have any interest in this proposition. I am not a cowfeeder, -nor have I any wish to be so. The sole motive which actuates me is a -wish to be useful to the working classes. (Applause.) - -Peter: I am delighted to see in this assembly statesmen so pure, -so enlightened, and so devoted to the best interests of the people. -(Cheers) I admire their disinterestedness, and I cannot do better than -imitate the noble example which has been set me. I give their motions -my support, and I shall only add another, for prohibiting the entry into -Paris of the pigs of Poitou. I have no desire, I assure you, to become -a pig-driver or a pork-butcher. In that case I should have made it a -matter of conscience to be silent. But is it not shameful, gentlemen, -that we should be the tributaries of the peasants of Poitou, who have -the audacity to come into our own market and take possession of a branch -of industry which we ourselves have no means of carrying on? and who, -after having inundated us with their hams and sausages, take perhaps -nothing from us in return? At all events, who will tell us that the -balance of trade is not in their favour, and that we are not obliged to -pay them a tribute in hard cash? Is it not evident that if the industry -of Poitou were transplanted to Paris, it would open up a steady demand -for Parisian labour? And then, gentlemen, is it not very possible, as M. -Lestiboudois has so well remarked, that we may be buying the salt pork -of Poitou, not with our incomes, but with our capital? Where will -that land us? Let us not suffer, then, that rivals who are at once -avaricious, greedy, and perfidious, should come here to undersell -us, and put it out of our power to provide ourselves with the same -commodities. Gentlemen, Paris has reposed in you her confidence; it is -for you to justify that confidence. The people are without employment; -it is for you to create employment for them; and if salt pork shall cost -them a somewhat higher price, we have, at least, the consciousness of -having sacrificed our own interests to those of the masses, as every -good magistrate ought to do. (Loud and long-continued cheers.) - -A Voice: I have heard much talk of the poor; but under pretext of -affording them employment, you begin by depriving them of what is more -valuable than employment itself, namely, butter, firewood, and meat. - -Peter, Paul, and John: Vote, vote! Down with Utopian dreamers, -theorists, generalizers! Vote, vote! (_The three motions are carried._) - - -Scene III.--Twenty years afterwards. - -Son: Father, make up your mind; we must leave Paris. Nobody can any -longer live there--no work, and everything dear. - -Father: You don't know, my son, how much it costs one to leave the place -where he was born. - -Son: The worst thing of all is to perish from want. - -Father: Go you, then, and search for a more hospitable country. For -myself, I will not leave the place where are the graves of your mother, -and of your brothers and sisters. I long to obtain with them that repose -which has been denied me in this city of desolation. - -Son: Courage, father; we shall find employment somewhere else--in -Poitou, or Normandy, or Brittany. It is said that all the manufactures -of Paris are being removed by degrees to these distant provinces. - -Father: And naturally so. Not being able to sell firewood and -provisions, the people of these provinces have ceased to produce them -beyond what their own wants call for. The time and capital at their -disposal are devoted to making for themselves those articles with which -we were in use to furnish them. - -Son: Just as at Paris they have given up the manufacture of elegant -dress and furniture, and betaken themselves to the planting of trees, -and the rearing of pigs and cows. Although still young, I have lived -to see vast warehouses, sumptuous quarters of the city, and quays once -teeming with life and animation on the banks of the Seine, turned into -meadows and copses. - -Father: While towns are spread over the provinces, Paris is turned into -green fields. What a deplorable revolution! And this terrible calamity -has been brought upon us by three magistrates, backed by public -ignorance. - -Son: Pray relate to me the history of this change. - -Father: It is short and simple. Under pretext of planting in Paris three -new branches of industry, and by this means giving employment to the -working classes, these men got the commune to prohibit the entry into -Paris of firewood, butter, and meat. They claimed for themselves the -right of providing for their fellow-citizens. These commodities rose at -first to exorbitant prices. No one earned enough to procure them, and -the limited number of those who could procure them spent all their -income on them, and had no longer the means of buying anything else. A -check was thus given to all other branches of industry and production, -and all the more quickly that the provinces no longer afforded a market. -Poverty, death, and emigration then began to depopulate Paris. - -Son: And when is this to stop? - -Father: When Paris has become a forest and a prairie. - -Son: The three magistrates must have made a large fortune? - -Father: At first they realized enormous profits, but at length they fell -into the common poverty. - -Son: How did that happen? - -Father: Look at that ruin. That was a magnificent man-sion-house -surrounded with a beautiful park. If Paris had continued to progress, -Master Peter would have realized more interest than his entire capital -now amounts to. - -Son: How can that be, seeing he has got rid of competition? - -Father: Competition in selling has disappeared, but competition in -buying has disappeared also, and will continue every day to disappear -more and more until Paris becomes a bare field, and until the copses of -Master Peter have no more value than the copses of an equal extent of -land in the Forest of Bondy. It is thus that monopoly, like every other -system of injustice, carries in itself its own punishment. - -Son: That appears to me not very clear, but the decadence of Paris is -an incontestable fact. Is there no means, then, of counteracting this -singular measure that Peter and his colleagues got adopted twenty years -ago? - -Father: I am going to tell you a secret. I remain in Paris on purpose. I -shall call in the people to my assistance. It rests with them to replace -the octroi on its ancient basis, and get quit of that fatal principle -which was engrafted on it, and which still vegetates there like a -parasitical fungus. - -Son: You must succeed in this at once. - -Father: On the contrary, the work will be difficult and laborious. -Peter, Paul, and John understand one another marvellously. They will do -anything rather than allow firewood, butter, and butchers' meat to -enter Paris. They have on their side the people, who see clearly the -employment which these three protected branches of industry afford. -They know well to what extent the cowfeeders and wood-merchants give -employment to labour; but they have by no means the same exact idea of -the labour which would be developed in the open air of liberty. - -Son: If that is all, you will soon enlighten them. - -Father: At your age, my son, no doubts arise. If I write, the people -will not read; for, to support their miserable existence, they have not -much time at their disposal. If I speak, the magistrates will shut -my mouth. The people, therefore, will long remain under their fatal -mistake. Political parties, whose hopes are founded on popular passions, -will set themselves, not to dissipate their prejudices, but to make -merchandise of them. I shall have to combat at one and the same time the -great men of the day, the people, and their leaders. In truth, I see a -frightful storm ready to burst over the head of the bold man who shall -venture to protest against an iniquity so deeply rooted in this country. - -Son: You will have truth and justice on your side. - -Father: And they will have force and calumny on theirs. Were I but young -again! but age and suffering have exhausted my strength. - -Son: Very well, father; what strength remains to you, devote to the -service of the country. Begin this work of enfranchisement, and leave to -me the care of finishing it. - -Scene IV.--The Agitation. - -Jacques Bonhomme: Parisians, let us insist upon a reform of the octroi -duties; let us demand that they be instantly brought down to the -former rate. Let every citizen be free to buy his firewood, butter, and -butchers' meat where he sees fit. - -The People: Vive, vive la Liberté! - -Peter: Parisians, don't allow yourselves to be seduced by that word, -liberty. What good can result from liberty to purchase if you want the -means--in other words, if you are out of employment? Can Paris produce -firewood as cheaply as the Forest of Bondy? meat as cheaply as Poitou? -butter as cheaply as Normandy? If you open your gates freely to these -rival products, what will become of the cowfeeders, woodcutters, and -pork-butchers? They cannot dispense with protection. - -The People: Vive, vive la Protection! - -Jacques Bonhomme: Protection! but who protects you workmen? Do you not -compete with one another? Let the wood-merchants, then, be subject to -competition in their turn. They ought not to have right by law to raise -the price of firewood, unless the rate of wages is also raised by law. -Are you no longer in love with equality? - -The People: Vive, vive l'Egalité! - -Peter: Don't listen to these agitators. We have, it is true, raised the -price of firewood, butchers' meat, and butter; but we have done so for -the express purpose of being enabled to give good wages to the workmen. -We are actuated by motives of charity. - -The People: Vive, vive la Charité! - -Jacques Bonhomme. Cause the rate of wages to be raised by the octroi, if -you can, or cease by the same means to raise the prices of commodities. -We Parisians ask for no charity--we demand justice. - -The People: Vive, vive la Justice! - -Peter: It is precisely the high price of commodities which will lead, -_par ricochet_, to a rise of wages. - -The People: Vive, vive la Cherté! - -Jacques Bonhomme: If butter is dear, it is not because you pay high -wages to the workmen, it is not even because you make exorbitant -profits; it is solely because Paris is ill-adapted for that branch of -industry; it is because you wish to make in the town what should be made -in the country, and in the country what should be made in the town. -The people have not more employment--only they have employment of a -different kind. They have no higher wages; while they can no longer buy -commodities as cheaply as formerly. - -The People: Vive, vive le Bon Marché! - -Peter: This man seduces you with fine words. Let us place the question -before you in all its simplicity. Is it, or is it not, true, that if we -admit firewood, meat, and butter freely or at a lower duty, our markets -will be inundated? Believe me there is no other means of preserving -ourselves from this new species of invasion but to keep the door shut, -and so maintain the prices of commodities by rendering them artificially -rare. - -Some Voices in the Crowd: Vive, vive la Rareté! - -Jacques Bonhomme: Let us bring the question to the simple test of truth. -You cannot divide among the people of Paris commodities which are not -in Paris. If there be less meat, less firewood, less butter, the share -falling to each will be smaller. Now there must be less if we prohibit -what should be allowed to enter the city. Parisians, abundance for each -of you can be secured only by general abundance. - -The People: Vive, vive l'Abondance! - -Peter: It is in vain that this man tries to persuade you that it is your -interest to be subjected to unbridled competition. - -The People: A bas, à bas la Concurrence! - -Jacques Bonhomme: It is in vain that this man tries to make you fall in -love with restriction. - -The People: A bas, à bas la Restriction! - -Peter: I declare, for my own part, if you deprive the poor cowfeeders -and pig-drivers of their daily bread, I can no longer be answerable for -public order. Workmen, distrust that man. He is the agent of perfidious -Normandy, and derives his inspiration from the provinces. He is a -traitor; down with him! (The people preserve silence.) - -Jacques Bonhomme: Parisians, what I have told you to-day, - -I told you twenty years ago, when Peter set himself to work the octroi -for his own profit and to your detriment. I am not, then, the agent of -Normandy. Hang me up, if you will, but that will not make oppression -anything else than oppression. Friends, it is not Jacques or Peter that -you must put an end to, but liberty if you fear it, or restriction if it -does you harm. - -The People: Hang nobody, and set everybody free. - - - - -XIV. SOMETHING ELSE. - -"What is restriction?" - -"It is partial prohibition." - -"What is prohibition?" - -"Absolute restriction." - -"So that what holds true of the one, holds true of the other?" - -"Yes; the difference is only one of degree. There is between them the -same relation as there is between a circle and the arc of a circle." - -"Then, if prohibition is bad, restriction cannot be good?" - -"No more than the arc can be correct if the circle is irregular." - -"What is the name which is common to restriction and prohibition?" - -"Protection." - -"What is the definitive effect of protection?" - -"To exact from men _a greater amount of labour for the same result_." - -"Why are men attached to the system of protection?" - -"Because as liberty enables us to obtain the same result with less -labour, this apparent diminution of employment frightens them." - -"Why do you say apparent?" - -"Because _all labour saved can be applied to something else_." - -"To what?" - -"That I cannot specify, nor is there any need to specify it." - -"Why?" - -"Because if the sum of satisfactions which the country at present enjoys -could be obtained with one-tenth less labour, no one can enumerate the -new enjoyments which men would desire to obtain from the labour left -disposable. One man would desire to be better clothed, another better -fed, another better educated, another better amused." - -"Explain to me the mechanism and the effects of protection." - -"That is not an easy matter. Before entering on consideration of the -more complicated cases, we must study it in a very simple one." - -"Take as simple a case as you choose." - -"You remember how Robinson Crusoe managed to make a plank when he had no -saw." - -"Yes; he felled a tree, and then, cutting the trunk right and left with -his hatchet, he reduced it to the thickness of a board." - -"And that cost him much labour?" - -"Fifteen whole days' work." - -"And what did he live on during that time?" - -"He had provisions." - -"What happened to the hatchet?" - -"It was blunted by the work." - -"Yes; but you perhaps do not know this: that at the moment when Robinson -was beginning the work he perceived a plank thrown by the tide upon the -seashore." - -"Happy accident! he of course ran to appropriate it?" - -"That was his first impulse; but he stopped short, and began to reason -thus with himself:-- - -"'If I appropriate this plank, it will cost me only the trouble of -carrying it, and the time needed to descend and remount the cliff. - -"'But if I form a plank with my hatchet, first of all, it will procure -me fifteen days' employment; then my hatchet will get blunt, which will -furnish me with the additional employment of sharpening it; then I -shall consume my stock of provisions, which will be a third source of -employment in replacing them. Now, _labour is wealth_. It is clear that -I should ruin myself by appropriating the shipwrecked plank. I must -protect my _personal labour_; and, now that I think of it, I can even -increase that labour by throwing back the other plank into the sea.'" - -"But this reasoning was absurd." - -"No doubt. It is nevertheless the reasoning of every nation which -protects itself by prohibition. It throws back the plank which is -offered it in exchange for a small amount of labour in order to exert -a greater amount of labour. It is not in the labour of the Customhouse -officials that it discovers a gain. That gain is represented by the -pains which Robinson takes to render back to the waves the gift which -they had offered him. Consider the nation as a collective being, and -you will not find between its reasoning and that of Robinson an atom of -difference." - -"Did Robinson not see that he could devote the time saved to _something -else?_" - -"What else?" - -"As long as a man has wants to satisfy and time at his disposal, there -is always something to be done. I am not bound to specify the kind of -labour he would in such a case undertake." - -"I see clearly what labour he could have escaped." - -"And I maintain that Robinson, with incredible blindness, confounded the -labour with its result, the end with the means, and I am going to prove -to you..." - -"There is no need. Here we have the system of restriction or prohibition -in its simplest form. If it appear to you absurd when so put, it is -because the two capacities of producer and consumer are in this case -mixed up in the same individual." - -"Let us pass on, therefore, to a more complicated example." - -"With all my heart. Some time afterwards, Robinson having met with -Friday, they united their labour in a common work. In the morning they -hunted for six hours, and brought home four baskets of game. In the -evening they worked in the garden for six hours, and obtained four -baskets of vegetables. - -"One day a canoe touched at the island. A good-looking foreigner -landed, and was admitted to the table of our two recluses. He tasted and -commended very much the produce of the garden, and before taking leave -of his entertainers, spoke as follows:-- - -"'Generous islanders, I inhabit a country where game is much more -plentiful than here, but where horticulture is quite unknown. It would -be an easy matter to bring you every evening four baskets of game, if -you would give me in exchange two baskets of vegetables.' - -"At these words Robinson and Friday retired to consult, and the argument -that passed is too interesting not to be reported _in extenso_. - -"Friday: What do you think of it? - -"Robinson: If we close with the proposal, we are ruined. - -"F.: Are you sure of that? Let us consider. - -"R.: The case is clear. Crushed by competition, our hunting as a branch -of industry is annihilated. - -"F.: What matters it, if we have the game? - -"R.: Theory! it will no longer be the product of our labour. - -"F.: I beg your pardon, sir; for in order to have game we must part with -vegetables. - -"R.: Then, what shall we gain? - -"F.:. The four baskets of game cost us six hours' work. The foreigner -gives us them in exchange for two baskets of vegetables, which cost us -only three hours' work. This places three hours at our disposal. - -"R.: Say, rather, which are substracted from our exertions. In this will -consist our loss. _Labour is wealth_, and if we lose a fourth part of -our time, we shall be less rich by a fourth. - -"F.: You are greatly mistaken, my good friend. We shall have as much -game, and the same quantity of vegetables, and three hours at our -disposal into the bargain. This is progress, or there is no such thing -in-the world. - -"R.: You lose yourself in generalities! What should we make of these -three hours? - -"F.: We would do _something else_. - -"R.: Ah! I understand you. You cannot come to particulars. Something -else, something else--this is easily said. - -"F.: We can fish, we can ornament our cottage, we can read the Bible. - -"R.: Utopia! Is there any certainty that we should do either the one or -the other? - -"F.: Very well, if we have no wants to satisfy we can rest. Is repose -nothing? - -"R.: But while we repose we may die of hunger. - -"F.: My dear friend, you have got into a vicious circle. I speak of -a repose which will subtract nothing from our supply of game and -vegetables. You always forget that by means of our _foreign trade_ -nine hours' labour will give us the same quantity of provisions that we -obtain at present with twelve. - -"R: It is very evident, Friday, that you have not been educated in -Europe, and that you have never read the _Moniteur Industriel_. If you -had, it would have taught you this: that all time saved is sheer loss. -The important thing is not to eat or consume, but to work. All that -we consume, if it is not the direct produce of our labour, goes for -nothing. Do you want to know whether you are rich? Never consider the -satisfactions you enjoy, but the labour you undergo. This is what -the _Moniteur Industriel_ would teach you. For myself, who have no -pretensions to be a theorist, the only thing I look at is the loss of -our hunting. - -"F.: What a strange conglomeration of ideas! but... - -"R.: I will have no buts. Moreover, there are political reasons for -rejecting the interested offers of the perfidious foreigner. - -"F.: Political reasons! - -"R.: Yes, he only makes us these offers because they are advantageous to -him. - -"F.: So much the better, since they are for our advantage likewise. - -"R.: Then by this traffic we should place ourselves in a situation of -dependence upon him. - -"F.: And he would place himself in dependence on us. We should have need -of his game, and he of our vegetables, and we should live on terms of -friendship. - -"R.: System! Do you want me to shut your mouth? - -"F.: We shall see about that. I have as yet heard no good reason. - -"R.: Suppose the foreigner learns to cultivate a garden, and that his -island should prove more fertile than ours. Do you see the consequence? - -"F.: Yes; our relations with the foreigner would cease. He would send us -no more vegetables, since he could have them at home with less labour. -He would take no more game from us, since we should have nothing to give -him in exchange, and we should then be in precisely the situation that -you wish us in now. - -"R.: Improvident savage! You don't see that after having annihilated our -hunting by inundating us with game, he would annihilate our gardening by -inundating us with vegetables. - -"F.: But this would only last till we were in a situation to give him -_something else_; that is to say, until we found something else which we -could produce with economy of labour for ourselves. - -"R. Something else, something else! You always come back to that. You -are at sea, my good friend Friday; there is nothing practical in your -views." - -"The debate was long prolonged, and, as often happens, each remained -wedded to his own opinion. But Robinson possessing a great ascendant -over Friday, his opinion prevailed, and when the foreigner arrived to -demand a reply, Robinson said to him-- - -"' Stranger, in order to induce us to accept your proposal, we must be -assured of two things: - -"' The first is, that your island is no better stocked with game than -ours, for we want to fight only with _equal weapons_. - -"' The second is, that you will lose by the bargain. For, as in every -exchange there is necessarily a gaining and a losing party, we should be -dupes, if you were not the loser. What have you got to say?' - -"' Nothing,' replied the foreigner; and, bursting out a-laugh-ing, he -regained his canoe." - -"The story would not be amiss, if Robinson were not made to argue so -very absurdly." - -"He does not argue more absurdly than the committee of the Rue -Hauteville." - -"Oh! the case is very different. Sometimes you suppose one man, and -sometimes (which comes to the same thing) two men working in company. -That does not tally with the actual state of things. The division of -labour and the intervention of merchants and money change the state of -the question very much." - -"That may complicate transactions, but does not change their nature." - -"What! you want to compare modern commerce with a system of barter." - -"Trade is nothing but a multiplicity of barters. Barter is in its own -nature identical with commerce, just as labour on a small scale is -identical with labour on a great scale, or as the law of gravitation -which moves an atom is identical with that same law of gravitation which -moves a world." - -"So, according to you, these arguments, which are so untenable in -the mouth of Robinson, are equally untenable when urged by our -protectionists." - -"Yes; only the error is better concealed under a complication of -circumstances." - -"Then, pray, let us have an example taken from the present order of -things." - -"With pleasure. In France, owing to the exigencies of climate and -habits, cloth is a useful thing. Is the essential thing to _make it_, or -to _get it?_" - -"A very sensible question, truly! In order to have it, you must make -it." - -"Not necessarily. To have it, some one must make it, that is certain; -but it is not at all necessary that the same person or the same country -which consumes it should also produce it. You have not made that stuff -which clothes you so well. France does not produce the coffee on which -our citizens breakfast." - -"But I buy my cloth, and France her coffee." - -"Exactly so; and with what?" - -"With money." - -"But neither you nor France produce the material of money." - -"We buy it." - -"With what?" - -"With our products, which are sent to Peru." - -"It is then, in fact, your labour which you exchange for cloth, and -French labour which is exchanged for coffee." - -"Undoubtedly." - -"It is not absolutely necessary, therefore, to manufacture what you -consume." - -"No; if we manufacture something else which we give in exchange." - -"In other words, France has two means of procuring a given quantity of -cloth. The first is to make it; the second is to make something else, -and to exchange this something else with the foreigner for cloth. Of -these two means, which is the best?" - -"I don't very well know." - -"Is it not that which, _for a determinate amount of labour, obtains the -greater quantity of cloth?_" - -"It seems so." - -"And which is best for a nation, to have the choice between these two -means, or that the law should prohibit one of them, on the chance of -stumbling on the better of the two?" - -"It appears to me that it is better for the nation to have the choice, -inasmuch as in such matters it invariably chooses right." - -"The law, which prohibits the importation of foreign cloth, decides, -then, that if France wishes to have cloth, she must make it in kind, -and that she is prohibited from making the something else with which she -could purchase foreign cloth." - -"True." - -"And as the law obliges us to make the cloth, and forbids our making the -something else, precisely because that something else would exact less -labour (but for which reason the law would not interfere with it) the -law virtually decrees that for a determinate amount of labour, France -shall only have one yard of cloth, when for the same amount of labour -she might have two yards, by applying that labour to something else!" -"But the question recurs, 'What else?" - -"And my question recurs, 'What does it signify?' Having the choice, she -will only make the something else to such an extent as there may be a -demand for it." - -"That is possible; but I cannot divest myself of the idea that the -foreigner will send us his cloth, and not take from us the something -else, in which case we would be entrapped. At all events, this is the -objection even from your own point of view. You allow that France could -make this something else to exchange for cloth, with a less expenditure -of labour than if she had made the cloth itself?" - -"Undoubtedly." - -"There would, then, be a certain amount of her labour rendered inert?" - -"Yes; but without her being less well provided with clothes, a little -circumstance which makes all the difference. Robinson lost sight of -this, and our protectionists either do not see it, or pretend not to -see it. The shipwrecked plank rendered fifteen days of Robinson's labour -inert, in as far as that labour was applied to making a plank, but it -did not deprive him of it. Discriminate, then, between these two kinds -of diminished labour--the diminution which has for effect privation, -and that which has for its cause satisfaction. These two things are very -different, and if you mix them up, you reason as Robinson did. In the -most complicated, as in the most simple cases, the sophism consists in -this: _Judging of the utility of labour by its duration and intensity, -and not by its results_; which gives rise to this economic policy: _To -reduce the results of labour for the purpose of augmenting its duration -and intensity_." * - - * See ch. ii. and iii. of _Sophimes_, first series; and - _Harmonies Économiques_, ch. vi. - - - - -XV. THE LITTLE ARSENAL OF THE FREE-TRADER. - -If any one tells you that there are no absolute principles, no -inflexible rules; that prohibition may be bad and yet that restriction -may be good, - -Reply: "Restriction prohibits all that it hinders from being imported.": - -If any one says that agriculture is the nursing-mother of the country, - -Reply: "What nourishes the country is not exactly agriculture, but -corn." - -If any one tells you that the basis of the food of the people is -agriculture, - -Reply: "The basis of the people's food is corn. This is the reason why -a law which gives us, by agricultural labour, two quarters of corn, when -we could have obtained four quarters without such labour, and by means -of labour applied to manufactures, is a law not for feeding, but for -starving the people." If any one remarks that restriction upon the -importation of foreign corn gives rise to a more extensive culture, and -consequently to increased home production, - -Reply: "It induces men to sow grain on comparatively barren and -ungrateful soils. To milk a cow and go on milking her, puts a little -more into the pail, for it is difficult to say when you will come to the -last drop. But that drop costs dear." - -If any one tells you that when bread is dear, the agriculturist, having -become rich, enriches the manufacturer, - -Reply: "Bread is dear when it is scarce, and then men are poor, or, if -you like it better, they become rich _starvelings_." - -If you are further told that when bread gets dearer, wages rise, Reply -by pointing out that, in April 1847, five-sixths of our workmen were -receiving charity, - -If you are told that the wages of labour should rise with the increased -price of provisions, - -Reply: "This is as much as to say that in a ship without provisions, -everybody will have as much biscuit as if the vessel were fully -victualled." - -If you are told that it is necessary to secure a good price to the man -who sells corn, - -Reply: "That in that case it is also necessary to secure good wages to -the man who buys it." - -If it is said that the proprietors, who make the laws, have raised the -price of bread, without taking thought about wages, because they know -that when bread rises, wages naturally rise, Reply: "Upon the same -principle, when the workmen come to make the laws, don't blame them -if they fix a high rate of wages without busying themselves about -protecting corn, because they know that when wages rise, provisions -naturally rise also." - -If you are asked what, then, is to be done? - -Reply: "Be just to everybody." - -If you are told that it is essential that every great country should -produce iron, - -Reply: "What is essential is, that every great country should have -iron." - -If you are told that it is indispensable that every great country should -produce cloth, - -Reply: "The indispensable thing is, that the citizens of every great -country should have cloth." - -If it be said that labour is wealth, - -Reply: "This is not true." - -And, by way of improvement, add: "Phlebotomy is not health, and the -proof of it is that bleeding is resorted to for the purpose of restoring -health." - -If it is said: "To force men to cultivate rocks, and extract an ounce -of iron from a hundredweight of ore, is to increase their labour and -consequently their wealth," - -Reply: "To force men to dig wells by prohibiting them from taking water -from the brook, is to increase their _useless labour_, but not their -wealth." - -If you are told that the sun gives you his heat and light without -remuneration, - -Reply: "So much the better for me, for it costs me nothing to see -clearly." - -And if you are answered that industry in general loses what would have -been paid for artificial light, - -Rejoin; "No; for having paid nothing to the sun, what he saves me -enables me to buy clothes, furniture, and candles." - -In the same way, if you are told that these rascally English possess -capital which is dormant, - -Reply: "So much the better for us; they will not make us pay interest -for it." - -If it is said: "These perfidious English find coal and iron in the same -pit," - -Reply: "So much the better for us; they will charge us nothing for -bringing them together." - -If you are told that the Swiss have rich pasturages, which cost little: - -Reply: "The advantage is ours, for they will demand a smaller amount -of our labour in return for giving an impetus to our agriculture, and -supplying us with provisions." - -If they tell you that the lands of the Crimea have no value, and pay no -taxes, - -Reply: "The profit is ours, who buy corn free from such charges." - -If they tell you that the serfs of Poland work without wages, - -Reply: "The misfortune is theirs and the profit is ours, since their -labour does not enter into the price of the corn which their masters -sell us." - -Finally, if they tell you that other nations have many advantages over -us, - -Reply: "By means of exchange, they are forced to allow us to participate -in these advantages." - -If they tell you that under free-trade we are about to be inundated with -bread, _bouf à la mode_, coal, and winter clothing, Reply: "In that case -we shall be neither hungry nor thirsty." - -If they ask how we are to pay for these things? - -Reply: "Don't let that disquiet you. If we are inundated, it is a sign -we have the means of paying for the inundation; and if we have not the -means of paying, we shall not be inundated." - -If any one says: I should approve of free-trade, if the foreigner, in -sending us his products, would take our products in exchange; but he -carries off our money, - -Reply: "Neither money nor coffee grows in the fields of Beauce, nor are -they turned out by the workshops of Elbeuf. So far as we are concerned, -to pay the foreigner with money is the same thing as paying him with -coffee." - -If they bid you eat butcher's meat, - -Reply: "Allow it to be imported." - -If they say to you, in the words of the _Presse_, "When one has not the -means to buy bread, he is forced to buy beef," Reply: "This is advice -quite as judicious as that given by M. Vautour to his tenant: - - "'Quand on n'a pas de quoi payer son terme, - Il faut avoir une maison à soi.'" - -If, again, they say to you, in the words of _La Presse_, "The government -should teach the people how and why they must eat beef," - -Reply: "The government has only to allow the beef to be imported, and -the most civilized people in the world will know how to use it without -being taught by a master." - -If they tell you that the government should know everything, and foresee -everything, in order to direct the people, and that the people have -simply to allow themselves to be led, Reply by asking: "Is there a state -apart from the people? is there a human foresight apart from humanity? -Archimedes might repeat every day of his life, 'With a fulcrum and lever -I can move the world;' but he never did move it, for want of a fulcrum -and lever. The lever of the state is the nation; and nothing can be more -foolish than to found so many hopes upon the state, which is simply -to take for granted the existence of collective science and foresight, -after having set out with the assumption of individual imbecility and -improvidence." - -If any one says, "I ask no favour, but only such a duty on bread and -meat as shall compensate the heavy taxes to which I am subjected; only a -small duty equal to what the taxes add to the cost price of my corn," - -Reply: "A thousand pardons; but I also pay taxes. If, then, the -protection which you vote in your own favour has the effect of burdening -me as a purchaser of corn with exactly your share of the taxes, your -modest demand amounts to nothing less than establishing this arrangement -as formulated by you: - -Seeing that the public charges are heavy, I, as a seller of corn, am -to pay nothing, and you my neighbour, as a buyer of corn, are to -pay double, viz., your own share and mine into the bargain.' Mr -Corn-merchant, my good friend, you may have force at your command, but -assuredly you have not reason on your side." - -If any one says to you, "It is, however, exceedingly hard upon me, who -pay taxes, to have to compete in my own market with the foreigner, who -pays none, - -Reply: - -"1st, In the first place, it is not your market, but our market. I who -live upon corn and pay for it, should surely be taken into account. - -"2d, Few foreigners at the present day are exempt from taxes. - -"3d, If the taxes you vote yield you in roads, canals, security, etc., -more than they cost you, you are not justified in repelling, at my -expense, the competition of foreigners, who, if they do not pay taxes, -have not the advantages you enjoy in roads, canals, and security. You -might as well say, 'I demand a compensating duty because I have finer -clothes, stronger horses, and better ploughs than the hard-working -peasant of Russia.' - -"4th, If the tax does not repay you for what it costs, don't vote it. - -"5th, In short, after having voted the tax, do you wish to get free from -it? Try to frame a law which will throw it on the foreigner. But your -tariff makes your share of it fall upon me, who have already my own -burden to bear." - -If any one says, "For the Russians free-trade is necessary to enable -them to exchange their products with advantage," (Opinion de M. Thiers -dans les Bureaux, April 1847), - -Reply: "Liberty is necessary everywhere, and for the same reason." - -If you are told, "Each country has its wants, and we must be guided by -that in what we do." (M. Thiers), - -Reply: "Each country acts thus of its own accord, if you don't throw -obstacles in the way." - -If they tell you, "We have no sheet-iron, and we must allow it to be -imported," (M. Thiers), - -Reply: "Many thanks." - -If you are told, "We have no freights for our merchant shipping. -The want of return cargoes prevents our shipping from competing with -foreigners," (M. Thiers), - -Reply: "When a country wishes to have everything produced at home, there -can be no freights either for exports or imports. It is just as absurd -to desire to have a mercantile marine under a system of prohibition, as -it would be to have carts when there is nothing to carry." - -If you are told that assuming protection to be unjust, everything has -been arranged on that footing; capital has been embarked; rights have -been acquired; and the system cannot be changed without suffering to -individuals and classes, - -Reply: "All injustice is profitable to somebody (except, perhaps, -restriction, which in the long run benefits no one). To argue from the -derangement which the cessation of injustice may occasion to the man who -profits by it, is as much as to say that a system of injustice, for no -other reason than that it has had a temporary existence, ought to exist -for ever." - - - - -XVI. THE RIGHT HAND AND THE LEFT. - -Report Addressed to the King. - -Sire, - -When we observe these free-trade advocates boldly-disseminating their -doctrines, and maintaining that the right of buying and selling is -implied in the right of property (as has been urged by M. Billault -in the true style of a special pleader), we may be permitted to feel -serious alarm as to the fate of our national labour; for what would -Frenchmen make of their heads and their hands were they left to their -own resources? - -The administration which you have honoured with your confidence has -turned its attention to this grave state of things, and has sought -in its wisdom to discover a species of _protection_ which may be -substituted for that which appears to be getting out of repute. They -propose a _law to prohibit your faithful SUBJECTS FROM USING THEIR RIGHT -HANDS_. - -Sire, we beseech you not to do us the injustice of supposing that we -have adopted lightly and without due deliberation a measure which at -first sight may appear somewhat whimsical. A profound study of the -system of protection has taught us this syllogism, upon which the whole -doctrine reposes: - -The more men work, the richer they become; - -The more difficulties there are to be overcome, the more work; - -Ergo, the more difficulties there are to be overcome, the richer they -become. - -In fact, what is protection, if it is not an ingenious application -of this reasoning--reasoning so close and conclusive as to balk the -subtlety of M. Billault himself? - -Let us personify the country, and regard it as a collective being with -thirty millions of mouths, and, as a natural consequence, with sixty -millions of hands. Here is a man who makes a French clock, which he can -exchange in Belgium for ten hundredweights of iron. But we tell him to -make the iron himself. He replies, "I cannot, it would occupy too much -of my time; I should produce only five hundredweights of iron during the -time I am occupied in making a clock." Utopian dreamer, we reply, that -is the very reason why we forbid you to make the clock, and order you to -make the iron. Don't you see we are providing employment for you? - -Sire, it cannot have escaped your sagacity that this is exactly the same -thing in effect as if we were to say to the country, "Work with your -left hand, and not with the right." - -To create obstacles in order to furnish labour with an opportunity of -developing itself, was the principle of the old system of restriction, -and it is the principle likewise of the new system which is now being -inaugurated. Sire, to regulate industry in this way is not to innovate, -but to persevere. - -As regards the efficiency of the measure, it is incontestable. It is -difficult, much more difficult than one would suppose, to do with the -left hand what we have been accustomed to do with the right. You will -be convinced of this, Sire, if you will condescend to make trial of our -system in a process which must be familiar to you; as, for example, in -shuffling a pack of cards. For this reason, we flatter ourselves that we -are opening to labour an unlimited career. - -When workmen in all departments of industry are thus confined to the use -of the left hand, we may figure to ourselves, Sire, the immense number -of people that will be wanted to supply the present consumption, -assuming it to continue invariable, as we always do when we compare two -different systems of production with one another. So prodigious a demand -for manual labour cannot fail to induce a great rise of wages, and -pauperism will disappear as if by enchantment. - -Sire, your paternal heart will rejoice to think that this new law of -ours will extend its benefits to that interesting part of the community -whose destinies engage all your solicitude. What is the present destiny -of women in France? The bolder and more hardy sex drives them insensibly -out of every department of industry. - -Formerly, they had the resource of the lottery offices. These offices -have been shut up by a pitiless philanthropy, and on what pretext? "To -save the money of the poor." Alas! the poor man never obtained for a -piece of money enjoyments as sweet and innocent as those afforded by the -mysterious urn of fortune. Deprived of all the enjoyments of life, when -he, fortnight after fortnight, put a day's wages on the _quaterne_, how -many delicious hours did he afford his family! Hope was always present -at his fireside. The garret was peopled with illusions. The wife hoped -to rival her neighbours in her style of living; the son saw himself the -drum-major of a regiment; and the daughter fancied herself led to the -altar by her betrothed. - - "C'est quelque chose encor que de faire un beau rêve!" - -The lottery was the poetry of the poor, and we have lost it. - -The lottery gone, what means have we of providing for our _protégées?_ -Tobacco-shops and the post-office. - -Tobacco, all right; its use progresses, thanks to the _distinguées_ -habits, which august examples have skilfully introduced among our -fashionable youth. - -The post-office!... We shall say nothing of it, as we mean to make it -the subject of a special report. - -Except, then, the sale of tobacco, what employment remains for your -female subjects? Embroidery, network, and sewing,--melancholy resources, -which the barbarous science of mechanics goes on limiting more and more. - -But the moment your new law comes into operation, the moment right hands -are amputated or tied up, the face of everything will be changed. -Twenty times, thirty times, a greater number of embroiderers, polishers, -laundresses, seamstresses, milliners, shirtmakers, will not be -sufficient to supply the wants of the kingdom, always assuming, as -before, the consumption to be the same. - -This assumption may very likely be disputed by some cold theorists, for -dress and everything else will then be dearer. The same thing may be -said of the iron which we extract from our own mines, compared with -the iron we could obtain in exchange for our wines. This argument, -therefore, does not tell more against gaucherie than against protection, -for this very dearness is the effect and the sign of an excess of work -and exertion, which is precisely the basis upon which, in both cases, we -contend that the prosperity of the working classes is founded. - -Yes, we shall be favoured soon with a touching picture of the prosperity -of the millinery business. What movement! What activity! What life! -Every dress will occupy a hundred fingers, instead of ten. No young -woman will be idle, and we have no need, Sire, to indicate to your -perspicacity the moral consequences of this great revolution. Not only -will there be more young women employed, but each of them will earn -more, for they will be unable to supply the demand; and if competition -shall again show itself, it will not be among the seamstresses who make -the dresses, but among the fine ladies who wear them. - -You must see then, Sire, that our proposal is not only in strict -conformity with the economic traditions of the government, but is in -itself essentially moral and popular. - -To appreciate its effects, let us suppose the law passed and in -operation,--let us transport ourselves in imagination into the -future,--and assume the new system to have been in operation for -twenty years. Idleness is banished from the country; ease and concord, -contentment and morality, have, with employment, been introduced into -every family--no more poverty, no more vice. The left hand being very -visible in all work, employment will be abundant, and the remuneration -adequate. Everything is arranged on this footing, and the workshops in -consequence are full. If, in such circumstances, Sire, Utopian dreamers -were all at once to agitate for the right hand being again set free, -would they not throw the whole country into alarm? Would such a -pretended reform not overturn the whole existing state of things? Then -our system must be good, since it could not be put an end to without -universal suffering. - -And yet we confess we have the melancholy presentiment (so great is -human perversity) that some day there will be formed an association for -right-hand freedom. - -We think that already we hear the free Dexterities, assembled in the -Salle Montesquieu, holding this language:-- - -"Good people, you think yourselves richer because the use of one of -your hands has been denied you; you take account only of the additional -employment which that brings you. But consider also the high prices -which result from it, and the forced diminution of consumption. That -measure has not made capital more abundant, and capital is the fund from -which wages are paid. The streams which flow from that great reservoir -are directed towards other channels; but their volume is not enlarged; -and the ultimate effect, as far as the nation at large is concerned, is -the loss of all that wealth which millions of right hands could produce, -compared with what is now produced by an equal number of left hands. -At the risk of some inevitable derangements, then, let us form an -association, and enforce our right to work with both hands." - -Fortunately, Sire, an association has been formed in defence of -left-hand labour, and the Sinistristes will have no difficulty in -demolishing all these generalities, suppositions, abstractions, -reveries, and utopias. They have only to exhume the Moniteur Industriel -for 1846, and they will find ready-made arguments against freedom Of -trade, which refute so admirably all that has been urged in favour of -right-hand liberty that it is only necessary to substitute the one word -for the other. - -"The Parisian free-trade league has no doubt of securing the concurrence -of the workmen. But the workmen are no longer men who can be led by the -nose. They have their eyes open, and they know political economy -better than our professors. Free trade, they say, will deprive us of -employment, and labour is our wealth. With employment, with abundant -employment, the price of commodities never places them beyond our reach. -Without employment, were bread at a halfpenny a pound, the workman would -die of hunger. Now your doctrines, instead of increasing the present -amount of employment, would diminish it, that is to say, would reduce us -to poverty. - -"When there are too many commodities in the market, their price falls, -no doubt. But as wages always fall when commodities are cheap, the -result is that, instead of being in a situation to purchase more, we are -no longer able to buy anything. It is when commodities are cheap that -the workman is worst off." - -It will not be amiss for the Sinistristes to intermingle some menaces -with their theories. Here is a model for them:--"What! you desire to -substitute right-hand for left-hand labour, and thus force down, or -perhaps annihilate wages, the sole resource of the great bulk of the -nation! - -"And, at a time when a deficient harvest is imposing painful privations -on the workman, you wish to disquiet him as to his future, and render -him more accessible to bad advice, and more ready to abandon that wise -line of conduct which has hitherto distinguished him." - -After such conclusive reasoning as this, we entertain a confident hope, -Sire, that if the battle is once begun, the left hand will come off -victorious. - -Perhaps an association may be formed for the purpose of inquiring -whether the right hand and the left are not both wrong, and whether a -third hand cannot be found to conciliate everybody. - -After having depicted the Dexteristes as seduced by the apparent -liberality of a principle, the soundness of which experience has not -yet verified and the Sinistristes as maintaining the position they have -gained, they go on to say:-- - -"We deny that there is any third position which it is possible to take -up in the midst of the battle! Is it not evident that the workmen have -to defend themselves at one and the same time against those who desire -to change nothing in the present situation, because they find their -account in it, and against those who dream of an economic revolution of -which they have calculated neither the direction nor the extent?" - -We cannot, however, conceal from your Majesty that our project has a -vulnerable side; for it may be said that twenty years hence left hands -will be as skilful as right hands are at present, and that then -you could no longer trust to gaucherie for an increase of national -employment. - -To that we reply, that according to the most learned physicians the left -side of the body has a natural feebleness, which is quite reassuring as -regards the labour of the future. - -Should your Majesty consent to pass the measure now proposed, a great -principle will be established: All wealth proceeds from the intensity -of labour. It will be easy for us to extend and vary the applications of -this principle. We may decree, for example, that it shall no longer be -permissible to work but with the foot; for this is no more impossible -(as we have seen) than to extract iron from the mud of the Seine. You -see then, Sire, that the means of increasing national labour can never -fail. And after all has been tried, we have still the practically -ex-haustless resource of amputation. - -To conclude, Sire, if this report were not intended for publicity, -we should take the liberty of soliciting your attention to the great -influence which measures of this kind are calculated to confer on men -in power. But that is a matter which we must reserve for a private -audience. - - - - -XVII. DOMINATION BY LABOUR. - -"In the same way that in time of war we attain the mastery by -superiority in arms, do we not, in time of peace, arrive at domination -by superiority in labour?" - -This is a question of the highest interest at a time when no doubt seems -to be entertained that in the field of industry, as in the field of -battle, the stronger crushes the weaker. - -To arrive at this conclusion, we must have discovered between the labour -which is applied to commodities and the violence exercised upon men, a -melancholy and discouraging analogy; for why should these two kinds -of operations be thought identical in their effects, if they are -essentially different in their own nature? - -And if it be true that in industry, as in war, predominance is the -necessary result of superiority, what have we to do with progress or -with social economy, seeing that we inhabit a world where everything -has been so arranged by Providence that one and the same effect--namely, -oppression--proceeds necessarily from two opposite principles? - -With reference to England's new policy of commercial freedom, many -persons make this objection, which has, I am convinced, taken possession -of the most candid minds among us: "Is England doing anything else than -pursuing the same end by different means. Does she not always aspire at -universal supremacy? Assured of her superiority in capital and labour, -does she not invite free competition in order to stifle Continental -industry, and so put herself in a situation to reign as a sovereign, -having conquered the privilege of feeding and clothing the population -she has ruined?" - -It would not be difficult to demonstrate that these alarms are -chimerical; that our alleged inferiority is much exaggerated; that -our great branches of industry not only maintain their ground, but are -actually developed under the action of external competition, and that -the infallible effect of such competition is to bring about an increase -of general consumption, capable of absorbing both home and foreign -products. - -At present, I desire to make a direct answer to the objection, leaving -it all the advantage of the ground chosen by the objectors. Keeping out -of view for the present the special case of England and France, I shall -inquire in a general way whether, when, by its superiority in one branch -of industry, a nation comes to outrival and put down a similar branch of -industry existing among another people, the former has advanced one step -towards domination, or the latter towards dependence; in' other words, -whether both nations do not gain by the operation, and whether it is not -the nation which is outrivalled that gains the most. - -If we saw in a product nothing more than an opportunity of bestowing -labour, the alarms of the protectionists would undoubtedly be -well-founded. Were we to consider iron, for example, only in its -relations with ironmasters, we might be led to fear that the competition -of a country where it is the gratuitous gift of nature would extinguish -the furnaces of another country where both ore and fuel are scarce. - -But is this a complete view of the subject? Has iron relations only with -those who make it? Has it no relations with those who use it? Is its -sole and ultimate destination to be produced? And if it is useful, not -on account of the labour to which it gives employment, but on account -of the qualities it possesses, of the numerous purposes to which its -durability and malleability adapt it, does it not follow that the -foreigner cannot reduce its price, even so far as to render its -production at home unprofitable, without doing us more good in this last -respect, than harm in the other? - -Pray consider how many things there are which foreigners, by reason -of the natural advantages by which they are surrounded, prevent our -producing directly, and with reference to which we are placed in reality -in the hypothetical position we have been examining with reference to -iron. We produce at home neither tea, coffee, gold, nor silver. Is our -industry _en masse_ diminished in consequence? No; only in order to -create the counter-value of these imported commodities, in order to -acquire them by means of exchange, we detach from our national labour -a portion less great than would be required to produce these things -ourselves. More labour thus remains to be devoted to the procuring of -other enjoyments. We are so much the richer and so much the stronger. -All that external competition can do, even in cases where it puts an end -absolutely to a determinate branch of industry, is to economize -labour, and increase our productive power. Is this, in the case of the -foreigner, the road to domination! - -If we should find in France a gold mine, it does not follow that it -would be for our interest to work it. Nay, it is certain that the -enterprise would be neglected if each ounce of gold absorbed more of our -labour than an ounce of gold purchased abroad with cloth. In this case -we should do better to find our mines in our workshops. And what is true -of gold is true of iron. - -The illusion proceeds from our failure to see one thing, which is, that -foreign superiority never puts a stop to national industry, except under -a determinate form, and under that form only renders it superfluous by -placing at our disposal the result of the very labour thus superseded. -If men lived in diving-bells under water, and had to provide themselves -with air by means of a pump, this would be a great source of employment. -To throw obstacles in the way of such employment, as long as men were -left in this condition would be to inflict upon them a frightful injury. -But if the labour ceases because the necessity for its exertion -no longer exists, because men are placed in a medium where air is -introduced into their lungs without effort, then the loss of that -labour is not to be regretted, except in the eyes of men who obstinately -persist in seeing in labour nothing but labour in the abstract. - -It is exactly this kind of labour which machinery, commercial freedom, -progress of every kind, gradually supersedes; not useful labour, but -labour become superfluous, without object, and without result. On the -contrary, protection sets that sort of useless labour to work; it places -us again under water, to bring the air-pump into play; it forces us to -apply for gold to the inaccessible national mine, rather than to -the national workshops. All the effect is expressed by the words, -depredation of forces. - -It will be understood that I am speaking here of general effects, not -of the temporary inconvenience which is always caused by the transition -from a bad system to a good one. A momentary derangement accompanies -necessarily all progress. This may be a reason for making the transition -gently and gradually. It is no reason for putting a stop systematically -to all progress, still less for misunderstanding it. - -Industry is often represented as a struggle. That is not a true -representation of it, or only true when we confine ourselves to the -consideration of each branch of industry in its effects upon similar -branches, regarding them both in thought apart from the interests of the -rest of mankind. But there is always something else to be considered, -namely, the effects upon consumption, and upon general prosperity. - -It is an error to apply to trade, as is but too often done, phrases -which are applicable to war. - -In war the stronger overcomes the weaker. - -In industry the stronger imparts force to the weaker. This entirely does -away with the analogy. - -Let the English be as powerful and skilful as they are represented, let -them be possessed of as large an amount of capital, and have as great -a command of the two great agents of production, iron and fuel, as they -are supposed to have; all this simply means cheapness. And who gains by -the cheapness of products? The man who buys them. - -It is not in their power to annihilate any part whatever of our national -labour. All they can do is to render it superfluous in the production of -what is acquired by exchange, to furnish us with air without the aid of -the pump, to enlarge in this way our disposable forces, and so render -their alleged domination as much more impossible as their superiority -becomes more incontestable. - -Thus, by a rigorous and consoling demonstration, we arrive at this -conclusion, that labour and violence, which are so opposite in their -nature, are not less so in their effects. - -All we are called upon to do is to distinguish between labour -annihilated, and labour economized. - -To have less iron because we work less, and to have less iron although -we work less, are things not only different, but opposed to each other. -The protectionists confound them; we do not. That is all. - -We may be very certain of one thing, that if the English employ a large -amount of activity, labour, capital, intelligence, and natural forces, -it is not done for show. It is done in order to procure a multitude of -enjoyments in exchange for their products. They most certainly expect -to receive at least as much as they give. _What they produce at home is -destined to pay for what they purchase abroad_. If they inundate us with -their products, it is because they expect to be inundated with ours in -return. That being so, the best means of having much for ourselves is -to be free to choose between these two modes of acquisition, immediate -production, and mediate production. British Machiavelism cannot force us -to make a wrong choice. - -Let us give up, then, the puerility of applying to industrial -competition phrases applicable to war,--a way of speaking which is -only specious when applied to competition between two rival trades. The -moment we come to take into account the effect produced on the general -prosperity, the analogy disappears. - -In a battle, every one who is killed diminishes by so much the strength -of the army. In industry, a workshop is shut up only when what it -produced is obtained by the public from another source and in greater -abundance. Figure a state of things where for one man killed on the spot -two should rise up full of life and vigour. Were such a state of things -possible, war would no longer merit its name. - -This, however, is the distinctive character of what is so absurdly -called industrial war. - -Let the Belgians and the English lower the price of their iron ever -so much; let them, if they will, send it to us for nothing; this -might extinguish some of our blast-furnaces; but immediately, and as -a necessary consequence of this very cheapness, there would rise up a -thousand other branches of industry more profitable than the one which -had been superseded. - -We arrive, then, at the conclusion that domination by labour is -impossible, and a contradiction in terms, seeing that all superiority -which manifests itself among a people means cheapness, and tends only to -impart force to all other nations. Let us banish, then, from political -economy all terms borrowed from the military vocabulary: to fight with -equal weapons, to conquer, to crush, to stifle, to be beaten, invasion, -tribute, etc. What do such phrases mean? Squeeze them, and you obtain -nothing... Yes, you do obtain something; for from such words proceed -absurd errors, and fatal and pestilent prejudices. Such phrases tend to -arrest the fusion of nations, are inimical to their peaceful, universal, -and indissoluble alliance, and retard the progress of the human race. - -THE END. - - - - - - - - -End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of Economic Sophisms, by Frédéric Bastiat - -*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK ECONOMIC SOPHISMS *** - -***** This file should be named 44145-8.txt or 44145-8.zip ***** -This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: - http://www.gutenberg.org/4/4/1/4/44145/ - -Produced by David Widger - -Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions -will be renamed. - -Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no -one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation -(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without -permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, -set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to -copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to -protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark. Project -Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you -charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission. If you -do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the -rules is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose -such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and -research. They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do -practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks. Redistribution is -subject to the trademark license, especially commercial -redistribution. - - - -*** START: FULL LICENSE *** - -THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE -PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK - -To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free -distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work -(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project -Gutenberg-tm License available with this file or online at - www.gutenberg.org/license. - - -Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works - -1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to -and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property -(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all -the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy -all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession. -If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the -terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or -entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8. - -1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be -used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who -agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few -things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See -paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement -and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic -works. See paragraph 1.E below. - -1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation" -or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the -collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an -individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are -located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from -copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative -works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg -are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project -Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by -freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of -this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with -the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by -keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project -Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others. - -1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern -what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in -a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check -the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement -before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or -creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project -Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning -the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United -States. - -1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: - -1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate -access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently -whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the -phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project -Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, -copied or distributed: - -This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with -almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or -re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included -with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org - -1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived -from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is -posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied -and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees -or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work -with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the -work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 -through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the -Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or -1.E.9. - -1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted -with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution -must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional -terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked -to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the -permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work. - -1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm -License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this -work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. - -1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this -electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without -prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with -active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project -Gutenberg-tm License. - -1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, -compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any -word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or -distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than -"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version -posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org), -you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a -copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon -request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other -form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm -License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. - -1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, -performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works -unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing -access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided -that - -- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from - the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method - you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is - owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he - has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the - Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments - must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you - prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax - returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and - sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the - address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to - the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation." - -- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies - you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he - does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm - License. You must require such a user to return or - destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium - and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of - Project Gutenberg-tm works. - -- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any - money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the - electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days - of receipt of the work. - -- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free - distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. - -1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set -forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from -both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael -Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the -Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. - -1.F. - -1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable -effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread -public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm -collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic -works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain -"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or -corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual -property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a -computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by -your equipment. - -1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right -of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project -Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all -liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal -fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT -LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE -PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE -TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE -LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR -INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH -DAMAGE. - -1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a -defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can -receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a -written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you -received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with -your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with -the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a -refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity -providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to -receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy -is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further -opportunities to fix the problem. - -1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth -in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO OTHER -WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO -WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. - -1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied -warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. -If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the -law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be -interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by -the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any -provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions. - -1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the -trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone -providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance -with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, -promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works, -harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, -that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do -or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm -work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any -Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause. - - -Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm - -Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of -electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers -including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists -because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from -people in all walks of life. - -Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the -assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's -goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will -remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure -and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations. -To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation -and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 -and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org - - -Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive -Foundation - -The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit -501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the -state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal -Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification -number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg -Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent -permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. - -The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S. -Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered -throughout numerous locations. Its business office is located at 809 -North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email -contact links and up to date contact information can be found at the -Foundation's web site and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact - -For additional contact information: - Dr. Gregory B. Newby - Chief Executive and Director - gbnewby@pglaf.org - -Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg -Literary Archive Foundation - -Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide -spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of -increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be -freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest -array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations -($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt -status with the IRS. - -The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating -charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United -States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a -considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up -with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations -where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To -SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any -particular state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate - -While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we -have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition -against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who -approach us with offers to donate. - -International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make -any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from -outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. - -Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation -methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other -ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. -To donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate - - -Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic -works. - -Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm -concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared -with anyone. For forty years, he produced and distributed Project -Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support. - -Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed -editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S. -unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily -keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition. - -Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility: - - www.gutenberg.org - -This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, -including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to -subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. - diff --git a/old/44145-8.zip b/old/44145-8.zip Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index 80df650..0000000 --- a/old/44145-8.zip +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/44145-h.zip b/old/44145-h.zip Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index 562f6b4..0000000 --- a/old/44145-h.zip +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/44145-h/44145-h.htm b/old/44145-h/44145-h.htm deleted file mode 100644 index 09c8d86..0000000 --- a/old/44145-h/44145-h.htm +++ /dev/null @@ -1,12662 +0,0 @@ -<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1"?> - -<!DOCTYPE html -PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" -"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd" > - -<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" lang="en"> -<head> -<title> -Economic Sophisms, by Frederic Bastiat -</title> -<style type="text/css"> - <!-- - body { margin:5%; background:#faebd0; text-align:justify} - P { text-indent: 1em; margin-top: .25em; margin-bottom: .25em; } - H1,H2,H3,H4,H5,H6 { text-align: center; margin-left: 15%; margin-right: 15%; } - hr { width: 50%; text-align: center;} - .foot { margin-left: 20%; margin-right: 20%; text-align: justify; text-indent: -3em; font-size: 90%; } - blockquote {font-size: 97%; font-style: italic; margin-left: 10%; margin-right: 10%;} - .mynote {background-color: #DDE; color: #000; padding: .5em; margin-left: 10%; margin-right: 10%; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 95%;} - .toc { margin-left: 10%; margin-bottom: .75em;} - .toc2 { margin-left: 20%;} - div.fig { display:block; margin:0 auto; text-align:center; } - div.middle { margin-left: 20%; margin-right: 20%; text-align: justify; } - .figleft {float: left; margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 1%;} - .figright {float: right; margin-right: 0%; margin-left: 1%;} - .pagenum {display:inline; font-size: 100%; font-style:normal; - margin: 0; padding: 0; position: absolute; right: 1%; - text-align: right;} - .side { float: left; font-size: 75%; width: 25%; padding-left: 0.8em; - border-left: dashed thin; text-align: left; - text-indent: 0; font-weight: bold; font-style: italic; - font-weight: bold; color: black; background: #eeeeee; border: solid 1px;} - p.pfirst, p.noindent {text-indent: 0} - span.dropcap { float: left; margin: 0 0.1em 0 0; line-height: 1 } - pre { font-style: italic; font-size: 90%; margin-left: 10%;} - --> -</style> -</head> -<body> - - -<pre> - -The Project Gutenberg EBook of Economic Sophisms, by Frederic Bastiat - -This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with -almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or -re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included -with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org - - -Title: Economic Sophisms - -Author: Frederic Bastiat - -Translator: Patrick James Stirling - -Release Date: November 18, 2013 [EBook #44145] - -Language: English - -Character set encoding: ISO-8859-1 - -*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK ECONOMIC SOPHISMS *** - - - - -Produced by David Widger - - - - - -</pre> - -<div style="height: 8em;"> -<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> -</div> -<h1> -ECONOMIC SOPHISMS -</h1> -<h2> -By Frederic Bastiat -</h2> -<p> -<br /> -</p> -<h4> -Translated From the Fifth Edition of the French, <br /> by Patrick James -Stirling, LLD., F.R.S.E. -</h4> -<h5> -Edinburgh: Oliver And Boyd, Tweeddale Court. -</h5> -<h4> -1873 -</h4> -<p> -<br /><br /> -</p> -<hr /> -<p> -<br /><br /> -</p> -<p> -<b>CONTENTS</b> -</p> -<p class="toc"> -<a href="#link2H_4_0001"> TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE. </a> -</p> -<p> -<br /> -</p> -<p class="toc"> -<a href="#link2H_4_0002"> <b>ECONOMIC SOPHISMS. FIRST SERIES.</b> </a> -</p> -<p class="toc"> -<a href="#link2H_INTR"> INTRODUCTION. </a> -</p> -<p class="toc"> -<a href="#link2H_4_0004"> I. ABUNDANCE, SCARCITY. </a> -</p> -<p class="toc"> -<a href="#link2H_4_0005"> II. OBSTACLE, CAUSE. </a> -</p> -<p class="toc"> -<a href="#link2H_4_0006"> III. EFFORT, RESULT. </a> -</p> -<p class="toc"> -<a href="#link2H_4_0007"> IV. TO EQUALIZE THE CONDITIONS OF PRODUCTION. -</a> -</p> -<p class="toc"> -<a href="#link2H_4_0008"> V. OUR PRODUCTS ARE BURDENED WITH TAXES. </a> -</p> -<p class="toc"> -<a href="#link2H_4_0009"> VI. BALANCE OF TRADE. </a> -</p> -<p class="toc"> -<a href="#link2H_4_0010"> VII. OF THE MANUFACTURERS </a> -</p> -<p class="toc"> -<a href="#link2H_4_0011"> VIII. DIFFERENTIAL DUTIES. </a> -</p> -<p class="toc"> -<a href="#link2H_4_0012"> IX. IMMENSE DISCOVERY. </a> -</p> -<p class="toc"> -<a href="#link2H_4_0013"> X. RECIPROCITY. </a> -</p> -<p class="toc"> -<a href="#link2H_4_0014"> XI. NOMINAL PRICES. </a> -</p> -<p class="toc"> -<a href="#link2H_4_0015"> XII. DOES PROTECTION RAISE THE RATE OF WAGES? -</a> -</p> -<p class="toc"> -<a href="#link2H_4_0016"> XIII. THEORY, PRACTICE. </a> -</p> -<p class="toc"> -<a href="#link2H_4_0017"> XIV. CONFLICT OF PRINCIPLES. </a> -</p> -<p class="toc"> -<a href="#link2H_4_0018"> XV. RECIPROCITY AGAIN. </a> -</p> -<p class="toc"> -<a href="#link2H_4_0019"> XVI. OBSTRUCTED NAVIGATION PLEADING FOR THE -PROHIBITIONISTS. </a> -</p> -<p class="toc"> -<a href="#link2H_4_0020"> XVII. A NEGATIVE RAILWAY. </a> -</p> -<p class="toc"> -<a href="#link2H_4_0021"> XVIII. THERE ARE NO ABSOLUTE PRINCIPLES. </a> -</p> -<p class="toc"> -<a href="#link2H_4_0022"> XIX. NATIONAL INDEPENDENCE. </a> -</p> -<p class="toc"> -<a href="#link2H_4_0023"> XX. HUMAN LABOUR, NATIONAL LABOUR. </a> -</p> -<p class="toc"> -<a href="#link2H_4_0024"> XXI. RAW MATERIALS. </a> -</p> -<p class="toc"> -<a href="#link2H_4_0025"> XXII. METAPHORS. </a> -</p> -<p class="toc"> -<a href="#link2H_CONC"> CONCLUSION. </a> -</p> -<p> -<br /> -</p> -<p class="toc"> -<a href="#link2H_4_0027"> <b>SECOND SERIES.</b> </a> -</p> -<p class="toc"> -<a href="#link2H_4_0028"> I. PHYSIOLOGY OF SPOLIATION. </a> -</p> -<p class="toc"> -<a href="#link2H_4_0029"> II. TWO PRINCIPLES OF MORALITY. </a> -</p> -<p class="toc"> -<a href="#link2H_4_0030"> III. THE TWO HATCHETS. </a> -</p> -<p class="toc"> -<a href="#link2H_4_0031"> IV. LOWER COUNCIL OF LABOUR. </a> -</p> -<p class="toc"> -<a href="#link2H_4_0032"> V. DEARNESS-CHEAPNESS. </a> -</p> -<p class="toc"> -<a href="#link2H_4_0033"> VI. TO ARTISANS AND WORKMEN. </a> -</p> -<p class="toc"> -<a href="#link2H_4_0034"> VII. A CHINESE STORY. </a> -</p> -<p class="toc"> -<a href="#link2H_4_0035"> VIII. POST HOC, ERGO PROPTER HOC. </a> -</p> -<p class="toc"> -<a href="#link2H_4_0036"> IX. THE PREMIUM THEFT. </a> -</p> -<p class="toc"> -<a href="#link2H_4_0037"> X. THE TAXGATHERER. </a> -</p> -<p class="toc"> -<a href="#link2H_4_0038"> XI. THE UTOPIAN FREE-TRADER. </a> -</p> -<p class="toc"> -<a href="#link2H_4_0039"> XII. THE SALT-TAX, RATES OF POSTAGE, AND -CUSTOMHOUSE DUTIES. </a> -</p> -<p class="toc"> -<a href="#link2H_4_0040"> XIII. PROTECTION; OR, THE THREE CITY -MAGISTRATES. Demonstration in Four </a> -</p> -<p class="toc"> -<a href="#link2H_4_0041"> XIV. SOMETHING ELSE. </a> -</p> -<p class="toc"> -<a href="#link2H_4_0042"> XV. THE LITTLE ARSENAL OF THE FREE-TRADER. </a> -</p> -<p class="toc"> -<a href="#link2H_4_0043"> XVI. THE RIGHT HAND AND THE LEFT. </a> -</p> -<p class="toc"> -<a href="#link2H_4_0044"> XVII. DOMINATION BY LABOUR. </a> -</p> -<p> -<br /><br /> -</p> -<hr /> -<p> -<a name="link2H_4_0001" id="link2H_4_0001"> </a> -</p> -<div style="height: 4em;"> -<br /><br /><br /><br /> -</div> -<h2> -TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE. -</h2> -<p class="pfirst"><span class="dropcap" style="font-size: 4.00em">B</span>astiat's two great works on Political Economy—the Sophismes -Économiques, and the Harmonies Économiques—may be regarded as -counterparts of each other. He himself so regarded them: "the one," he -says, "pulls down, the other builds up." His object in the Sophismes was -to refute the fallacies of the Protectionist school, then predominant in -France, and so to clear the way for the establishment of what he -maintained to be the true system of economic science, which he desired to -found on a new and peculiar theory of value, afterwards fully developed by -him in the <i>Harmonies</i>. Whatever difference of opinion may exist -among economists as to the soundness of this theory, all must admire the -irresistible logic of the <i>Sophismes</i>, and "the sallies of wit and -humour," which, as Mr Cobden has said, make that work as "amusing as a -novel." -</p> -<p> -The system of Bastiat having thus a <i>destructive</i> as well as a <i>constructive</i> -object, a <i>negative</i> as well as a <i>positive</i> design, it is -perhaps only doing justice to his great reputation as an economist to put -the English reader in a position to judge of that system as a whole. Hence -the present translation of the <i>Sophismes</i> is intended as a companion -volume to the translation of the <i>Harmonies.</i> -</p> -<p> -It is unnecessary for me to say more here by way of preface, the gifted -author having himself explained the design of the work in a short but -lucid introduction. -</p> -<h3> -P.J.S. -</h3> -<p> -<br /><br /> -</p> -<hr /> -<p> -<a name="link2H_4_0002" id="link2H_4_0002"> </a> -</p> -<div style="height: 4em;"> -<br /><br /><br /><br /> -</div> -<h2> -ECONOMIC SOPHISMS. FIRST SERIES. -</h2> -<p> -<br /><br /> -</p> -<hr /> -<p> -<a name="link2H_INTR" id="link2H_INTR"> </a> -</p> -<div style="height: 4em;"> -<br /><br /><br /><br /> -</div> -<h2> -INTRODUCTION. -</h2> -<p class="pfirst"><span class="dropcap" style="font-size: 4.00em">M</span>y design in this little volume is to refute some of the arguments which -are urged against the Freedom of Trade. -</p> -<p> -I do not propose to engage in a contest with the protectionists; but -rather to instil a principle into the minds of those who hesitate because -they sincerely doubt. -</p> -<p> -I am not one of those who say that Protection is founded on men's -interests. I am of opinion rather that it is founded on errors, or, if you -will, upon <i>incomplete truths</i>. Too many people fear liberty, to -permit us to conclude that their apprehensions are not sincerely felt. -</p> -<p> -It is perhaps aiming too high, but my wish is, I confess, that this little -work should become, as it were, the <i>Manual</i> of those whose business -it is to pronounce between the two principles. Where men have not been -long accustomed and familiarized to the doctrine of liberty, the sophisms -of protection, in one shape or another, are constantly coming back upon -them. In order to disabuse them of such errors when they recur, a long -process of analysis becomes necessary; and every one has not the time -required for such a process—legislators less than others. This is my -reason for endeavouring to present the analysis and its results cut and -dry. -</p> -<p> -But it may be asked, Are the benefits of liberty so hidden as to be -discovered only by Economists by profession? -</p> -<pre xml:space="preserve"> -* The first series of the Sophismes Économiques appeared in -the end of 1845; the second series in 1848.—Editor. -</pre> -<p> -We must confess that our adversaries have a marked advantage over us in -the discussion. In very few words they can announce a half-truth; and in -order to demonstrate that it is <i>incomplete</i>, we are obliged to have -recourse to long and dry dissertations. -</p> -<p> -This arises from the nature of things. Protection concentrates on one -point the good which it produces, while the evils which it inflicts are -spread over the masses. The one is visible to the naked eye; the other -only to the eye of the mind. In the case of liberty, it is just the -reverse. -</p> -<p> -In the treatment of almost all economic questions, we find it to be so. -</p> -<p> -You say, Here is a machine which has turned thirty workmen into the -street. -</p> -<p> -Or, Here is a spendthrift who encourages every branch of industry. -</p> -<p> -Or, The conquest of Algeria has doubled the trade of Marseilles. -</p> -<p> -Or, The budget secures subsistence for a hundred thousand families. -</p> -<p> -You are understood at once and by all. Your propositions are in themselves -clear, simple, and true. What are your deductions from them? -</p> -<p> -Machinery is an evil. -</p> -<p> -Luxury, conquests, and heavy taxation, are productive of good. -</p> -<p> -And your theory has all the more success that you are in a situation to -support it by a reference to undoubted facts. -</p> -<p> -On our side, we must decline to confine our attention to the cause, and -its direct and immediate effect. We know that this very effect in its turn -becomes a cause. To judge correctly of a measure, then, we must trace it -through the whole chain of results to its definitive effect. In other -words, we are forced to <i>reason</i> upon it. -</p> -<p> -But then clamour gets up: You are theorists, metaphysicians, idealists, -utopian dreamers, <i>doctrinaires</i>; and all the prejudices of the -popular mind are roused against us. -</p> -<p> -What, under such circumstances, are we to do? We can only invoke the -patience and good sense of the reader, and set our deductions, if we can, -in a light so clear, that truth and error must show themselves plainly, -openly, and without disguise,—and that the victory, once gained, may -remain on the side of restriction, or on that of freedom. -</p> -<p> -And here I must set down an essential observation. -</p> -<p> -Some extracts from this little volume have already appeared in the <i>Journal -des Economistes</i>. -</p> -<p> -In a critique, in other respects very favourable, from the pen of M. le -Vicomte de Romanet, he supposes that I demand the suppression of customs. -He is mistaken. I demand the suppression of the protectionist <i>regime</i>. -We don't refuse taxes to the Government, but we desire, if possible, to -dissuade the governed from taxing one another. Napoleon said that "the -customhouse should not be made an instrument of revenue, but a means of -protecting industry." We maintain the contrary, and we contend that the -customhouse ought not to become in the hands of the working classes an -instrument of reciprocal rapine, but that it may be used as an instrument -of revenue as legitimately as any other. So far are we—or, to speak -only for myself, so far am I—from demanding the suppression of -customs, that I see in that branch of revenue our future anchor of safety. -I believe our resources are capable of yielding to the Treasury immense -returns; and to speak plainly, I must add, that, seeing how slow is the -spread of sound economic doctrines, and so rapid the increase of our -budgets, I am disposed to count more upon the necessities of the Treasury -than on the force of enlightened opinion for furthering the cause of -commercial reform. -</p> -<p> -You ask me, then, What is your conclusion? and I reply, that here there is -no need to arrive at a conclusion. I combat sophisms; that is all. -</p> -<p> -But you rejoin, that it is not enough to pull down—it is also -necessary to build up. True; but to destroy an error, is to build up the -truth which stands opposed to it. -</p> -<p> -After all, I have no repugnance to declare what my wishes are. I desire to -see public opinion led to sanction a law of customs conceived nearly in -these terms:— -</p> -<p> -Articles of primary necessity to pay a duty, ad valorem, of 5 per cent. -</p> -<p> -Articles of convenience, 10 per cent. -</p> -<p> -Articles of luxury, 15 to 20 per cent. -</p> -<p> -These distinctions, I am aware, belong to an order of ideas which are -quite foreign to Political Economy strictly so called, and I am far from -thinking them as just and useful as they are commonly supposed to be. But -this subject does not fall within the compass of my present design. -</p> -<p> -<br /><br /> -</p> -<hr /> -<p> -<a name="link2H_4_0004" id="link2H_4_0004"> </a> -</p> -<div style="height: 4em;"> -<br /><br /><br /><br /> -</div> -<h2> -I. ABUNDANCE, SCARCITY. -</h2> -<p class="pfirst"><span class="dropcap" style="font-size: 4.00em">W</span>hich is best for man, and for society, abundance or scarcity? -</p> -<p> -What! you exclaim, can that be a question? Has any one ever asserted, or -is it possible to maintain, that scarcity is at the foundation of human -wellbeing? -</p> -<p> -Yes, this has been asserted, and is maintained every day; and I hesitate -not to affirm that the <i>theory of scarcity</i> is much the most popular. -It is the life of conversation, of the journals, of books, and of the -tribune; and strange as it may seem, it is certain that Political Economy -will have fulfilled its practical mission when it has established beyond -question, and widely disseminated, this very simple proposition: "The -wealth of men consists in the abundance of commodities." -</p> -<p> -Do we not hear it said every day, "The foreigner is about to inundate us -with his products?" Then we fear abundance. -</p> -<p> -Did not M. Saint Cricq exclaim, "Production is excessive?" Then he feared -abundance. -</p> -<p> -Do workmen break machines? Then they fear excess of production, or -abundance. -</p> -<p> -Has not M. Bugeaud pronounced these words, "Let bread be dear, and -agriculturists will get rich?" Now, bread cannot be dear but because it is -scarce. Therefore M. Bugeaud extols scarcity. -</p> -<p> -Does not M. d'Argout urge as an argument against sugar-growing the very -productiveness of that industry? Does he not say, "Beetroot has no future, -and its culture cannot be extended, because a few acres devoted to its -culture in each department would supply the whole consumption of France?" -Then, in his eyes, good lies in sterility, in dearth, and evil in -fertility and abundance. -</p> -<p> -The <i>Presse</i>, the <i>Commerce</i>, and the greater part of the daily -papers, have one or more articles every morning to demonstrate to the -Chambers and the Government, that it is sound policy to raise -legislatively the price of all things by means of tariffs. And do the -Chambers and the Government not obey the injunction? Now tariffs can raise -prices only by diminishing the <i>supply</i> of commodities in the market! -Then the journals, the Chambers, and the Minister, put in practice the -theory of scarcity, and I am justified in saying that this theory is by -far the most popular. -</p> -<p> -How does it happen that in the eyes of workmen, of publicists, and -statesmen, abundance should appear a thing to be dreaded, and scarcity -advantageous? I propose to trace this illusion to its source. -</p> -<p> -We remark that a man grows richer in proportion to the return yielded by -his exertions, that is to say, in proportion as he sells his commodity at -a <i>higher price</i>. He sells at a higher price in proportion to the -rarity, to the scarcity, of the article he produces. We conclude from -this, that, as far as he is concerned at least, scarcity enriches him. -Applying successively the same reasoning to all other producers, we -construct the <i>theory of scarcity</i>. We next proceed to apply this -theory, and, in order to favour producers generally, we raise prices -artificially, and cause a scarcity of all commodities, by prohibition, by -restriction, by the suppression of machinery, and other analogous means. -</p> -<p> -The same thing holds of abundance. We observe that when a product is -plentiful, it sells at a lower price, and the producer gains less. If all -producers are in the same situation, they are all poor. Therefore it is -abundance that ruins society And as theories are soon reduced to practice, -we see the law struggling against the abundance of commodities. -</p> -<p> -This sophism in its more general form may make little impression, but -applied to a particular order of facts, to a certain branch of industry, -to a given class, of producers, it is extremely specious; and this is -easily explained. It forms a syllogism which is not <i>false</i>, but <i>incomplete</i>. -Now, what is <i>true</i> in a syllogism is always and necessarily present -to the mind. But <i>incompleteness</i> is a negative quality, an absent <i>datum</i>, -which it is very possible, and indeed very easy, to leave out of account. -</p> -<p> -Man produces in order to consume. He is at once producer and consumer. The -reasoning which I have just explained considers him only in the first of -these points of view. Had the second been taken into account, it would -have led to an opposite conclusion. In effect, may it not be said:— -</p> -<p> -The consumer is richer in proportion as he <i>purchases</i> all things -cheaper; and he purchases things cheaper in proportion to their abundance; -therefore it is abundance which enriches him. This reasoning, extended to -all consumers, leads to the <i>theory of plenty</i>. -</p> -<p> -It is the notion of <i>exchange</i> imperfectly understood which leads to -these illusions. If we consider our personal interest, we recognise -distinctly that it is double. As <i>sellers</i> we have an interest in -dearness, and consequently in scarcity; as <i>buyers</i>, in cheapness, or -what amounts to the same thing, in the abundance of commodities. We -cannot, then, found our reasoning on one or other of these interests -before inquiring which of the two coincides and is identified with the -general and permanent interest of mankind at large. -</p> -<p> -If man were a solitary animal, if he laboured exclusively for himself, if -he consumed directly the fruit of his labour—in a word, <i>if he did -not exchange</i>—the theory of scarcity would never have appeared in -the world. It is too evident that, in that case, abundance would be -advantageous, from whatever quarter it came, whether from the result of -his industry, from ingenious tools, from powerful machinery of his -invention, or whether due to the fertility of the soil, the liberality of -nature, or even to a mysterious <i>invasion</i> of products brought by the -waves and left by them upon the shore. No solitary man would ever have -thought that in order to encourage his labour and render it more -productive, it was necessary to break in pieces the instruments which -saved it, to neutralize the fertility of the soil, or give back to the sea -the good things it had brought to his door. He would perceive at once that -labour is not an end, but a means; and that it would be absurd to reject -the result for fear of doing injury to the means by which that result was -accomplished. He would perceive that if he devotes two hours a day to -providing for his wants, any circumstance (machinery, fertility, -gratuitous gift, no matter what) which saves him an hour of that labour, -the result remaining the same, puts that hour at his disposal, and that he -can devote it to increasing his enjoyments; in short, he would see that <i>to -save labour</i> is nothing else than <i>progress</i>. -</p> -<p> -But <i>exchange</i> disturbs our view of a truth so simple. In the social -state, and with the separation of employments to which it leads, the -production and consumption of a commodity are not mixed up and confounded -in the same individual. Each man comes to see in his labour no longer a -means but an end. In relation to each commodity, exchange creates two -interests, that of the producer and that of the consumer; and these two -interests are always directly opposed to each other. -</p> -<p> -It is essential to analyze them, and examine their nature. -</p> -<p> -Take the case of any producer whatever, what is his immediate interest? It -consists of two things: 1st, that the fewest possible number of persons -should devote themselves to his branch of industry; 2dly, that the -greatest possible number of' persons should be in quest of the article he -produces. Political economy explains it more succinctly in these terms, -Supply very limited, demand very extended; or in other words still, -Competition limited, demand unlimited. -</p> -<p> -What is the immediate interest of the consumer? That the supply of the -product in question should be extended, and the demand restrained. -</p> -<p> -Seeing, then, that these two interests are in opposition to each other, -one of them must necessarily coincide with social interests in general, -and the other be antagonistic to them. -</p> -<p> -But which of them should legislation favour, as identical with the public -good—if, indeed, it should favour either? -</p> -<p> -To discover this, we must inquire what would happen if the secret wishes -of men were granted. -</p> -<p> -In as far as we are producers, it must be allowed that the desire of every -one of us is anti-social. Are we vine-dressers? It would give us no great -regret if hail should shower down on all the vines in the world except our -own: <i>this is the theory of scarcity</i>. Are we iron-masters? Our wish -is, that there should be no other iron in the market but our own, however -much the public may be in want of it; and for no other reason than that -this want, keenly felt and imperfectly satisfied, shall ensure us a higher -price: this <i>is still the theory of scarcity</i>. Are we farmers? We say -with M. Bugeaud, Let bread be dear, that is to say, scarce, and -agriculturists will thrive: always the same theory, <i>the theory of -scarcity</i>. -</p> -<p> -Are we physicians? We cannot avoid seeing that certain physical -ameliorations, improving the sanitary state of the country, the -development of certain moral virtues, such as moderation and temperance, -the progress of knowledge tending to enable each man to take better care -of his own health, the discovery of certain simple remedies of easy -application, would be so many blows to our professional success. In as far -as we are physicians, then, our secret wishes would be anti-social. I do -not say that physicians form these secret wishes. On the contrary, I -believe they would hail with joy the discovery of a universal panacea; but -they would not do this as physicians, but as men, and as Christians. By a -noble abnegation of self', the physician places himself in the consumer's -point of view. But as exercising a profession, from which he derives his -own and his family's subsistence, his desires, or, if you will, his -interests, are anti-social. -</p> -<p> -Are we manufacturers of cotton stuffs? We desire to sell them at the price -most profitable to ourselves. We should consent willingly to an interdict -being laid on all rival manufactures; and if we could venture to give this -wish public expression, or hope to realize it with some chance of success, -we should attain our end, to some extent, by indirect means; for example, -by excluding foreign fabrics, in order to diminish the <i>supply</i>, and -thus produce, forcibly and to our profit, a <i>scarcity</i> of clothing. -</p> -<p> -In the same way, we might pass in review all other branches of industry, -and we should always find that the producers, as such, have anti-social -views. "The shopkeeper," says Montaigne, "thrives only by the -irregularities of youth; the farmer by the high price of corn, the -architect by the destruction of houses, the officers of justice by -lawsuits and quarrels. Ministers of religion derive their distinction and -employment from our vices and our death. No physician rejoices in the -health of his friends, nor soldiers in the peace of their country; and so -of the rest." -</p> -<p> -Hence it follows that if the secret wishes of each producer were realized, -the world would retrograde rapidly towards barbarism. The sail would -supersede steam, the oar would supersede the sail, and general traffic -would be carried on by the carrier's waggon; the latter would be -superseded by the mule, and the mule by the pedlar. Wool would exclude -cotton, cotton in its turn would exclude wool, and so on until the dearth -of all things had caused man himself to disappear from the face of the -earth. -</p> -<p> -Suppose for a moment that the legislative power and the public force were -placed at the disposal of Mimeral's committee, and that each member of -that association had the privilege of bringing in and sanctioning a -favourite law, is it difficult to divine to what sort of industrial code -the public would be subjected? -</p> -<p> -If we now proceed to consider the immediate interest of the consumer, we -shall find that it is in perfect harmony with the general interest, with -all that the welfare of society calls for. When the purchaser goes to -market, he desires to find it well stocked. Let the seasons be propitious -for all harvests; let inventions more and more marvellous bring within -reach a greater and greater number of products and enjoyments; let time -and labour be saved; let distances be effaced by the perfection and -rapidity of transit; let the spirit of justice and of peace allow of a -diminished weight of taxation; let barriers of every kind be removed;—in -all this the interest of the consumer runs parallel with the public -interest. The consumer may push his secret wishes to a chimerical and -absurd length, without these wishes becoming antagonistic to the public -welfare. He may desire that food and shelter, the hearth and the roof, -instruction and morality, security and peace, power and health, should be -obtained without exertion, and without measure, like the dust of the -highways, the water of the brook, the air which we breathe; and yet the -realization of his desires would not be at variance with the good of -society. -</p> -<p> -It may be said that if these wishes were granted, the work of the producer -would become more and more limited, and would end with being stopped for -want of aliment. But why? Because, on this extreme supposition, all -imaginable wants and desires would be fully satisfied. Man, like -Omnipotence, would create all things by a simple act of volition. Well, on -this hypotheses, what reason should we have to regret the stoppage of -industrial production? -</p> -<p> -I made the supposition, not long ago, of the existence of an assembly -composed of workmen, each member of which, in his capacity of producer, -should have the power of passing a law embodying his <i>secret wish</i>, -and I said that the code which would emanate from that assembly would be -monopoly systematized, the theory of scarcity reduced to practice. -</p> -<p> -In the same way, a chamber in which each should consult exclusively his -own immediate interest as a consumer, would tend to systematize liberty, -to suppress all restrictive measures, to overthrow all artificial barriers—in -a word, to realize the <i>theory of plenty</i>. -</p> -<p> -Hence it follows: -</p> -<p> -That to consult exclusively the immediate interest of the producer, is to -consult an interest which is anti-social. -</p> -<p> -That to take for basis exclusively the immediate interest of the consumer, -would be to take for basis the general interest. -</p> -<p> -Let me enlarge on this view of the subject a little, at the risk of being -prolix. -</p> -<p> -A radical antagonism exists between seller and buyer.* -</p> -<p> -The former desires that the subject of the bargain should be scarce, its -supply limited, and its price high. -</p> -<p> -The latter desires that it should be <i>abundant</i>, its supply large, -and its price low. -</p> -<p> -The laws, which should be at least neutral, take the part of the seller -against the buyer, of the producer against the consumer, of dearness -against cheapness,** of scarcity against abundance. -</p> -<pre xml:space="preserve"> -* The author has modified somewhat the terms of this -proposition in a posterior work.—See <i>Harmonies -Économiques</i>, chapter xi.—Editor. - -** We have not in French a substantive to express the idea -opposed to that of dearness (cheapness). It is somewhat -remarkable that the popular instinct expresses the idea by -this periphrase, <i>marche avantageux, bon marche'</i>. The -protectionists would do well to reform this locution, for it -implies an economic system opposed to theirs. -</pre> -<p> -They proceed, if not intentionally, at least logically, on this datum: <i>a -nation is rich when it is in want of everything</i>. -</p> -<p> -For they say, it is the producer that we must favour by securing him a -good market for his product. For this purpose it is necessary to raise the -price, and in order to raise the price we must restrict the supply; and to -restrict the supply is to create scarcity. -</p> -<p> -Just let us suppose that at the present moment, when all these laws are in -full force, we make a complete inventory, not in value, but in weight, -measure, volume, quantity, of all the commodities existing in the country, -which are fitted to satisfy the wants and tastes of its inhabitants—corn, -meat, cloth, fuel, colonial products, etc. -</p> -<p> -Suppose, again, that next day all the barriers which oppose the -introduction of foreign products are removed. -</p> -<p> -Lastly, suppose that in order to test the result of this reform, they -proceed three months afterwards to make a new inventory. -</p> -<p> -Is it not true that there will be found in France more corn, cattle, -cloth, linen, iron, coal, sugar, etc., at the date of the second, than at -the date of the first inventory? -</p> -<p> -So true is this, that our protective tariffs have no other purpose than to -hinder all these things from reaching us, to restrict the supply, and -prevent depreciation and abundance. -</p> -<p> -Now I would ask, Are the people who live under our laws better fed because -there is <i>less</i> bread, meat, and sugar in the country? Are they -better clothed, because there is <i>less</i> cloth and linen? Better -warmed, because there is <i>less</i> coal? Better assisted in their -labour, because there are <i>fewer</i> tools and <i>less</i> iron, copper, -and machinery? -</p> -<p> -But it may be said, If the foreigner <i>inundates</i> us with his -products, he will carry away our money. -</p> -<p> -And what does it matter? Men are not fed on money. They do not clothe -themselves with gold, or warm themselves with silver. What matters it -whether there is more or less money in the country, if there is more bread -on our sideboards, more meat in our larders, more linen in our wardrobes, -more firewood in our cellars. -</p> -<p> -Restrictive laws always land us in this dilemma:— -</p> -<p> -Either you admit that they produce scarcity, or you do not. If you admit -it, you avow by the admission that you inflict on the people all the -injury in your power. If you do not admit it, you deny having restricted -the supply and raised prices, and consequently you deny having favoured -the producer. -</p> -<p> -What you do is either hurtful or profitless, injurious or ineffectual. It -never can be attended with any useful result. -</p> -<p> -<br /><br /> -</p> -<hr /> -<p> -<a name="link2H_4_0005" id="link2H_4_0005"> </a> -</p> -<div style="height: 4em;"> -<br /><br /><br /><br /> -</div> -<h2> -II. OBSTACLE, CAUSE. -</h2> -<p class="pfirst"><span class="dropcap" style="font-size: 4.00em">T</span>he obstacle mistaken for the cause,—scarcity mistaken for -abundance,—this is the same sophism under another aspect; and it is -well to study it in all its phases. -</p> -<p> -Man is originally destitute of everything. -</p> -<p> -Between this destitution and the satisfaction of his wants, there exist a -multitude of <i>obstacles</i> which labour enables us to surmount. It is -curious to inquire how and why these very obstacles to his material -prosperity have come to be mistaken for the cause of that prosperity. -</p> -<p> -I want to travel a hundred miles. But between the starting-point and the -place of my destination, mountains, rivers, marshes, impenetrable forests, -brigands—in a word, <i>obstacles</i>—interpose themselves; and -to overcome these obstacles, it is necessary for me to employ many -efforts, or, what comes to the same thing, that others should employ many -efforts for me, the price of which I must pay them. It is clear that I -should have been in a better situation if these obstacles had not existed. -</p> -<p> -On his long journey through life, from the cradle to the grave, man has -need to assimilate to himself a prodigious quantity of alimentary -substances, to protect himself against the inclemency of the weather, to -preserve himself from a number of ailments, or cure himself of them. -Hunger, thirst, disease, heat, cold, are so many obstacles strewn along -his path. In a state of isolation he must overcome them all, by hunting, -fishing, tillage, spinning, weaving, building; and it is clear that it -would be better for him that these obstacles were less numerous and -formidable, or, better still, that they did not exist at all. In society, -he does not combat these obstacles personally, but others do it for him; -and in return he employs himself in removing one of those obstacles which -are encountered by his fellow-men. -</p> -<p> -It is clear also, considering things in the gross, that it would be better -for men in the aggregate, or for society, that these obstacles should be -as few and feeble as possible. -</p> -<p> -But when we come to scrutinize the social phenomena in detail, and men's -sentiments as modified by the introduction of exchange, we soon perceive -how they have come to confound wants with wealth, the obstacle with the -cause. -</p> -<p> -The separation of employments, the division of labour, which results from -the faculty of exchanging, causes each man, instead of struggling on his -own account to overcome all the obstacles which surround him, to combat -only <i>one</i> of them; he overcomes that one not for himself but for his -fellow-men, who in turn render him the same service. -</p> -<p> -The consequence is that this man, in combating this obstacle which it is -his special business to overcome for the sake of others, sees in it the -immediate source of his own wealth. The greater, the more formidable, the -more keenly felt this obstacle is, the greater will be the remuneration -which his fellow-men will be disposed to accord him; that is to say, the -more ready will they be to remove the obstacles which stand in his way. -</p> -<p> -The physician, for example, does not bake his own bread, or manufacture -his own instruments, or weave or make his own coat. Others do these things -for him, and in return he treats the diseases with which his patients are -afflicted. The more numerous, severe, and frequent these diseases are, the -more others consent, and are obliged, to do for his personal comfort. -Regarding it from this point of view, disease, that general obstacle to -human happiness, becomes a cause of material prosperity to the individual -physician. The same argument applies to all producers in their several -departments. The shipowner derives his profits from the obstacle called <i>distance</i>; -the agriculturist from that called <i>hunger</i>; the manufacturer of -cloth from that called <i>cold</i>; the schoolmaster lives upon <i>ignorance</i>; -the lapidary upon <i>vanity</i>; the attorney on <i>cupidity</i>; the -notary upon possible <i>bad faith</i>,—just as the physician lives -upon the diseases of men. It is quite true, therefore, that each -profession has an immediate interest in the continuation, nay in the -extension, of the special obstacle which it is its business to combat. -</p> -<p> -Observing this, theorists make their appearance, and, founding a system on -their individual sentiments, tell us: Want is wealth, labour is wealth, -obstacles to material prosperity are prosperity. To multiply obstacles is -to support industry. -</p> -<p> -Then statesmen intervene. They have the disposal of the public force; and -what more natural than to make it available for developing and multiplying -obstacles, since this is developing and multiplying wealth? They say, for -example: If we prevent the importation of iron from places where it is -abundant, we place an obstacle in the way of its being procured. This -obstacle, keenly felt at home, will induce men to pay in order to be set -free from it. A certain number of our fellow-citizens will devote -themselves to combating it, and this obstacle will make their fortune. The -greater the obstacle is—that is, the scarcer, the more inaccessible, -the more difficult to transport, the more distant from the place where it -is to be used, the mineral sought for becomes—the more hands will be -engaged in the various ramifications of this branch of industry. Exclude, -then, foreign iron, create an obstacle, for you thereby create the labour -which is to overcome it. -</p> -<p> -The same reasoning leads to the proscription of machinery. -</p> -<p> -Here, for instance, are men who are in want of casks for the storage of -their wine. This is an obstacle; and here are other men whose business it -is to remove that obstacle by making the casks that are wanted. It is -fortunate, then, that this obstacle should exist, since it gives -employment to a branch of national industry, and enriches a certain number -of our fellow-citizens. But then we have ingenious machinery invented for -felling the oak, cutting it up into staves, and forming them into the -wine-casks that are wanted. By this means the obstacle is lessened, and so -are the gains of the cooper. Let us maintain both at their former -elevation by a law, and put down the machinery. -</p> -<p> -To get at the root of this sophism, it is necessary only to reflect that -human labour is not the <i>end</i>, but the <i>means. It never remains -unemployed</i>. If one obstacle is removed, it does battle with another; -and society is freed from two obstacles by the same amount of labour which -was formerly, required for the removal of one. If the labour of the cooper -is rendered unnecessary in one department, it will soon take another -direction. But how and from what source will it be remunerated? From the -same source exactly from which it is remunerated at present; for when a -certain amount of labour becomes disposable by the removal of an obstacle, -a corresponding amount of remuneration becomes disposable also. To -maintain that human labour will ever come to want employment, would be to -maintain that the human race will cease to encounter obstacles. In that -case labour would not only be impossible; it would be superfluous. We -should no longer have anything to do, because we should be omnipotent; and -we should only have to pronounce our <i>fiat</i> in order to ensure the -satisfaction of all our desires and the supply of all our wants.* -</p> -<pre xml:space="preserve"> -* See post, ch. xiv. of second series of <i>Sophismes -Economiques</i>, and ch. iii. and xi. of the <i>Harmonies -Économiques</i>. -</pre> -<p> -<br /><br /> -</p> -<hr /> -<p> -<a name="link2H_4_0006" id="link2H_4_0006"> </a> -</p> -<div style="height: 4em;"> -<br /><br /><br /><br /> -</div> -<h2> -III. EFFORT, RESULT. -</h2> -<p class="pfirst"><span class="dropcap" style="font-size: 4.00em">W</span>e have just seen that between our wants and the satisfaction of these -wants, obstacles are interposed. We succeed in overcoming these obstacles, -or in diminishing their force by the employment of our faculties. We may -say in a general way, that industry is an effort followed by a result. -</p> -<p> -But what constitutes the measure of our prosperity, or of our wealth? Is -it the result of the effort? or is it the effort itself? A relation always -subsists between the effort employed and the result obtained. Progress -consists in the relative enhancement of the second or of the first term of -this relation. -</p> -<p> -Both theses have been maintained; and in political economy they have -divided the region of opinion and of thought. -</p> -<p> -According to the first system, wealth is the result of labour, increasing -as the relative <i>proportion of result to effort increases</i>. Absolute -perfection, of which God is the type, consists in the infinite distance -interposed between the two terms—in this sense, effort is <i>nil</i>, -result infinite. -</p> -<p> -The second system teaches that it is the effort itself which constitutes -the measure of wealth. To make progress is to increase the relative -proportion <i>which effort bears to result</i>. The ideal of this system -may be found in the sterile and eternal efforts of Sisyphus.* -</p> -<p> -The first system naturally welcomes everything which tends to diminish <i>pains</i> -and augment <i>products</i>; powerful machinery which increases the forces -of man, exchange which allows him to derive greater advantage from natural -agents distributed in various proportions over the face of the earth, -intelligence which discovers, experience which proves, competition which -stimulates, etc. -</p> -<p> -Logically, the second invokes everything which has the effect of -increasing pains and diminishing products; privileges, monopolies, -restrictions, prohibitions, suppression of machinery, sterility, etc. -</p> -<p> -It is well to remark that the <i>universal practice</i> of mankind always -points to the principle of the first system. We have never seen, we shall -never see, a man who labours in any department, be he agriculturist, -manufacturer, merchant, artificer, soldier, author, or philosopher, who -does not devote all the powers of his mind to work better, to work with -more rapidity, to work more economically—in a word, to effect <i>more -with less</i>. -</p> -<p> -The opposite doctrine is in favour only with theorists, deputies, -journalists, statesmen, ministers—men, in short, born to make -experiments on the social body. -</p> -<pre xml:space="preserve"> -* For this reason, and for the sake of conciseness, the -reader will pardon us for designating this system in the -sequel by the name of <i>sisyphism</i>. -</pre> -<p> -At the same time, we may observe, that in what concerns themselves -personally, they act as every one else does, on the principle of obtaining -from labour the greatest possible amount of useful results. -</p> -<p> -Perhaps I may be thought to exaggerate, and that there are no true <i>sisyphists</i>. -</p> -<p> -If it be argued that in practice they do not press their principle to its -most extreme consequences, I willingly grant it. This is always the case -when one sets out with a false principle. Such a principle soon leads to -results so absurd and so mischievous that we are obliged to stop short. -This is the reason why practical industry never admits <i>sisyphism</i>; -punishment would follow error too closely not to expose it. But in matters -of speculation, such as theorists and statesmen deal in, one may pursue a -false principle a long time before discovering its falsity by the -complicated consequences to which men were formerly strangers; and when at -last its falsity is found out, the authors take refuge in the opposite -principle, turn round, contradict themselves, and seek their justification -in a modern maxim of incomparable absurdity: in political economy, there -is no inflexible rule, no absolute principle. -</p> -<p> -Let us see, then, if these two opposite principles which I have just -described do not predominate by turns, the one in practical industry, the -other in industrial legislation. -</p> -<p> -I have already noticed the saying of M. Bugeaud (that "when bread is dear, -agriculturists become rich"); but in M. Bugeaud are embodied two separate -characters, the agriculturist and the legislator. -</p> -<p> -As an agriculturist, M. Bugeaud directs all his efforts to two ends,—to -save labour, and obtain cheap bread. When he prefers a good plough to a -bad one; when he improves his pastures; when, in order to pulverize the -soil, he substitutes as much as possible the action of the atmosphere for -that of the harrow and the hoe; when he calls to his aid all the processes -of which science and experiment have proved the efficacy,—he has but -one object in view, viz., to diminish <i>the proportion of effort to -result</i>. We have indeed no other test of the ability of a cultivator, -and the perfection of his processes, than to measure to what extent they -have lessened the one and added to the other. And as all the farmers in -the world act upon this principle, we may assert that the effort of -mankind at large is to obtain, for their own benefit undoubtedly, bread -and all other products cheaper, to lessen the labour needed to procure a -given quantity of what they want. -</p> -<p> -This incontestable tendency of mankind once established, should, it would -seem, reveal to the legislator the true principle, and point out to him in -what way he should aid industry (in as far as it falls within his province -to aid it); for it would be absurd to assert that human laws should run -counter to the laws of Providence. -</p> -<p> -And yet we have heard M. Bugeaud, as a deputy, exclaim: "I understand -nothing of this theory of cheapness; I should like better to see bread -dearer and labour more abundant." And following out this doctrine, the -deputy of the Dordogne votes legislative measures, the effect of which is -to hamper exchanges, for the very reason that they procure us indirectly -what direct production could not procure us but at greater expense. -</p> -<p> -Now, it is very evident that M. Bugeaud's principle as a deputy is -directly opposed to the principle on which he acts as an agriculturist. To -act consistently, he should vote against all legislative restriction, or -else import into his farming operations the principle which he proclaims -from the tribune. We should then see him sow his corn in his most sterile -fields, for in this way he would succeed in <i>working much to obtain -little</i>. We should see him throwing aside the plough, since -hand-culture would satisfy his double wish for dearer bread and more -abundant labour. -</p> -<p> -Restriction has for its avowed object, and its acknowledged effect, to -increase labour. -</p> -<p> -It has also for its avowed object, and its acknowledged effect, to cause -dearness, which means simply scarcity of products; so that, carried out to -its extreme limits, it is pure <i>sisyphism</i>, such as we have defined -it,—<i>labour infinite, product nil</i>. -</p> -<p> -Baron Charles Dupin, the light of the peerage, it is said, on economic -science, accuses railways of <i>injuring navigation</i>; and it is certain -that it is of the nature of a more perfect, to restrict the use of a less -perfect means of conveyance. But railways cannot hurt navigation except by -attracting traffic; and they cannot attract traffic but by conveying goods -and passengers more cheaply; and they cannot convey them more cheaply but -by <i>diminishing the proportion which the effort employed bears to the -result obtained</i>, seeing that that is the very thing which constitutes -cheapness. When, then, Baron Dupin deplores this diminution of the labour -employed to effect a given result, it is the doctrine of <i>sisyphism</i> -which he preaches. Logically, since he prefers the ship to the rail, he -should prefer the cart to the ship, the pack-saddle to the cart, and the -pannier to all other known means of conveyance, for it is the latter which -exacts the most labour with the least result. -</p> -<p> -"Labour constitutes the wealth of a people," said M. de Saint-Cricq, that -Minister of Commerce who has imposed so many restrictions upon trade. We -must not suppose that this was an elliptical expression, meaning, "The -results of labour constitute the wealth of a people." No, this economist -distinctly intended to affirm that it is the <i>intensity</i> of labour -which is the measure of wealth, and the proof of it is, that from -consequence to consequence, from one restriction to another, he induced -France (and in this he thought he was doing her good) to expend double the -amount of labour, in order, for example, to provide herself with an equal -quantity of iron. In England, iron was then at eight francs, while in -France it cost sixteen francs. Taking a day's labour at one franc, it is -clear that France could, by means of exchange, procure a quintal of iron -by subtracting eight days' work from the aggregate national labour. In -consequence of the restrictive measures of M. de Saint-Cricq, France was -obliged to expend sixteen days' labour in order to provide herself with a -quintal of iron by direct production. Double the labour for the same -satisfaction, hence double the wealth. Then it follows that wealth is not -measured by the result, but by the intensity of the labour. Is not this <i>sisyphism</i> -in all its purity? -</p> -<p> -And in order that there may be no mistake as to his meaning, the Minister -takes care afterwards to explain more fully his ideas; and as he had just -before called the intensity of labour <i>wealthy</i> he goes on to call -the more abundant results of that labour, or the more abundant supply of -things proper to satisfy our wants, <i>poverty</i>. "Everywhere," he says, -"machinery has taken the place of manual labour; everywhere production -superabounds; everywhere the equilibrium between the faculty of producing, -and the means of consuming, is destroyed." We see, then, to what, in M. de -Saint-Cricq's estimation, the critical situation of the country was owing—it -was to having produced too much, and her labour being too intelligent, and -too fruitful. We were too well fed, too well clothed, too well provided -with everything; a too rapid production surpassed all our desires. It was -necessary, then, to put a stop to the evil, and for that purpose, to force -us, by restrictions, to labour more in order to produce less. -</p> -<p> -I have referred likewise to the opinions of another Minister of Commerce, -M. d'Argout. They deserve to be dwelt upon for an instant. Desiring to -strike a formidable blow at beet-root culture, he says, "Undoubtedly, the -cultivation of beet-root is useful, <i>but this utility is limited</i>. -The developments attributed to it are exaggerated. To be convinced of -this, it is sufficient to observe that this culture will be necessarily -confined within the limits of consumption. Double, triple, if you will, -the present consumption of France, <i>you will always find that a very -trifling portion of the soil will satisfy the requirements of that -consumption</i>." (This is surely rather a singular subject of complaint!) -"Do you desire proof of this? How many <i>hectares</i> had we under -beet-root in 1828? 3130, which is equivalent to 1-10, 540th of our arable -land. At the present time, when indigenous sugar supplies one-third of our -consumption, how much land is devoted to that culture? 16,700 <i>hectares</i>, -or 1-1978th of the arable land, or 45 <i>centiares</i> in each commune. -Suppose indigenous sugar already supplied our whole consumption, we should -have only 48,000 hectares under beet-root, or 1-689th of the arable -land."* -</p> -<p> -There are two things to be remarked upon in this citation—the facts -and the doctrine. The facts tend to prove that little land, little -capital, and little labour are required to produce a large quantity of -sugar, and that each commune of France would be abundantly provided by -devoting to beet-root cultivation one hectare of its soil. The doctrine -consists in regarding this circumstance as adverse, and in seeing in the -very power and fertility of the new industry, <i>a limit to its utility</i>. -</p> -<pre xml:space="preserve"> -* It is fair to M. d'Argout to say that he put this language -in the mouth of the adversaries of beet-root culture. But he -adopts it formally, and sanctions it besides, by the law -which it was employed to justify. -</pre> -<p> -I do not mean to constitute myself here the defender of beet-root culture, -or a judge of the strange facts advanced by M. d'Argout; * but it is worth -while to scrutinize the doctrine of a statesman, to whom France for a long -time entrusted the care of her agriculture and of her commerce. -</p> -<p> -I remarked in the outset that a variable relation exists between an -industrial effort and its result; that absolute imperfection consists in -an infinite effort without any result; absolute perfection in an unlimited -result without any effort; and perfectibility in the progressive -diminution of effort compared with the result. -</p> -<p> -But M. d'Argout tells us there is death where we think we perceive life, -and that the importance of any branch of industry is in direct proportion -to its powerlessness. What are we to expect, for instance, from the -cultivation of beet-root? Do you not see that 48,000 <i>hectares</i> of -land, with capital and manual labour in proportion, are sufficient to -supply all France with sugar? Then, this is a branch of industry of -limited utility; limited, of course, with reference to the amount of -labour which it demands, the only way in which, according to the -ex-Minister, any branch of industry can be useful. This utility would be -still more limited, if, owing to the fertility of the soil, and the -richness of the beet-root, we could reap from 24,000 hectares, what at -present we only obtain from 48,000. Oh! were only twenty times, a hundred -times, more land, capital, and labour necessary to <i>yield us the same -result</i>, so much the better. We might build some hopes on this new -branch of industry, and it would be worthy of state protection, for it -would offer a vast field to our national industry. But to produce much -with little! that is a bad example, and it is time for the law to -interfere. -</p> -<pre xml:space="preserve"> -* Supposing that 48,000 or 50,000 hectares were sufficient -to supply the present consumption, it would require 150,000 -for triple that consumption, which M. d'Argout admits as -possible. Moreover, if beet-root entered into a six years' -rotation of crops, it would occupy successively 900,000 -hectares, or 1-38th of the arable land. -</pre> -<p> -But what is true with regard to sugar, cannot be otherwise with regard to -bread. If, then, the <i>utility</i> of any branch of industry is to be -estimated not by the amount of satisfactions it is fitted to procure us -with a determinate amount of labour, but, on the contrary, by the amount -of labour which it exacts in order to yield us a determinate amount of -satisfactions, what we ought evidently to desire is, that each acre of -land should yield less corn, and each grain of com less nourishment; in -other words, that our land should be comparatively barren; for then the -quantity of land, capital, and manual labour that would be required for -the maintenance of our population would be much more considerable; we -could then say that the demand for human labour would be in direct -proportion to this barrenness. The aspirations of MM. Bugeaud, -Saint-Cricq, Dupin, and d'Argout, would then be satisfied; bread would be -dear, labour abundant, and France rich—rich at least in the sense in -which these gentlemen understand the word. -</p> -<p> -What we should desire also is, that human intelligence should be enfeebled -or extinguished; for, as long as it survives, it will be continually -endeavouring to augment <i>the proportion which the end bears to the -means, and which the product bears to the labour</i>. It is in that -precisely that intelligence consists. -</p> -<p> -Thus, it appears that <i>sisyphism</i> has been the doctrine of all the -men who have been intrusted with our industrial destinies. It would be -unfair to reproach them with it. This principle guides Ministers only -because it is predominant in the Chambers; and it predominates in the -Chambers only because it is sent there by the electoral body, and the -electoral body is imbued with it only because public opinion is saturated -with it. -</p> -<p> -I think it right to repeat here that I do not accuse men such as MM. -Bugeaud, Dupin, Saint-Cricq, and d'Argout of being absolutely and under -all circumstances <i>sisyphists</i>. They are certainly not so in their -private transactions; for in these they always desire to obtain <i>by way -of exchange</i> what would cost them dearer to procure <i>by direct -production</i>; but I affirm they are <i>sisyphists</i> when they hinder -the country from doing the same thing.* -</p> -<pre xml:space="preserve"> -* See on the same subject, <i>Sophismes Économiques</i>, second -series, ch. xvi., post, and <i>Harmonies Économiques</i>, ch. vi. -</pre> -<p> -<br /><br /> -</p> -<hr /> -<p> -<a name="link2H_4_0007" id="link2H_4_0007"> </a> -</p> -<div style="height: 4em;"> -<br /><br /><br /><br /> -</div> -<h2> -IV. TO EQUALIZE THE CONDITIONS OF PRODUCTION. -</h2> -<p class="pfirst"><span class="dropcap" style="font-size: 4.00em">I</span>t has been said.....but in case I should be accused of putting sophisms -into the mouths of the protectionists, I shall allow one of their most -vigorous athletes to speak for them. -</p> -<p> -"It has been thought that protection in our case should simply represent -the difference which exists between the cost price of a commodity which we -produce and the cost price of the same commodity produced by our -neighbours.... A protective duty calculated on this basis would only -ensure free competition....; free competition exists only when there is -equality in the conditions and in the charges. In the case of a horse -race, we ascertain the weight which each horse has to carry, and so -equalize the conditions; without that there could be no fair competition. -In the case of trade, if one of the sellers can bring his commodity to -market at less cost, he ceases to be a competitor, and becomes a -monopolist.... Do away with this protection which represents the -difference of cost price, and the foreigner invades our markets and -acquires a monopoly."* -</p> -<p> -"Every one must wish, for his own sake, as well as for the sake of others, -that the production of the country should be protected against foreign -competition, <i>whenever the latter can furnish products at a lower price.</i>"** -</p> -<pre xml:space="preserve"> -* M. le Vicomte de Romanet. - -** Matthieu le Dombasle. -</pre> -<p> -This argument recurs continually in works of the protectionist school. I -propose to examine it carefully, and I solicit earnestly the reader's -patience and attention. I shall consider, first of all, the inequalities -which are attributable to nature, and afterwards those which are -attributable to diversity of taxation. -</p> -<p> -In this, as in other cases, we shall find protectionist theorists viewing -their subject from the producer's stand-point, whilst we advocate the -cause of the unfortunate consumers, whose interests they studiously keep -out of sight. They institute a comparison between the field of industry -and the <i>turf</i>. But as regards the latter, the race is at once the <i>means</i> -and the <i>end</i>. The public feels no interest in the competition beyond -the competition itself. When you start your horses, your <i>end</i>, your -object, is to find out which is the swiftest runner, and I see your reason -for equalizing the weights. But if your <i>end</i>, your object, were to -secure the arrival of some important and urgent news at the winning-post, -could you, without inconsistency, throw obstacles in the way of any one -who should offer you the best means of expediting your message? This is -what you do in commercial affairs. You forget the end, the object sought -to be attained, which is material prosperity; you disregard it, you -sacrifice it to a veritable <i>petitio principii</i>; in plain language, -you are begging the question. -</p> -<p> -But since we cannot bring our opponents to our point of view, let us place -ourselves in theirs, and examine the question in its relations with -production. -</p> -<p> -I shall endeavour to prove, -</p> -<p> -1st, That to level and equalize the conditions of labour, is to attack -exchange in its essence and principle. -</p> -<p> -2d, That it is not true that the labour of a country is neutralized by the -competition of more favoured countries. -</p> -<p> -3d, That if that were true, protective duties would not equalize the -conditions of production. -</p> -<p> -4th, That liberty, freedom of trade, levels these conditions as much as -they can be levelled. -</p> -<p> -5th, That the least favoured countries gain most by exchange. -</p> -<p> -I. To level and equalize the conditions of labour is not simply to cramp -exchanges in certain branches of trade, it is to attack exchange in its -principle, for its principle rests upon that very diversity, upon those -very inequalities of fertility, aptitude, climate, and temperature, which -you desire to efface. If Guienne sends wine to Brittany, and if Brittany -sends corn to Guienne, it arises from their being placed under different -conditions of production. Is there a different law for international -exchanges? To urge against international exchanges that inequality of -conditions which gives rise to them, and explains them, is to argue -against their very existence. If protectionists had on their side -sufficient logic and power, they would reduce men, like snails, to a state -of absolute isolation. Moreover, there is not one of their sophisms which, -when submitted to the test of rigorous deductions, does not obviously tend -to destruction and annihilation. -</p> -<p> -II. It is not true, in point of <i>fact</i>, that inequality of conditions -existing between two similar branches of industry entails necessarily the -ruin of that which is least favourably situated. On the turf, if one horse -gains the prize, the other loses it; but when two horses are employed in -useful labour, each produces a beneficial result in proportion to its -powers; and if the more vigorous renders the greater service, it does not -follow that the other renders no service at all. We cultivate wheat in all -the departments of France, although there are between them enormous -differences of fertility; and if there be any one department which does -not cultivate wheat, it is because it is not profitable to engage in that -species of culture in that locality. In the same way, analogy shows us -that under the <i>regime</i> of liberty, in spite of similar differences, -they produce wheat in all the countries of Europe; and if there be one -which abandons the cultivation of that grain, it is because it is found <i>more -for its interest</i> to give another direction to the employment of its -land, labour, and capital And why should the fertility of one department -not paralyze the agriculturist of a neighbouring department which is less -favourably situated? Because the economic phenomena have a flexibility, an -elasticity, <i>levelling powers</i>, so to speak, which appear to have -altogether escaped the notice of the protectionist school. That school -accuses us of being given up to system; but it is the protectionists who -are systematic in the last degree, if the spirit of system consists in -bolstering up arguments which rest upon one fact instead of upon an -aggregation of facts. In the example which we have given, it is the -difference in the value of lands which compensates the difference in their -fertility. Your field produces three times more than mine. Yes, but it has -cost you ten times more, and I can still compete with you. This is the -whole mystery. And observe, that superiority in some respects leads to -inferiority in others. It is just because your land is more fertile that -it is dearer; so that it is not <i>accidentally</i>, but <i>necessarily</i>, -that the equilibrium is established, or tends to be established; and it -cannot be denied that liberty is the <i>regime</i> which is most -favourable to this tendency. -</p> -<p> -I have referred to a branch of agricultural industry; I might as well have -referred to industry in a different department. There are tailors at -Quimper, and that does not hinder there being tailors also in Paris, -though the latter pay a higher rent, and live at much greater expense. But -then they have a different set of customers, and that serves not only to -redress the balance, but to make it incline to their side. -</p> -<p> -When we speak, then, of equalizing the conditions of labour, we must not -omit to examine whether liberty does not give us what we seek from an -arbitrary system. -</p> -<p> -This natural levelling power of the economic phenomena is so important to -the question we are considering, and at the same time so fitted to inspire -us with admiration of the providential wisdom which presides over the -equitable government of society, that I must ask permission to dwell upon -it for a little. -</p> -<p> -The protectionist gentlemen tell us: Such or such a people have over us an -advantage in the cheapness of coal, of iron, of machinery, of capital—we -cannot compete with them. -</p> -<p> -We shall examine the proposition afterwards under all its aspects. At -present, I confine myself to the inquiry whether, when a superiority and -an inferiority are both present, they do not possess in themselves, the -one an ascending, the other a descending force, which must ultimately -bring them back to a just equilibrium. -</p> -<p> -Suppose two countries, A and B. A possesses over B all kinds of -advantages. You infer from this, that every sort of industry will -concentrate itself in A, and that B is powerless. A, you say, sells much -more than it buys; B buys much more than it sells. I might dispute this, -but I respect your hypothesis. -</p> -<p> -On this hypothesis, labour is much in demand in A, and will soon rise in -price there. -</p> -<p> -Iron, coal, land, food, capital, are much in demand in A, and they will -soon rise in price there. -</p> -<p> -Contemporaneously with this, labour, iron, coal, land, food, capital, are -in little request in B, and will soon fall in price there. -</p> -<p> -Nor is this all. While A is always selling, and B is always buying, money -passes from B to A. It becomes abundant in A, and scarce in B. -</p> -<p> -But abundance of money means that we must have plenty of it to buy -everything else. Then in A, to the <i>real dearness</i> which arises from -a very active demand, there is added a <i>nominal dearness</i>, which is -due to a redundancy of the precious metals. -</p> -<p> -Scarcity of money means that little is required for each purchase. Then in -B a <i>nominal cheapness</i> comes to be combined with <i>real cheapness</i>. -</p> -<p> -In these circumstances, industry will have all sorts of motives—motives, -if I may say so, carried to the highest degree of intensity—to -desert A and establish itself in B. -</p> -<p> -Or, to come nearer what would actually take place under such -circumstances, we may affirm that sudden displacements being so repugnant -to the nature of industry, such a transfer would not have been so long -delayed, but that from the beginning, under the free <i>regime</i>, it -would have gradually and progressively shared and distributed itself -between A and B, according to the laws of supply and demand—that is -to say, according to the laws of justice and utility. -</p> -<p> -And when I assert that if it were possible for industry to concentrate -itself upon one point, that very circumstance would set in motion an -irresistible decentralizing force, I indulge in no idle hypothesis. -</p> -<p> -Let us listen to what was said by a manufacturer in addressing the -Manchester Chamber of Commerce (I omit the figures by which he supported -his demonstration):— -</p> -<p> -"Formerly we exported stuffs; then that exportation gave place to that of -yams, which are the raw material of stuffs; then to that of machines, -which are the instruments for producing yarn; afterwards to the -exportation of the capital with which we construct our machines; finally, -to that of our workmen and our industrial skill, which are the source of -our capital. All these elements of labour, one after the other, are set to -work wherever they find the most advantageous opening, wherever the -expense of living is cheaper and the necessaries of life are moat easily -procured; and at the present day, in Prussia, in Austria, in Saxony, in -Switzerland, in Italy, we see manufactures on an immense scale founded and -supported by English capital, worked by English operatives, and directed -by English engineers." -</p> -<p> -You see very clearly, then, that nature, or rather that Providence, more -wise, more far-seeing than your narrow and rigid theory supposes, has not -ordered this concentration of industry, this monopoly of all advantages -upon which you found your reasoning as upon a fact which is unalterable -and without remedy. Nature has provided, by means as simple as they are -infallible, that there should be dispersion, diffusion, solidarity, -simultaneous progress; all constituting a state of things which your -restrictive laws paralyze as much as they can; for the tendency of such -laws is, by isolating communities, to render the diversity of condition -much more marked, to prevent equalization, hinder fusion, neutralize -countervailing circumstances, and segregate nations, whether in their -superiority or in their inferiority of condition. -</p> -<p> -III. In the third place, to contend that by a protective duty you equalize -the conditions of production, is to give currency to an error by a -deceptive form of speech. It is not true that an import duty equalizes the -conditions of production. These remain, after the imposition of the duty, -the same as they were before. At most, all that such a duty equalizes are -<i>the conditions of sale</i>. It may be said, perhaps, that I am playing -upon words, but I throw back the accusation. It is for my opponents to -show that <i>production and sale</i> are synonymous terms; and if they -cannot do this, I am warranted in fastening upon them the reproach, if not -of playing on words, at least of mixing them up and confusing them. -</p> -<p> -To illustrate what I mean by an example: I suppose some Parisian -speculators to devote themselves to the production of oranges. They know -that the oranges of Portugal can be sold in Paris for a penny apiece, -whilst they, on account of the frames and hot-houses which the colder -climate would render necessary, could not sell them for less than a -shilling as a remunerative price. They demand that Portuguese oranges -should have a duty of elevenpence imposed upon them. By means of this -duty, they say, the <i>conditions af production</i> will be equalized; and -the Chamber, giving effect, as it always does, to such reasoning, inserts -in the tariff a duty of elevenpence upon every foreign orange. -</p> -<p> -Now, I maintain that the <i>conditions of production</i> are in nowise -changed. The law has made no change on the heat of the sun of Lisbon, or -on the frequency and intensity of the frosts of Paris. The ripening of -oranges will continue to go on naturally on the banks of the Tagus, and -artificially on the banks of the Seine—that is to say, much more -human labour will be required in the one country than in the other. The -conditions of sale are what have been equalized. The Portuguese must now -sell us their oranges at a shilling, elevenpence of which goes to pay the -tax. That tax will be paid, it is evident, by the French consumer. And -look at the whimsical result. Upon each Portuguese orange consumed, the -country will lose nothing, for the extra elevenpence charged to the -consumer will be paid into the treasury. This will cause displacement, but -not loss. But upon each French orange consumed there will be a loss of -elevenpence, or nearly so, for the purchaser will certainly lose that sum, -and the seller as certainly will not gain it, seeing that by the -hypothesis he will only have received the cost price. I leave it to the -protectionists to draw the inference. -</p> -<p> -IV. If I have dwelt upon this distinction between the conditions of -production and the conditions of sale, a distinction which the -protectionists will no doubt pronounce paradoxical, it is because it leads -me to inflict on them another, and a much stranger, paradox, which is -this: Would you equalize effectually the conditions of production, leave -exchange free. -</p> -<p> -Now, really, it will be said, this is too much; you must be making game of -us. Well, then, were it only for curiosity, I entreat the gentlemen -protectionists to follow me on to the conclusion of my argument. It will -not be long. I revert to my former illustration. -</p> -<p> -Let us suppose for a moment that the average daily wage which a Frenchman -earns is equal to a shilling, and it follows incontestably that to produce -directly an orange in France, a day's work, or its equivalent, is -required; while to produce the value of a Portuguese orange, only a -twelfth part of that day's labour would be necessary; which means exactly -this, that the sun does at Lisbon what human labour does at Paris. Now, is -it not very evident that if I can produce an orange, or, what comes to the -same thing, the means of purchasing one, with a twelfth part of a day's -labour, I am placed, with respect to this production, under exactly the -same conditions as the Portuguese producer himself, excepting the -carriage, which must be at my expense. It is certain, then, that liberty -equalizes the conditions of production direct or indirect, as far as they -can be equalized, since it leaves no other difference, but the inevitable -one arising from the expense of transport. -</p> -<p> -I add, that liberty equalizes also the conditions of enjoyment, of -satisfaction, of consumption, with which the protectionists never concern -themselves, and which are yet the essential consideration, consumption -being the end and object of all our industrial efforts. In virtue of free -trade, we enjoy the sun of Portugal like the Portuguese themselves. The -inhabitants of Havre and the citizens of London are put in possession, and -on the same conditions, of all the mineral resources which nature has -bestowed on Newcastle. -</p> -<p> -V. Gentlemen protectionists, you find me in a paradoxical humour; and I am -disposed to go further still. I say, and I sincerely think, that if two -countries are placed under unequal conditions of production, <i>it is that -one of the two which is least favoured by nature which has most to gain by -free trade</i>. To prove this, I must depart a little from the usual form -of such a work as this. I shall do so nevertheless, first of all, because -the entire question lies there, and also because it will afford me an -opportunity of explaining an economic law of the highest importance, and -which, if rightly understood, appears to me to be fitted to bring back to -the science all those sects who, in our day, seek in the land of chimeras -that social harmony which they fail to discover in nature. I refer to the -law of consumption, which it is perhaps to be regretted that the majority -of economists have neglected. -</p> -<p> -Consumption is the <i>end</i> and final cause of all the economic -phenomena, and it is in consumption consequently that we must expect to -find their ultimate and definitive solution. -</p> -<p> -Nothing, whether favourable or unfavourable, can abide permanently with -the producer. The advantages which nature and society bestow upon him, the -inconveniences he may experience, glide past him, so to speak, and are -absorbed and mixed up with the community in as far as the community -represents consumers. This is an admirable law both in its cause and in -its effects, and he who shall succeed in clearly describing it is -entitled, in my opinion, to say, "I have not passed through life without -paying my tribute to society." Everything which favours the work of -production is welcomed with joy by the producer, for the <i>immediate -effect</i> of it is to put him in a situation to render greater service to -the community, and to exact from it a greater remuneration. Every -circumstance which retards or interrupts production gives pain to the -producer, for the <i>immediate effect</i> of it is to circumscribe his -services, and consequently his remuneration. <i>Immediate</i> good or ill -circumstances—fortunate or unfortunate—necessarily fall upon -the producer, and leave him no choice but to accept the one and eschew the -other. -</p> -<p> -In the same way, when a workman succeeds in discovering an improved -process in manufactures, the <i>immediate</i> profit from the improvement -results to him. This was necessary, in order to give his labour an -intelligent direction; and it is just, because it is fair that an effort -crowned with success should carry its recompense along with it. -</p> -<p> -But I maintain that these good or bad effects, though in their own nature -permanent, are not permanent as regards the producer. If it had been so, a -principle of progressive, and, therefore, of indefinite, inequality would -have been introduced among men, and this is the reason why these good or -evil effects become very soon absorbed in the general destinies of the -human race. -</p> -<p> -How is this brought about? I shall show how it takes place by some -examples. -</p> -<p> -Let us go back to the thirteenth century. The men who then devoted -themselves to the art of copying received for the service which they -rendered <i>a remuneration regulated by the general rate of earnings</i>.* -Among them there arose one who discovered the means of multiplying copies -of the same work rapidly. He invented printing. -</p> -<p> -In the first instance, one man was enriched, and many others were -impoverished. At first sight, marvellous as the invention proves itself to -be, we hesitate to decide whether it is hurtful or useful. It seems to -introduce into the world, as I have said, an indefinite element of -inequality. Guttemberg profits by his invention, and extends his invention -with its profits indefinitely, until he has ruined all the copyists. As -regards the public, in the capacity of consumer, it gains little; for -Guttemberg takes care not to lower the price of his books, but just enough -to undersell his rivals. -</p> -<p> -But the intelligence which has introduced harmony into the movements of -the heavenly bodies, has implanted it also in the internal mechanism of -society. We shall see the economic advantages of the invention when it has -ceased to be individual property, and has become for ever the common -patrimony of the masses. -</p> -<p> -At length the invention comes to be known. Guttemberg is no longer the -only printer; others imitate him. Their profits' at first are large. They -are thus rewarded for having been the first to imitate the invention; and -it is right that it should be so, for this higher remuneration was -necessary to induce them to concur in the grand definite result which is -approaching. They gain a great deal, but they gain less than the inventor, -for <i>competition</i> now begins its work. The price of books goes on -falling. The profit of imitators goes on diminishing in proportion as the -invention becomes of older date; that is to say, in proportion as the -imitation becomes less meritorious..... -</p> -<pre xml:space="preserve"> -* The author, here and elsewhere, uses the French word -<i>profits</i>; but it is clear from the context that he does not -refer to the returns from capital, in which sense alone the -English economists employ the term <i>profits</i>. We have -therefore substituted the words <i>earnings or wages</i>.— -Translator, -</pre> -<p> -The new branch of industry at length reaches its normal state; in other -words, the remuneration of printers ceases to be exceptionally high, and -comes, like that of the copyist, to be <i>regulated by the ordinary rate -of earnings</i>. Here we have production, as such, brought back to the -point from which it started. And yet the invention is not the less an -acquisition; the saving of time, of labour, of effort to produce a given -result, that is, to produce a determinate number of copies, is not the -less realized. But how does it show itself? In the cheapness of books. And -to whose profit? To the profit of the consumer, of society, of the human -race. The printers, who have thenceforth no exceptional merit, no longer -receive exceptional remuneration. As men, as consumers, they undoubtedly -participate in the advantages which the invention has conferred upon the -community. But that is all. As printers, as producers, they have returned -to the ordinary condition of the other producers of the country. Society -pays them for their labour, and not for the utility of the invention. The -latter has become the common and gratuitous heritage of mankind at large. -</p> -<p> -I confess that the wisdom and the beauty of these laws call forth my -admiration and respect. I see in them Saint-Simonianism: -</p> -<p> -<i>To each according to his capacity; to each capacity according to its -works</i>. I see in them, communism; that is, the tendency of products to -become the <i>common</i> heritage of men; but a Saint-Simonianism, a -communism, regulated by infinite prescience, and not abandoned to the -frailties, the passions, and the arbitrary will of men. -</p> -<p> -What I have said of the art of printing, may be affirmed of all the -instruments of labour, from the nail and the hammer to the locomotive and -the electric telegraph. Society becomes possessed of all through its more -abundant consumption, and <i>it enjoys all gratuitously</i>, for the -effect of inventions and discoveries is to reduce the price of -commodities; and all that part of the price which has been annihilated, -and which represents the share invention has in production, evidently -renders the product gratuitous to that extent. All that remains to be paid -for is the human labour, the immediate labour, /and it is paid for without -reference to the result of the invention, at least when that invention has -passed through the cycle I have just described—the cycle which it is -designed to pass through. I send for a tradesman to my house; he comes and -brings his saw with him; I pay him two shillings for his day's work, and -he saws me twenty-five boards. Had the saw not been invented, he would -probably not have made out to furnish me with one, and I should have had -to pay him the same wages for his day's work. The <i>utility</i> produced -by the saw is then, as far as I am concerned, a gratuitous gift of nature, -or rather it is a part of that inheritance which, <i>in common</i> with -all my brethren, I have received from my ancestors. I have two workmen in -my field. The one handles the plough, the other the spade. The result of -their labour is very different, but the day's wages are the same, because -the remuneration is not proportioned to the utility produced, but to the -effort, the labour, which is exacted. -</p> -<p> -I entreat the reader's patience, and beg him to believe that I have not -lost sight of free trade. Let him only have the goodness to remember the -conclusion at which I have arrived: <i>Remuneration is not in proportion -to the utilities which the producer brings to market, but to his labour</i>.* -</p> -<pre xml:space="preserve"> -* It is true that labour does not receive a uniform -remuneration. It may be more or less intense, dangerous, -skilled, etc. Competition settles the usual or current price -in each department—and this is the fluctuating price of -which I speak. -</pre> -<p> -I have drawn my illustrations as yet from human inventions. Let us now -turn our attention to natural advantages. -</p> -<p> -In every branch of production, nature and man concur. But the portion of -utility which nature contributes is always gratuitous. It is only the -portion of utility which human labour contributes which forms the subject -of exchange, and, consequently, of remuneration. The latter varies, no -doubt, very much in proportion to the intensity of the labour, its skill, -its promptitude, its suitableness, the need there is of it, the temporary -absence of rivalry, etc. But it is not the less true, in principle, that -the concurrence of natural laws, which are common to all, counts for -nothing in the price of the product. -</p> -<p> -We do not pay for the air we breathe, although it is so <i>useful</i> to -us, that, without it, we could not live two minutes. We do not pay for it, -nevertheless; because nature furnishes it to us without the aid of human -labour. But if, for example, we should desire to separate one of the gases -of which it is composed, to make an experiment, we must make an exertion; -or if we wish another to make that exertion for us, we must sacrifice for -that other an equivalent amount of exertion, although we may have embodied -it in another product. Whence we see that pains, efforts, and exertions -are the real subjects of exchange. It is not, indeed, the oxygen gas that -I pay for, since it is at my disposal everywhere, but the labour necessary -to disengage it, labour which has been saved me, and which must be -recompensed. Will it be said that there is something else to be paid for, -materials, apparatus, etc.? Still, in paying for these, I pay for labour. -The price of the coal employed, for example, represents the labour -necessary to extract it from the mine and to transport it to the place -where it is to be used. -</p> -<p> -We do not pay for the light of the sim, because it is a gift of nature. -But we pay for gas, tallow, oil, wax, because there is here human labour -to be remunerated; and it will be remarked that, in this case, the -remuneration is proportioned, not to the utility produced, but to the -labour employed, so much so that it may happen that one of these kinds of -artificial light, though more intense, costs us less, and for this reason, -that the same amount of human labour affords us more of it. -</p> -<p> -Were the porter who carries water to my house to be paid in proportion to -the <i>absolute utility</i> of water, my whole fortune would be -insufficient to remunerate him. But I pay him in proportion to the -exertion he makes. If he charges more, others will do the work, or, if -necessary, I will do it myself. Water, in truth, is not the subject of our -bargain, but the labour of carrying it. This view of the matter is so -important, and the conclusions which I am about to deduce from it throw so -much light on the question of the freedom of international exchanges, that -I deem it necessary to elucidate it by other examples. -</p> -<p> -The alimentary substance contained in potatoes is not very costly, because -we can obtain a large amount of it with comparatively little labour. We -pay more for wheat, because the production of it costs a greater amount of -human labour. It is evident that if nature did for the one what it does -for the other, the price of both would tend to equality. It is impossible -that the producer of wheat should permanently gain much more than the -producer of potatoes. The law of competition would prevent it. -</p> -<p> -If by a happy miracle the fertility of all arable lands should come to be -augmented, it would not be the agriculturist, but the consumer, who would -reap advantage from that phenomenon for it would resolve itself into -abundance and cheapness. There would be less labour incorporated in each -quarter of corn, and the cultivator could exchange it only for a smaller -amount of labour worked up in some other product. If, on the other hand, -the fertility of the soil came all at once to be diminished, nature's part -in the process of production would be less, that of human labour would be -greater, and the product dearer. I am, then, warranted in saying that it -is in consumption, in the human element, that all the economic phenomena -come ultimately to resolve themselves. The man who has failed to regard -them in this light, to follow them out to their ultimate effects, without -stopping short at <i>immediate</i> results, and viewing them from the <i>producer's</i> -standpoint, can no more be regarded as an economist than the man who -should prescribe a draught, and, instead of watching its effect on the -entire system of the patient, should inquire only how it affected the -mouth and throat, could be regarded as a physician. -</p> -<p> -Tropical regions are very favourably situated for the production of sugar -and of coffee. This means that nature does a great part of the work, and -leaves little for human labour to do. But who reaps the advantage of this -liberality of nature? Not the producing countries, for competition causes -the price barely to remunerate the labour. It is the human race that reaps -the benefit, for the result of nature's liberality is cheapness, and -cheapness benefits everybody. -</p> -<p> -Suppose a temperate region where coal and iron-ore are found on the -surface of the ground, where one has only to stoop down to get them. That, -in the first instance, the inhabitants would profit by this happy -circumstance, I allow. But competition would soon intervene, and the price -of coal and iron-ore would go on falling, till the gift of nature became -free to all, and then the human labour employed would be alone remunerated -according to the general rate of earnings. -</p> -<p> -Thus the liberality of nature, like improvements in the processes of -production, is, or continually tends to become, under the law of -competition, the common and gratuitous patrimony of consumers, of the -masses, of mankind in general. Then, the countries which do not possess -these advantages have everything to gain by exchanging their products with -those countries which possess them, because the subject of exchange is <i>labour</i>, -apart from the consideration of the natural utilities worked up with that -labour; and the countries which have incorporated in a given amount of -their labour the greatest amount of these <i>natural utilities</i>, are -evidently the most favoured countries. Their products which represent the -least amount of human labour are the least profitable; in other words, -they <i>are cheaper</i>; and if the whole liberality of nature resolves -itself into <i>cheapness</i>, it is evidently not the producing, but the -consuming, country which reaps the benefit. -</p> -<p> -Hence we see the enormous absurdity of consuming countries which reject -products for the very reason that they are cheap. It is as if they said, -"We want nothing that nature gives us. You ask me for an effort equal to -two, in exchange for a product which I cannot create without an effort -equal to four; you can make that effort, because in your case nature does -half the work. Be it so; I reject your offer, and I shall wait until your -climate, having become more inclement, will force you to demand from me an -effort equal to four, in order that I may treat with you <i>on a footing -of equality</i>." -</p> -<p> -A is a favoured country. B is a country to which nature has been less -bountiful. I maintain that exchange benefits both, but benefits B -especially; because exchange is not an exchange of <i>utilities for -utilities</i>, but <i>of value for value</i>. Now A includes <i>a greater -amount of utility in the same value</i>, seeing that the utility of a -product includes what nature has put there, as well as what labour has put -there; whilst value includes only what labour has put there. Then B makes -quite an advantageous bargain. In recompensing the producer of A for his -labour only, it receives into the bargain a greater amount of natural -utility than it has given. -</p> -<p> -This enables us to lay down the general rule: Exchange is a barter of <i>values</i>; -value under the action of competition being made to represent labour, -exchange becomes a barter of equal labour. What nature has imparted to the -products exchanged is on both sides given <i>gratuitously and into the -bargain</i>; whence it follows necessarily that exchanges effected with -countries the most favoured by nature are the most advantageous. -</p> -<p> -The theory of which in this chapter I have endeavoured to trace the -outlines would require great developments. I have glanced at it only in as -far as it bears upon my subject of free trade. But perhaps the attentive -reader may have perceived in it the fertile germ which in the rankness of -its maturity will not only smother protection, but, along with it, <i>Fourierisrme, -Saint-Simonianisme, communisme</i>, and all those schools whose object it -is to exclude from the government of the world the law of <i>competition</i>. -Regarded from the producer's point of view, competition no doubt -frequently clashes with our <i>immediate</i> and individual interests; but -if we change our point of view and extend our regards to industry in -general, to universal prosperity—in a word, to <i>consumption</i>—we -shall find that competition in the moral world plays the same part which -equilibrium does in the material world. It lies at the root of true -communism, of true socialism, of that equality of conditions and of -happiness so much desired in our day; and if so many sincere publicists, -and well-meaning reformers seek after the <i>arbitrary</i>, it is for this -reason—that they do not understand liberty.* -</p> -<pre xml:space="preserve"> -* The theory sketched in this chapter, is the same which, -four years afterwards, was developed in the <i>Harmonies -Économiques</i>. Remuneration reserved exclusively for human -labour; the gratuitous nature of natural agents; progressive -conquest of these agents, to the profit of mankind, whose -common property they thus become; elevation of general -wellbeing and tendency to relative equalization of -conditions; we recognise here the essential elements of the -most important of all the works of Bastiat.—Editor. -</pre> -<p> -<br /><br /> -</p> -<hr /> -<p> -<a name="link2H_4_0008" id="link2H_4_0008"> </a> -</p> -<div style="height: 4em;"> -<br /><br /><br /><br /> -</div> -<h2> -V. OUR PRODUCTS ARE BURDENED WITH TAXES. -</h2> -<p class="pfirst"><span class="dropcap" style="font-size: 4.00em">W</span>e have here again the same sophism. We demand that foreign products -should be taxed to neutralize the effect of the taxes which weigh upon our -national products. The object, then, still is to equalize the conditions -of production. We have only a word to say, and it is this: that the tax is -an artificial obstacle which produces exactly the same result as a natural -obstacle, its effect is to enhance prices. If this enhancement reach a -point which makes it a greater loss to create the product for ourselves -than to procure it from abroad by producing a counter value, <i>laissez -faire</i>, let well alone. Of two evils, private interest will do well to -choose the least. I might, then, simply refer the reader to the preceding -demonstration; but the sophism which we have here to combat recurs so -frequently in the lamentations and demands, I might say in the challenges, -of the protectionist school, as to merit a special discussion. -</p> -<p> -If the question relate to one of those exceptional taxes which are imposed -on certain products, I grant readily that it is reasonable to impose the -same duty on the foreign product. For example, it would be absurd to -exempt foreign salt from duty; not that, in an economical point of view, -France would lose anything by doing so, but the reverse. Let them say what -they will, principles are always the same; and France would gain by the -exemption as she must always gain by removing a natural or artificial -obstacle. But in this instance the obstacle has been interposed for -purposes of revenue. These purposes must be attained; and were foreign -salt sold in our market duty free, the Treasury would lose its hundred -millions of francs (four millions sterling); and must raise that sum from -some other source. There would be an obvious inconsistency in creating an -obstacle, and failing in the object. It might have been better to have had -recourse at first to another tax than that upon French salt. But I admit -that there are certain circumstances in which a tax may be laid on foreign -commodities, provided it is not <i>protective</i>, but fiscal. -</p> -<p> -But to pretend that a nation, because she is subjected to heavier taxes -than her neighbours, should protect herself by tariffs against the -competition of her rivals, in this is a sophism, and it is this sophism -which I intend to attack. -</p> -<p> -I have said more than once that I propose only to explain the theory, and -lay open, as far as possible, the sources of protectionist errors. Had I -intended to raise a controversy, I should have asked the protectionists -why they direct their tariffs chiefly against England and Belgium, the -most heavily taxed countries in the world? Am I not warranted in regarding -their argument only as a pretext? But I am not one of those who believe -that men are prohibitionists from self-interest, and not from conviction. -The doctrine of protection is too popular not to be sincere. If the -majority had faith in liberty, we should be free. Undoubtedly it is -self-interest which makes our tariffs so heavy; but conviction is at the -root of it. "The will," says Pascal, "is one of the principal organs of -belief." But the belief exists nevertheless, although it has its root in -the will, and in the insidious suggestions of egotism. -</p> -<p> -Let us revert to the sophism founded on taxation. -</p> -<p> -The State may make a good or a bad use of the taxes which it levies. When -it renders to the public services which are equivalent to the value it -receives, it makes a good use of them. And when it dissipates its revenues -without giving any service in return, it makes a bad use of them. -</p> -<p> -In the first case, to affirm that the taxes place the country which pays -them under conditions of production more unfavourable than those of a -country which is exempt from them, is a sophism. We pay twenty millions of -francs for justice and police; but then we have them, with the security -they afford us, and the time which they save us; and it is very probable -that production is neither more easy nor more active in those countries, -if there are any such, where the people take the business of justice and -police into their own hands. We pay many hundreds of millions (of francs) -for roads, bridges, harbours, and railways. Granted; but then we have the -benefit of these roads, bridges, harbours, and railways; and whether we -make a good or a bad bargain in constructing them, it cannot be said that -they render us inferior to other nations, who do not indeed support a -budget of public works, but who have no public works. And this explains -why, whilst accusing taxation of being a cause of industrial inferiority, -we direct our tariffs especially against those countries which are the -most heavily taxed. Their taxes, well employed, far from deteriorating, -have ameliorated, <i>the conditions of production</i> in these countries. -Thus we are continually arriving at the conclusion that protectionist -sophisms are not only not true, but are the very reverse of true.* -</p> -<pre xml:space="preserve"> -* See Harmonies Économiques, ch. xvii. -</pre> -<p> -If taxes are improductive, suppress them, if you can; but assuredly the -strangest mode of neutralizing their effect is to add individual to public -taxes. Fine compensation truly! You tell us that the State taxes are too -much; and you give that as a reason why we should tax one another! -</p> -<p> -A protective duty is a tax directed against a foreign product; but we must -never forget that it falls back on the home consumer. Now the consumer is -the tax-payer. The agreeable language you address to him is this: "Because -your taxes are heavy, we raise the price of everything you buy; because -the State lays hold of one part of your income, we hand over another to -the monopolist." -</p> -<p> -But let us penetrate a little deeper into this sophism, which is in such -repute with our legislators, although the extraordinary thing is that it -is just the very people who maintain unproductive taxes who attribute to -them our industrial inferiority, and in that inferiority find an excuse -for imposing other taxes and restrictions. -</p> -<p> -It appears evident to me that the nature and effects of protection would -not be changed, were the State to levy a direct tax and distribute the -money afterwards in premiums and indemnities to the privileged branches of -industry. -</p> -<p> -Suppose that while foreign iron cannot be sold in our market below eight -francs, French iron cannot be sold for less than twelve francs. -</p> -<p> -On this hypothesis, there are two modes in which the State can secure the -home market to the producer. -</p> -<p> -The first mode is to lay a duty of five francs on foreign iron. It is -evident that that duty would exclude it, since it could no longer be sold -under thirteen francs, namely, eight francs for the cost price, and five -francs for the tax, and at that price it would be driven out of the market -by French iron, the price of which we suppose to be only twelve francs. In -this case, the purchaser, the consumer, would be at the whole cost of the -protection. -</p> -<p> -Or again, the State might levy a tax of five francs from the public, and -give the proceeds as a premium to the ironmaster. The protective effect -would be the same. Foreign iron would in this case be equally excluded; -for our ironmaster can now sell his iron at seven francs, which, with the -five francs premium, would make up to him the remunerative price of twelve -francs. But with home iron at seven francs the foreigner could not sell -his for eight, which by the supposition is his lowest remunerative price. -</p> -<p> -Between these two modes of going to work, I can see only one difference. -The principle is the same; the effect is the same; but in the one, certain -individuals pay the price of protection; in the other, it is paid for by -the nation at large. -</p> -<p> -I frankly avow my predilection for the second mode. It appears to me more -just, more economical, and more honourable; more just, because if society -desires to give largesses to some of its members, all should contribute; -more economical, because it would save much expense in collecting, and get -us rid of many restrictions; more honourable, because the public would -then see clearly the nature of the operation, and act accordingly. -</p> -<p> -But if the protectionist system had taken this form, it would have been -laughable to hear men say, "We pay heavy taxes for the army, for the navy, -for the administration of justice, for public works, for the university, -the public debt, etc.—in all exceeding a milliard [£40,000,000 -sterling]. For this reason, the State should take another milliard from -us, to relieve these poor ironmasters, these poor shareholders in the -coal-mines of Anzin, these unfortunate proprietors of forests, these -useful men who supply us with cod-fish." -</p> -<p> -Look at the subject closely, and you will be satisfied that this is the -true meaning and effect of the sophism we are combating. It is all in -vain; you cannot <i>give money</i> to some members of the community but by -taking it from others. If you desire to ruin the tax-payer, you may do so. -But at least do not banter him by saying, "In order to compensate your -losses, I take from you again as much as I have taken from you already." -To expose fully all that is false in this sophism would be an endless -work. I shall confine myself to three observations. You assert that the -country is overburdened with taxes, and on this fact you found an argument -for the protection of certain branches of industry. But we have to pay -these taxes in spite of protection. If, then, a particular branch of -industry presents itself, and says, "I share in the payment of taxes; that -raises the cost price of my products, and I demand that a protecting duty -should also raise their selling price," what does such a demand amount to? -It amounts simply to this, that the tax should be thrown over on the rest -of the community. The object sought for is to be reimbursed the amount of -the tax by a rise of prices. But as the Treasury requires to have the full -amount of all the taxes, and as the masses have to pay the higher price, -it follows that they have to bear not only their own share of taxation but -that of the particular branch of industry which is protected. But we mean -to protect everybody, you will say. I answer, in the first place, that -that is impossible; and, in the next place, that if it were possible, -there would be no relief. I would pay for you, and you would pay for me; -but the tax must be paid all the same. -</p> -<p> -You are thus the dupes of an illusion. You wish in the first instance to -pay taxes in order that you may have an army, a navy, a church, a -university, judges, highways, etc., and then you wish to free from -taxation first one branch of industry, then a second, then a third, always -throwing back the burden upon the masses. You do nothing more than create -interminable complications, without any other result than these -complications themselves. Show me that a rise of price caused by -protection falls upon the foreigner, and I could discover in your argument -something specious. But if it be true that the public pays the tax before -your law, and that after the law is passed it pays for protection and the -tax into the bargain, truly I cannot see what is gained by it. -</p> -<p> -But I go further, and maintain that the heavier our taxes are, the more we -should hasten to throw open our ports and our frontiers to foreigners less -heavily taxed than ourselves. And why? In order to throw back upon them a -greater share of our burden. Is it not an incontestable axiom in political -economy that taxes ultimately fall on the consumer? The more, then, our -exchanges are multiplied, the more will foreign consumers reimburse us for -the taxes incorporated and worked up in the products we sell them; whilst -we in this respect will have to make them a smaller restitution, seeing -that their products, according to our hypothesis, are less heavily -burdened than ours. -</p> -<p> -In fine, have you never asked yourselves whether these heavy burdens on -which you found your argument for a prohibitory regime are not caused by -that very regime? If commerce were free, what use would you have for your -great standing armies and powerful navies?.... But this belongs to the -domain of politics. -</p> -<pre xml:space="preserve"> -Et ne confondons pas, pour trop approfondir, -Leurs affaires avec les nôtres. -</pre> -<p> -<br /><br /> -</p> -<hr /> -<p> -<a name="link2H_4_0009" id="link2H_4_0009"> </a> -</p> -<div style="height: 4em;"> -<br /><br /><br /><br /> -</div> -<h2> -VI. BALANCE OF TRADE. -</h2> -<p class="pfirst"><span class="dropcap" style="font-size: 4.00em">O</span>ur adversaries have adopted tactics which are rather embarrassing. Do we -establish our doctrine? They admit it with the greatest possible respect. -Do we attack their principle? They abandon it with the best grace in the -world. They demand only one thing—that our doctrine, which they hold -to be true, should remain relegated in books, and that their principle, -which they acknowledge to be vicious, should reign paramount in practical -legislation. Resign to them the management of tariffs, and they will give -up all dispute with you in the domain of theory. -</p> -<p> -"Assuredly," said M. Gauthier de Rumilly, on a recent occasion, "no one -wishes to resuscitate the antiquated theories of the balance of trade." -Very right, Monsieur Gauthier, but please to remember that it is not -enough to give a passing slap to error, and immediately afterwards, and -for two hours together, reason as if that error were truth. -</p> -<p> -Let me speak of M. Lestiboudois. Here we have a consistent reasoner, a -logical disputant. There is nothing in his conclusions which is not to be -found in his premises. He asks nothing in practice, but what he justifies -in theory. His principle may be false; that is open to question. But, at -any rate, he has a principle. He believes, and he proclaims it aloud, that -if France gives ten, in order to receive fifteen, she loses five; and it -follows, of course, that he supports laws which are in keeping with this -view of the subject "The important thing to attend to," he says, "is that -the amount of our importations goes on augmenting, and exceeds the amount -of our exportations—that is to say, France every year purchases more -foreign products, and sells less of her own. Figures prove this. What do -we see? In 1842, imports exceeded exports by 200 millions. These facts -appear to prove in the clearest manner that national industry <i>is not -sufficiently protected</i>, that we depend upon foreign labour for our -supplies, that the competition of our rivals <i>oppresses</i> our -industry. The present law appears to me to recognise the fact, which is -not true according to the economists, that when we purchase we necessarily -sell a corresponding amount of commodities. It is evident that we can -purchase, not with our usual products, not with our revenue, not with the -results of permanent labour, but with our capital, with products which -have been accumulated and stored up, those intended for reproduction—that -is to say, that we may expend, that we may dissipate, the proceeds of -anterior economies, that we may impoverish ourselves, that we may proceed -on the road to ruin, and consume entirely the national capital. <i>This is -exactly what we are doing. Every year we give away 200 millions of francs -to the foreigner</i>." -</p> -<p> -Well, here is a man with whom we can come to an understanding. There is no -hypocrisy in this language. The doctrine of the balance of trade is openly -avowed. France imports 200 millions more than she exports. Then we lose -200 millions a year. And what is the remedy? To place restrictions on -importation. The conclusion is unexceptionable. -</p> -<p> -It is with M. Lestiboudois, then, that we must deal, for how can we argue -with M. Gauthier? If you tell him that the balance of trade is an error, -he replies that that was what he laid down at the beginning. If you say -that the balance of trade is a truth, he will reply that that is what he -proves in his conclusions. -</p> -<p> -The economist school will blame me, no doubt, for arguing with M. -Lestiboudois. To attack the balance of trade, it will be said, is to fight -with a windmill. -</p> -<p> -But take care. The doctrine of the balance of trade is neither so -antiquated, nor so sick, nor so dead as M. Gauthier would represent it, -for the entire Chamber—M. Gauthier himself included—has -recognised by its votes the theory of M. Lestiboudois. -</p> -<p> -I shall not fatigue the reader by proceeding to probe that theory, but -content myself with subjecting it to the test of facts. -</p> -<p> -We are constantly told that our principles do not hold good, except in -theory. But tell me, gentlemen, if you regard the books of merchants as -holding good in practice? It appears to me that if there is anything in -the world which should have practical authority, when the question regards -profit and loss, it is commercial accounts. Have all the merchants in the -world come to an understanding for centuries to keep their books in such a -way as to represent profits as losses, and losses as profits? It may be -so, but I would much rather come to the conclusion that M. Lestiboudois is -a bad economist. -</p> -<p> -Now, a merchant of my acquaintance having had two transactions, the -results of which were very different, I felt curious to compare the books -of the counting-house with the books of the Customhouse, as interpreted by -M. Lestiboudois to the satisfaction of our six hundred legislators. -</p> -<p> -M. T. despatched a ship from Havre to the United States, with a cargo of -French goods, chiefly those known as <i>articles de Paris</i>, amounting -to 200,000 francs. This was the figure declared at the Customhouse. When -the cargo arrived at New Orleans it was charged with 10 per cent, freight -and 30 per cent, duty, making a total of 280,000 francs. It was sold with -20 per cent, profit, or 40,000 francs, and produced a total of 320,000 -francs, which the consignee invested in cottons. These cottons had still -for freight, insurance, commission, etc., to bear a cost of 10 per cent. -so that when the new cargo arrived at Havre it had cost 352,000 francs, -which was the figure entered in the Customhouse books. Finally M. T. -realized upon this return cargo 20 per cent, profit, or 70,400 francs; in -other words, the cottons were sold for 422,400 francs. -</p> -<p> -If M. Lestiboudois desires it, I shall send him an extract from the books -of M. T. He will there see <i>at the credit</i> of the <i>profit and loss</i> -account—that is to say, as profits—two entries, one of 40,000, -another of 70,400 francs, and M. T. is very sure that his accounts are -accurate. -</p> -<p> -And yet, what do the Customhouse books tell M. Lestiboudois regarding this -transaction? They tell him simply that France exported 200,000 francs' -worth, and imported to the extent of 352,000 francs; whence the honourable -deputy concludes "<i>that she had expended, and dissipated the profits of -her anterior economies, that she is impoverishing herself that she is on -the high road to ruin, and has given away to the foreigner 152,000 francs -of her capital</i>." -</p> -<p> -Some time afterwards, M. T. despatched another vessel with a cargo also of -the value of 200,000 francs, composed of the products of our native -industry. This unfortunate ship was lost in a gale of wind after leaving -the harbour, and all M. T. had to do was to make two short entries in his -books, to this effect:— -</p> -<p> -"<i>Sundry goods debtors to X</i>, 200,000 francs, for purchases of -different commodities despatched by the ship N. -</p> -<p> -"<i>Profit and loss debtors to sundry goods</i>, 200,000 francs, in -consequence of <i>definitive and total loss</i> of the cargo." -</p> -<p> -At the same time, the Customhouse books bore an entry of 200.000 francs in -the list of <i>exportations</i>; and as there was no corresponding entry -to make in the list of <i>importations</i>, it follows that M. -Lestiboudois and the Chamber will see in this shipwreck <i>a clear and net -profit</i> for France of 200,000 francs. -</p> -<p> -There is still another inference to be deduced from this, which is, that -according to the theory of the balance of trade, France has a very simple -means of doubling her capital at any moment. It is enough to pass them -through the Customhouse, and then pitch them into the sea. In this case -the exports will represent the amount of her capital, the imports will be -<i>nil</i>, and even impossible, and we shall gain all that the sea -swallows up. -</p> -<p> -This is a joke, the protectionists will say. It is impossible' we could -give utterance to such absurdities. You do give utterance to them, -however, and, what is more, you act upon them, and impose them on your -fellow-citizens to the utmost of your power. -</p> -<p> -The truth is, it would be necessary to take the balance of trade <i>backwards -[au rebours]</i>, and calculate the national profits from foreign trade by -the excess of imports over exports. This excess, after deducting costs, -constitutes the real profit. But this theory, which is true, leads -directly to free trade. I make you a present of it, gentlemen, as I do of -all the theories in the preceding chapters. Exaggerate it as much as you -please—it has nothing to fear from that test. Suppose, if that -amuses you, that the foreigner inundates us with all sorts of useful -commodities without asking anything in return, that our imports are <i>infinite</i> -and exports <i>nil</i>, I defy you to prove to me that we should be poorer -on that account. -</p> -<p> -<br /><br /> -</p> -<hr /> -<p> -<a name="link2H_4_0010" id="link2H_4_0010"> </a> -</p> -<div style="height: 4em;"> -<br /><br /><br /><br /> -</div> -<h2> -VII. OF THE MANUFACTURERS -</h2> -<p> -OF CANDLES, WAX-LIGHTS, LAMPS, CANDLESTICKS, STREET LAMPS, SNUFFERS, -EXTINGUISHERS, AND OF THE PRODUCERS OF OIL, TALLOW, ROSIN, ALCOHOL, AND, -GENERALLY, OF EVERYTHING CONNECTED WITH LIGHTING. -</p> -<p> -To Messieurs the Members of the Chamber of Deputies. -</p> -<p> -Gentlemen,—You are on the right road. You reject abstract theories, -and have little consideration for cheapness and plenty Your chief care is -the interest of the producer. You desire to emancipate him from external -competition, and reserve the <i>national market for national industry</i>. -</p> -<p> -We are about to offer you an admirable opportunity of applying your—what -shall we call it? your theory? No; nothing is more deceptive than theory; -your doctrine? your system? your principle? but you dislike doctrines, you -abhor systems, and as for principles, you deny that there are any in -social economy: we shall say, then, your practice, your practice without -theory and without principle. -</p> -<p> -We are suffering from the intolerable competition of a foreign rival, -placed, it would seem, in a condition so far superior to ours for the -production of light, that he absolutely <i>inundates our national market</i> -with it at a price fabulously reduced. The moment he shows himself, our -trade leaves us—all consumers apply to him; and a branch of native -industry, having countless ramifications, is all at once rendered -completely stagnant. This rival, who is no other than the Sun, wages war -to the knife against us, and we suspect that he has been raised up by <i>perfidious -Albion</i> (good policy as times go); inasmuch as he displays towards that -haughty island a circumspection with which he dispenses in our case. -</p> -<p> -What we pray for is, that it may please you to pass a law ordering the -shutting up of all windows, sky-lights, dormer-windows, outside and inside -shutters, curtains, blinds, bull's-eyes; in a word, of all openings, -holes, chinks, clefts, and fissures, by or through which the light of the -sun has been in use to enter houses, to the prejudice of the meritorious -manufactures with which we flatter ourselves we have accommodated our -country,—a country which, in gratitude, ought not to abandon us now -to a strife so unequal. -</p> -<p> -We trust, Gentlemen, that you will not regard this our request as a -satire, or refuse it without at least previously hearing the reasons which -we have to urge in its support. -</p> -<p> -And, first, if you shut up as much as possible all access to natural -light, and create a demand for artificial light, which of our French -manufactures will not be encouraged by it? -</p> -<p> -If more tallow is consumed, then there must be more oxen and sheep; and, -consequently, we shall behold the multiplication of artificial meadows, -meat, wool, hides, and, above all, manure, which is the basis and -foundation of all agricultural wealth. -</p> -<p> -If more oil is consumed, then we shall have an extended cultivation of the -poppy, of the olive, and of rape. These rich and exhausting plants will -come at the right time to enable us to avail ourselves of the increased -fertility which the rearing of additional cattle will impart to our lands. -</p> -<p> -Our heaths will be covered with resinous trees. Numerous swarms of bees -will, on the mountains, gather perfumed treasures, now wasting their -fragrance on the desert air, like the flowers from which they emanate. No -branch of agriculture but will then exhibit a cheering development. -</p> -<p> -The same remark applies to navigation. Thousands of vessels will proceed -to the whale fishery; and, in a short time, we shall possess a navy -capable of maintaining the honour of France, and gratifying the patriotic -aspirations of your petitioners, the undersigned candlemakers and others. -</p> -<p> -But what shall we say of the manufacture of <i>articles de Paris?</i> -Henceforth you will behold gildings, bronzes, crystals, in candlesticks, -in lamps, in lustres, in candelabra, shining forth, in spacious warerooms, -compared with which those of the present day can be regarded but as mere -shops. -</p> -<p> -No poor <i>resinier</i> from his heights on the seacoast, no coalminer -from the depth of his sable gallery, but will rejoice in higher wages and -increased prosperity. -</p> -<p> -Only have the goodness to reflect, Gentlemen, and you will be convinced -that there is, perhaps, no Frenchman, from the wealthy coalmaster to the -humblest vender of lucifer matches, whose lot will not be ameliorated by -the success of this our petition. -</p> -<p> -We foresee your objections, Gentlemen, but we know that you can oppose to -us none but such as you have picked up from the effete works of the -partisans of free trade. We defy you to utter a single word against us -which will not instantly rebound against yourselves and your entire -policy. -</p> -<p> -You will tell us that, if we gain by the protection which we seek, the -country will lose by it, because the consumer must bear the loss. -</p> -<p> -We answer: -</p> -<p> -You have ceased to have any right to invoke the interest of the consumer; -for, whenever his interest is found opposed to that of the producer, you -sacrifice the former. You have done so for the purpose of <i>encouraging -labour and increasing employment</i>. For the same reason you should do so -again. -</p> -<p> -You have yourselves obviated this objection. When you are told that the -consumer is interested in the free importation of iron, coal, corn, -textile fabrics—yes, you reply, but the producer is interested in -their exclusion. Well, be it so;—if consumers are interested in the -free admission of natural light, the producers of artificial light are -equally interested in its prohibition. -</p> -<p> -But, again, you may say that the producer and consumer are identical. If -the manufacturer gain by protection, he will make the agriculturist also a -gainer; and if agriculture prosper, it will open a vent to manufactures. -Very well; if you confer upon us the monopoly of furnishing light during -the day,—first of all, we shall purchase quantities of tallow, -coals, oils, resinous substances, wax, alcohol—besides silver, iron, -bronze, crystal—to carry on our manufactures; and then we, and those -who furnish us with such commodities, having become rich will consume a -great deal, and impart prosperity to all the other branches of our -national industry. -</p> -<p> -If you urge that the light of the sun is a gratuitous gift of nature, and -that to reject such gifts is to reject wealth itself under pretence of -encouraging the means of acquiring it, we would caution you against giving -a death-blow to your own policy. Remember that hitherto you have always -repelled foreign products, because they approximate more nearly than home -products to the character of gratuitous gifts. To comply with the -exactions of other monopolists, you have only <i>half a motive</i>; and to -repulse us simply because we stand on a stronger vantage-ground than -others would be to adopt the equation, + x + = -; in other words, it would -be to heap <i>absurdity upon absurdity</i>. -</p> -<p> -Nature and human labour co-operate in various proportions (depending on -countries and climates) in the production of commodities. The part which -nature executes is always gratuitous; it is the part executed by human -labour which constitutes value, and is paid for. -</p> -<p> -If a Lisbon orange sells for half the price of a Paris orange, it is -because natural, and consequently gratuitous, heat does for the one, what -artificial, and therefore expensive, heat must do for the other. -</p> -<p> -When an orange comes to us from Portugal, we may conclude that it is -furnished in part gratuitously, in part for an onerous consideration; in -other words, it comes to us at <i>half-price</i> as compared with those of -Paris. -</p> -<p> -Now, it is precisely the <i>gratuitous half</i> (pardon the word) which we -contend should be excluded. You say, How can natural labour sustain -competition with foreign labour, when the former has all the work to do, -and the latter only does one-half, the sun supplying the remainder? But if -this half being gratuitous, determines you to exclude competition, how -should the whole, being gratuitous, induce you to admit competition? If -you were consistent, you would, while excluding as hurtful to native -industry what is half gratuitous, exclude <i>a fortiori</i> and with -double zeal, that which is altogether gratuitous. -</p> -<p> -Once more, when products such as coal, iron, corn, or textile fabrics, are -sent us from abroad, and we can acquire them with less labour than if we -made them ourselves, the difference is a free gift conferred upon us. The -gift is more or less considerable in proportion as the difference is more -or less great. It amounts to a quarter, a half, or three-quarters of the -value of the product, when the foreigner only asks us for three-fourths, a -half, or a quarter of the price we should otherwise pay. It is as perfect -and complete as it can be, when the donor (like the sun in furnishing us -with light) asks us for nothing. The question, and we ask it formally, is -this, Do you desire for our country the benefit of gratuitous consumption, -or the pretended advantages of onerous production? Make your choice, but -be logical; for as long as you exclude as you do, coal, iron, com, foreign -fabrics, in proportion as their price approximates to zero, what -inconsistency would it be to admit the light of the sun, the price of -which is already at <i>zero</i> during the entire day! -</p> -<p> -<br /><br /> -</p> -<hr /> -<p> -<a name="link2H_4_0011" id="link2H_4_0011"> </a> -</p> -<div style="height: 4em;"> -<br /><br /><br /><br /> -</div> -<h2> -VIII. DIFFERENTIAL DUTIES. -</h2> -<p class="pfirst"><span class="dropcap" style="font-size: 4.00em">A</span> poor vine-dresser of the Gironde had trained with fond enthusiasm a slip -of vine, which, after much fatigue and much labour, yielded him, at -length, a tun of wine; and his success made him forget that each drop of -this precious nectar had cost his brow a drop of sweat. "I shall sell it," -said he to his wife, "and with the price I shall buy stuff sufficient to -enable you to furnish a trousseau for our daughter." The honest countryman -repaired to the nearest town, and met a Belgian and an Englishman. The -Belgian said to him: "Give me your cask of wine, and I will give you in -exchange fifteen parcels of stuff." The Englishman said: "Give me your -wine, and I will give you twenty parcels of stuff; for we English can -manufacture the stuff cheaper than the Belgians." But a Customhouse -officer, who was present, interposed, and said: "My good friend, exchange -with the Belgian if you think proper, but my orders are to prevent you -from making an exchange with the Englishman." "What!" exclaimed the -countryman; "you wish me to be content with fifteen parcels of stuff which -have come from Brussels, when I can get twenty parcels which have come -from Manchester?" "Certainly; don't you see that France would be a loser -if you received twenty parcels, instead of fifteen?" "I am at a loss to -understand you," said the vine-dresser, "And I am at a loss to explain -it," rejoined the Customhouse official; "but the thing is certain, for all -our deputies, ministers, and journalists agree in this, that the more a -nation receives in exchange for a given quantity of its products, the more -it is impoverished." The peasant found it necessary to conclude a bargain -with the Belgian. The daughter of the peasant got only three-quarters of -her trousseau; and these simple people are still asking themselves how it -happens that one is ruined by receiving four instead of three; and why a -person is richer with three dozens of towels than with four dozens. -</p> -<p> -<br /><br /> -</p> -<hr /> -<p> -<a name="link2H_4_0012" id="link2H_4_0012"> </a> -</p> -<div style="height: 4em;"> -<br /><br /><br /><br /> -</div> -<h2> -IX. IMMENSE DISCOVERY. -</h2> -<p class="pfirst"><span class="dropcap" style="font-size: 4.00em">A</span>t a time when everybody is bent on bringing about a saving in the expense -of transport—and when, in order to effect this saving, we are -forming roads and canals, improving our steamers, and connecting Paris -with all our frontiers by a network of railways—at a time, too, when -I believe we are ardently and sincerely seeking a solution of the problem, -<i>how to bring the prices of commodities, in the place where they are to -be consumed, as nearly as possible to the level of their prices in the -place where they were produced</i>,—I should think myself wanting to -my country, to my age, and to myself, if I kept longer secret the -marvellous discovery which I have just made. -</p> -<p> -The illusions of inventors are proverbial, but I am positively certain -that I have discovered an infallible means of bringing products from every -part of the world to France, and <i>vice versa</i> at a considerable -reduction of cost. -</p> -<p> -Infallible, did I say? Its being infallible is only one of the advantages -of my invention. -</p> -<p> -It requires neither plans, estimates, preparatory study, engineers, -mechanists, contractors, capital, shareholders, or Government aid! -</p> -<p> -It presents no danger of shipwreck, explosion, fire, or collision! -</p> -<p> -It may be brought into operation at any time! -</p> -<p> -Moreover—and this must undoubtedly recommend it to the public—it -will not add a penny to the Budget, but the reverse. It will not increase -the staff of functionaries, but the reverse. It will interfere with no -man's liberty, but the reverse. -</p> -<p> -It is observation, not chance, which has put me in possession of this -discovery, and I will tell you what suggested it. -</p> -<p> -I had at the time this question to resolve: -</p> -<p> -"Why does an article manufactured at Brussels, for example, cost dearer -when it comes to Paris?" -</p> -<p> -I soon perceived that it proceeds from this: That between Paris and -Brussels <i>obstacles</i> of many kinds exist. First of all, there is <i>distance</i>, -which entails loss of time, and we must either submit to this ourselves, -or pay another to submit to it. Then come rivers, marshes, accidents, bad -roads, which are so many <i>difficulties</i> to be surmounted. We succeed -in building bridges, in forming roads, and making them smoother by -pavements, iron rails, etc. But all this is costly, and the commodity must -be made to bear the cost. Then there are robbers who infest the roads, and -a body of police must be kept up, etc. -</p> -<p> -Now, among these <i>obstacles</i> there is one which we have ourselves set -up, and at no little cost, too, between Brussels and Paris. There are men -who lie in ambuscade along the frontier, armed to the teeth, and whose -business it is to throw <i>difficulties</i> in the way of transporting -merchandise from the one country to the other. They are called Customhouse -officers, and they act in precisely the same way as ruts and bad roads. -They retard, they trammel commerce, they augment the difference we have -remarked between the price paid by the consumer and the price received by -the producer—that very difference, the reduction of which, as far as -possible, forms the subject of our problem. -</p> -<p> -That problem is resolved in three words: Reduce your tariff. -</p> -<p> -You will then have done what is equivalent to constructing the Northern -Railway without cost, and will immediately begin to put money in your -pocket. -</p> -<p> -In truth, I often seriously ask myself how anything so whimsical could -ever have entered into the human brain, as first of all to lay out many -millions for the purpose of removing the <i>natural obstacles</i> which -lie between France and other countries, and then to lay out many more -millions for the purpose of substituting <i>artificial obstacles</i>, -which have exactly the same effect; so much so, indeed, that the obstacle -created and the obstacle removed neutralize each other, and leave things -as they were before, the residue of the operation being a double expense. -</p> -<p> -A Belgian product is worth at Brussels 20 francs, and the cost of carriage -would raise the price at Paris to 30 francs. The same article made in -Paris costs 40 francs. And how do we proceed? -</p> -<p> -In the first place, we impose a duty of 10 francs on the Belgian product, -in order to raise its cost price at Paris to 40 francs; and we pay -numerous officials to see the duty stringently levied, so that, on the -road, the commodity is charged 10 francs for the carriage, and 10 francs -for the tax. -</p> -<p> -Having done this, we reason thus: The carriage from Brussels to Paris, -which costs 10 francs, is very dear. Let us expend two or three hundred -millions [of francs] in railways, and we shall reduce it by one half. -Evidently, all that we gain by this is that the Belgian product would sell -in Paris for 35 francs, viz. -</p> -<pre xml:space="preserve"> -20 francs, its price at Brussels. -10 " duty. -5 " reduced carriage by railway. -Total, 35 francs, representing cost price at Paris. -</pre> -<p> -Now, I ask, would we not have attained the same result by lowering the -tariff by 5 francs? We should then have— -</p> -<pre xml:space="preserve"> -20 francs, the price at Brussels. -5 " reduced duty. -10 " carriage by ordinary roads. -Total, 35 francs, representing cost price at Paris. -</pre> -<p> -And by this process we should have saved the 200 millions which the -railway cost, plus the expense of Customhouse surveillance, for this last -would be reduced in proportion to the diminished encouragement held out to -smuggling. -</p> -<p> -But it will be said that the duty is necessary to protect Parisian -industry. Be it so; but then you destroy the effect of your railway. -</p> -<p> -For, if you persist in desiring that the Belgian product should cost at -Paris 40 francs, you must raise your duty to 15 francs, and then you have— -</p> -<pre xml:space="preserve"> -20 francs, the price at Brussels. -15 " protecting duty. -5 " railway carriage. -Total, 40 francs, being the equalized price. -</pre> -<p> -Then, I venture to ask, what, under such circumstances, is the good of -your railway? -</p> -<p> -In sober earnestness, let me ask, is it not humiliating that the -nineteenth century should make itself a laughing-stock to future ages by -such puerilities, practised with such imperturbable gravity? To be the -dupe of other people is not very pleasant, but to employ a vast -representative apparatus in order to dupe, and double dupe, ourselves—and -that, too, in an affair of arithmetic—should surely humble the pride -of this <i>age of enlightenment</i>. -</p> -<p> -<br /><br /> -</p> -<hr /> -<p> -<a name="link2H_4_0013" id="link2H_4_0013"> </a> -</p> -<div style="height: 4em;"> -<br /><br /><br /><br /> -</div> -<h2> -X. RECIPROCITY. -</h2> -<p class="pfirst"><span class="dropcap" style="font-size: 4.00em">W</span>e have just seen that whatever increases the expense of conveying -commodities from one country to another—in other words, whatever -renders transport more onerous—acts in the same way as a protective -duty; or if you prefer to put it in another shape, that a protective duty -acts in the same way as more onerous transport. -</p> -<p> -A tariff, then, may be regarded in the same light as a marsh, a rut, an -obstruction, a steep declivity—in a word, it is an <i>obstacle</i>, -the effect of which is to augment the difference between the price which -the producer of a commodity receives, and the price which the consumer -pays for it. In the same way, it is undoubtedly true that marshes and -quagmires are to be regarded in the same light as protective tariffs. -</p> -<p> -There are people (few in number, it is true, but there are such people) -who begin to understand that obstacles are not less obstacles because they -are artificial, and that our mercantile prospects have more to gain from -liberty than from protection, and exactly for the same reason which makes -a canal more favourable to traffic than a steep, roundabout, and -inconvenient road. -</p> -<p> -But they maintain that this liberty must be reciprocal. If we remove the -barriers we have erected against the admission of Spanish goods, for -example, Spain must remove the barriers she has erected against the -admission of ours. They are, therefore, the advocates of <i>commercial -treaties</i>, on the basis of exact reciprocity, concession for -concession; let us make the <i>sacrifice</i> of buying, say they, to -obtain the advantage of selling. -</p> -<p> -People who reason in this way, I am sorry to say, are, whether they know -it or not, protectionists in principle; only, they are a little more -inconsistent than pure protectionists, as the latter are more inconsistent -than absolute prohibitionists. -</p> -<p> -The following apologue will demonstrate this:— -</p> -<p> -STULTA AND PUERA. There were, no matter where, two towns called Stulta and -Puera. They completed at great cost a highway from the one town to the -other. When this was done, Stulta said to herself, "See how Puera -inundates us with her products; we must see to it." In consequence, they -created and paid a body of <i>obstructives</i>, so called because their -business was to place <i>obstacles</i> in the way of traffic coming from -Puera. Soon afterwards, Puera did the same. -</p> -<p> -At the end of some centuries, knowledge having in the interim made great -progress, the common sense of Puera enabled her to see that such -reciprocal obstacles could only be reciprocally hurtful. She therefore -sent a diplomatist to Stulta, who, laying aside official phraseology, -spoke to this effect: "We have made a highway, and now we throw obstacles -in the way of using it. This is absurd. It would have been better to have -left things as they were. We should not, in that case, have had to pay for -making the road in the first place, nor afterwards have incurred the -expense of maintaining <i>obstructives</i>. In the name of Puera, I come -to propose to you, not to give up opposing each other all at once—that -would be to act upon a principle, and we despise principles as much as you -do—but to lessen somewhat the present obstacles, taking care to -estimate equitably the respective <i>sacrifices</i> we make for this -purpose." So spoke the diplomatist. Stulta asked for time to consider the -proposal, and proceeded to consult, in succession, her manufacturers and -agriculturists. At length, after the lapse of some years, she declared -that the negotiations were broken off. -</p> -<p> -On receiving this intimation, the inhabitants of Puera held a meeting. An -old gentleman (they always suspected he had been secretly bought by -Stulta) rose and said: The obstacles created by Stulta injure our sales, -which is a misfortune. Those which we have ourselves created injure our -purchases, which is another misfortune. With reference to the first, we -are powerless; but the second rests with ourselves. Let us, at least, get -quit of one, since we cannot rid ourselves of both evils. Let us suppress -our <i>obstructives</i> without requiring Stulta to do the same. Some day, -no doubt, she will come to know her own interests better. -</p> -<p> -A second counsellor, a practical, matter-of-fact man, guiltless of any -acquaintance with principles, and brought up in the ways of his -forefathers, replied: "Don't listen to that Utopian dreamer, that -theorist, that innovator, that economist, that <i>Stultomaniac</i>." -</p> -<p> -We shall all be undone if the stoppages of the road are not equalized, -weighed, and balanced between Stulta and Puera. There would be greater -difficulty in going than in coming, in exporting than in importing. We -should find ourselves in the same condition of inferiority relatively to -Stulta, as Havre, Nantes, Bordeaux, Lisbon, London, Hamburg, and New -Orleans, are with relation to the towns situated at the sources of the -Seine, the Loire, the Garonne, the Tagus, the Thames, the Elbe, and the -Mississippi, for it is more difficult for a ship to ascend than to descend -a river. (<i>A Voice</i>: Towns at the <i>embouchures</i> of rivers -prosper more than towns at their source.) This is impossible. (Same Voice: -But it is so.) Well, if it be so, they have prospered <i>contrary to rules</i>. -Reasoning so conclusive convinced the assembly, and the orator followed up -his victory by talking largely of national independence, national honour, -national dignity, national labour, inundation of products, tributes, -murderous competition. In short, he carried the vote in favour of the -maintenance of obstacles; and if you are at all curious on the subject, I -can point out to you countries, where you will see with your own eyes -Road-makers and Obstructives working together on the most friendly terms -possible, under the orders of the same legislative assembly, and at the -expense of the same taxpayers, the one set endeavouring to clear the road, -and the other set doing their utmost to render it impassible. -</p> -<p> -<br /><br /> -</p> -<hr /> -<p> -<a name="link2H_4_0014" id="link2H_4_0014"> </a> -</p> -<div style="height: 4em;"> -<br /><br /><br /><br /> -</div> -<h2> -XI. NOMINAL PRICES. -</h2> -<p class="pfirst"><span class="dropcap" style="font-size: 4.00em">D</span>o you desire to be in a situation to decide between liberty and -protection? Do you desire to appreciate the bearing of an economic -phenomenon? Inquire into its effects <i>upon the abundance or scarcity of -commodities</i>, and not <i>upon the rise or fall of prices</i>. Distrust -<i>nominal prices</i>;* and they will only land you in an inextricable -labyrinth. -</p> -<pre xml:space="preserve"> -* I have translated the expression des prix absolus, nominal -prices, or actual money prices, because the English -economists do not, so far as I remember, make use of the -term absolute price.—See post, chap. v. of second series, -where the author employs the expression in this sense.— -Translator. -</pre> -<p> -M. Matthieu de Dombasle, after having shown that protection raises prices, -adds— -</p> -<p> -"The enhancement of price increases the expense of living, and <i>consequently</i> -the price of labour, and each man receives, in the enhanced price of his -products, compensation for the higher prices he has been obliged to pay -for the things he has occasion to buy. Thus, if every one pays more as a -consumer, every one receives more as a producer." -</p> -<p> -It is evident that we could reverse this argument, and say—"If every -one receives more as a producer, every one pays more as a consumer." -</p> -<p> -Now, what does this prove? Nothing but this, that protection <i>displaces</i> -wealth uselessly and unjustly. In so far, it simply perpetrates -spoliation. -</p> -<p> -Again, to conclude that this vast apparatus leads to simple compensations, -we must stick to the "consequently" of M. de Dombasle, and make sure that -the price of labour will not fail to rise with the price of the protected -products. This is a question of fact which I remit to M. Moreau de Jonnes, -that he may take the trouble to find out whether the rate of wages -advances along with the price of shares in the coal-mines of Anzin. For my -own part, I do not believe that it does; because, in my opinion, the price -of labour, like the price of everything else, is governed by the relation -of supply to demand. Now, I am convinced that <i>restriction</i> -diminishes the supply of coal, and consequently enhances its price; but I -do not see so clearly that it increases the demand for labour, so as to -enhance the rate of wages; and that this effect should be produced is all -the less likely, because the quantity of labour demanded depends on the -disposable capital. Now, protection may indeed displace capital, and cause -its transference from one employment to another, but it can never increase -it by a single farthing. -</p> -<p> -But this question, which is one of the greatest interest and importance, -will be examined in another place.* I return to the subject of <i>nominal -price</i>; and I maintain that it is not one of those absurdities which -can be rendered specious by such reasonings as those of M. de Dombasle. -</p> -<p> -Put the case of a nation which is isolated, and possesses a given amount -of specie, and which chooses to amuse itself by burning each year one half -of all the commodities that it possesses. I undertake to prove that, -according to the theory of M. de Dombasle, it will not be less rich. -</p> -<p> -In fact, in consequence of the fire, all things will be doubled in price, -and the inventories of property, made before and after the destruction, -will show exactly the same <i>nominal</i> value. But then what will the -country in question have lost? If John buys his cloth dearer, he also -sells his corn at a higher price; and if Peter loses on his purchase of -corn, he retrieves his losses by the sale of his cloth. "Each recovers, in -the extra price of his products, the extra expense of living he has been -put to; and if everybody pays as a consumer, everybody receives a -corresponding amount as a producer." -</p> -<p> -All this is a jingling quibble, and not science. The truth, in plain -terms, is this: that men consume cloth and corn by fire or by using them, -and that the effect is the same <i>as regards price</i>, but not <i>as -regards wealth</i>, for it is precisely in the use of commodities that -wealth or material prosperity consists. -</p> -<p> -In the same way, restriction, while diminishing the abundance of things, -may raise their price to such an extent that each party shall be, <i>pecuniarily -speaking</i>, as rich as before. But to set down in an inventory three -measures of corn at 20s., or four measures at 15s., because the result is -still sixty shillings,—would this, I ask, come to the same thing -with reference to the satisfaction of men's wants? -</p> -<p> -It is to this, the consumer's point of view, that I shall never cease to -recall the protectionists, for this is the end and design of all our -efforts, and the solution of all problems.** -</p> -<pre xml:space="preserve"> -* See <i>post</i>, ch. v., second series.—Translator. - -** To this view of the subject the author frequently -reverts. It was, in his eyes, all important; and, four days -before his death, he dictated this recommendation:—"Tell M. -de F. to treat economical questions always from the -consumer's point of view, for the interest of the consumer -is identical with that of the human race."—Editor. -</pre> -<p> -I shall never cease to say to them: Is it, or is it not, true that -restriction, by impeding exchanges, by limiting the division of labour, by -forcing labour to connect itself with difficulties of climate and -situation, diminishes ultimately the quantity of commodities produced by a -determinate amount of efforts? And what does this signify, it will be -said, if the smaller quantity produced under the <i>regime</i> of -protection has the same <i>nominal value</i> as that produced under the <i>regime</i> -of liberty? The answer is obvious. Man does not live upon nominal values, -but upon real products, and the more products there are, whatever be their -price, the richer he is. -</p> -<p> -In writing what precedes, I never expected to meet with an anti-economist -who was enough of a logician to admit, in so many words, that the wealth -of nations depends on the value of things, apart from the consideration of -their abundance. But here is what I find in the work of M. de -Saint-Chamans (p. 210):— -</p> -<p> -"If fifteen millions' worth of commodities, sold to foreigners, are taken -from the total production, estimated at fifty millions, the thirty-five -millions' worth of commodities remaining, not being sufficient to meet the -ordinary demand, will increase in price, and rise to the value of fifty -millions. In that case the revenue of the country will represent a value -of fifteen millions additional.... There would then be an increase of the -wealth of the country to the extent of fifteen millions, exactly the -amount of specie imported." -</p> -<p> -This is a pleasant view of the matter! If a nation produces in one year, -from its agriculture and commerce, a value of fifty millions, it has only -to sell a quarter of it to the foreigner to be a quarter richer! Then if -it sells the half, it will be one-half richer! And if it should sell the -whole, to its last tuft of wool and its last grain of wheat, it would -bring up its revenue to 100 millions. Singular way of getting rich, by -producing infinite dearness by absolute scarcity! -</p> -<p> -Again, would you judge of the two doctrines? Submit them to the test of -exaggeration. -</p> -<p> -According to the doctrine of M. de Saint-Chamans, the French would be -quite as rich—that is to say, quite as well supplied with all things—had -they only a thousandth part of their annual products, because they would -be worth a thousand times more. -</p> -<p> -According to our doctrine, the French would be infinitely rich if their -annual products were infinitely abundant, and, consequently, without any -value at all.* -</p> -<pre xml:space="preserve"> -* See <i>post</i>, ch. v. of second series of <i>Sophismes</i>; and -ch. vi. of <i>Harmonies Economiques</i>. -</pre> -<p> -<br /><br /> -</p> -<hr /> -<p> -<a name="link2H_4_0015" id="link2H_4_0015"> </a> -</p> -<div style="height: 4em;"> -<br /><br /><br /><br /> -</div> -<h2> -XII. DOES PROTECTION RAISE THE RATE OF WAGES? -</h2> -<p class="pfirst"><span class="dropcap" style="font-size: 4.00em">A</span>n atheist, declaiming one day against religion and priestcraft, became so -outrageous in his abuse, that one of his audience, who was not himself -very orthodox, exclaimed, "If you go on much longer in this strain, you -will make me a convert." -</p> -<p> -In the same way, when we see our beardless scribblers, our novel-writers, -reformers, fops, amateur contributors to newspapers, redolent of musk, and -saturated with champagne, stuffing their portfolios with radical prints, -or issuing under gilded covers their own tirades against the egotism and -individualism of the age—when we hear such people declaim against -the rigour of our institutions, groan over the proletariat and the wages -system, raise their eyes to Heaven, and weep over the poverty of the -working classes (poverty which they never see but when they are paid to -paint it),—we are likewise tempted to exclaim, "If you go on longer -in this strain, we shall lose all interest in the working classes." -</p> -<p> -Affectation is the besetting sin of our times. When a serious writer, in a -spirit of philanthropy, refers to the sufferings of the working classes, -his words are caught up by these sentimentalists, twisted, distorted, and -exaggerated, <i>usque ad 'nauseam</i>. The grand, the only remedy, it -would seem, lies in the high-sounding phrases, association and -organization. The working classes are flattered—fulsomely, servilely -flattered; they are represented as in the condition of slaves, and men of -common sense will soon be ashamed publicly to espouse their cause, for how -can common sense make itself heard in the midst of all this insipid and -empty declamation? -</p> -<p> -Far from us be this cowardly indifference, which would not be justified -even by the sentimental affectation which prompts it. -</p> -<p> -Workmen! your situation is peculiar! They make merchandise of you, as I -shall show you immediately.... But no; I withdraw that expression. Let us -steer clear of strong language, which may be misapplied; for spoliation, -wrapt up in the sophistry which conceals it, may be in full operation -unknown to the spoliator, and with the blind assent of his victim. Still, -you are deprived of the just remuneration of your labour, and no one is -concerned to do you <i>justice</i>. If all that was wanted to console you -were ardent appeals to philanthropy, to impotent charity, to degrading -almsgiving; or if the grand words, organization, communism, <i>phalanstère,</i>* -were enough for you, truly they would not be spared. But <i>justice</i>, -simple justice, no one thinks of offering you. And yet, would it not be <i>just</i> -that when, after a long day's toil, you have received your modest wages, -you should have it in your power to exchange them for the greatest amount -of satisfactions and enjoyments which you could possibly obtain for them -from any one in any part of the world? -</p> -<pre xml:space="preserve"> -* Allusion to a socialist work of the day.—Translator. -</pre> -<p> -Some day I may have occasion also to talk to you of association and -organization, and we shall then see what you have to expect from those -chimeras which now mislead you. -</p> -<p> -In the meantime, let us inquire whether <i>injustice</i> is not done you -by fixing legislatively the people from whom you are to purchase the -things you have need of—bread, meat, linens, or cloth; and in -dictating, if I may say so, the artificial scale of prices which you are -to adopt in your dealings. -</p> -<p> -Is it true that protection, which admittedly makes you pay dearer for -everything, and entails a loss upon you in this respect, raises -proportionally your wages? -</p> -<p> -On what does the rate of wages depend? -</p> -<p> -One of your own class has put it forcibly, thus: When two workmen run -after one master, wages fall; they rise when two masters run after one -workman. -</p> -<p> -For the sake of brevity, allow me to make use of this formula, more -scientific, although, perhaps, not quite so clear. The rate of wages -depends on the proportion which the supply of labour bears to the demand -for it. -</p> -<p> -Now, on what does the <i>supply</i> of labour depend? -</p> -<p> -On the number of men waiting for employment; and on this first element -protection can have no effect. -</p> -<p> -On what does the <i>demand</i> for labour depend? -</p> -<p> -On the disposable capital of the nation. But does the law which says, We -shall no longer receive such or such a product from abroad, we shall make -it at home, augment the capital? Not in the least degree. It may force -capital from one employment to another, but it does not increase it by a -single farthing. It does not then increase the demand for labour. -</p> -<p> -We point with pride to a certain manufacture. Is it established or -maintained with capital which has fallen from the moon? No; that capital -has been withdrawn from agriculture, from shipping, from the production of -wines. And this is the reason why, under the <i>regime</i> of protective -tariffs, there are more workmen in our mines and in our manufacturing -towns, and fewer sailors in our ports, and fewer labourers in our fields -and vineyards. -</p> -<p> -I could expatiate at length on this subject, but I prefer to explain what -I mean by an example. -</p> -<p> -A countryman was possessed of twenty acres of land, which he worked with a -capital of £400. He divided his land into four parts, and established the -following rotation of crops:—1st, maize; 2d, wheat; 3d, clover; 4th, -rye. He required for his own family only a moderate portion of the grain, -meat, and milk which his farm produced, and he sold the surplus to buy -oil, flax, wine, etc. His whole capital was expended each year in wages, -hires, and small payments to the working classes in his neighbourhood. -This capital was returned to him in his sales, and even went on increasing -year by year; and our countryman, knowing very well that capital produces -nothing when it is unemployed, benefited the working classes by devoting -the annual surplus to enclosing and clearing his land, and to improving -his agricultural implements and farm buildings. He had even some savings -in the neighbouring town with his banker, who, of course, did not let the -money lie idle in his till, but lent it to shipowners and contractors for -public works, so that these savings were always resolving themselves into -wages. -</p> -<p> -At length the countryman died, and his son, who succeeded him, said to -himself, "My father was a dupe all his life. He purchased oil, and so paid -<i>tribute</i> to Provence, whilst our own land, with some pains, can be -made to grow the olive. He bought cloth, wine, and oranges, and thus paid -tribute to Brittany, Medoc, and Hyères, whilst we can cultivate hemp, the -vine, and the orange tree with more or less success. He paid <i>tribute</i> -to the miller and the weaver, whilst our own domestics can weave our linen -and grind our wheat." In this way he ruined himself, and spent among -strangers that money which he might have spent at home. -</p> -<p> -Misled by such reasoning, the volatile youth changed his rotation of -crops. His land he divided into twenty divisions. In one he planted -olives, in another mulberry trees, in a third he sowed flax, in a fourth -he had vines, in a fifth wheat, and so on. By this means he succeeded in -supplying his family with what they required, and felt himself -independent. He no longer drew anything from the general circulation, nor -did he add anything to it. Was he the richer for this? No; for the soil -was not adapted for the cultivation of the vine, and the climate was not -fitted for the successful cultivation of the olive; and he was not long in -finding out that his family was less plentifully provided with all the -things which they wanted than in the time of his father, who procured them -by exchanging his surplus produce. -</p> -<p> -As regarded his workmen, they had no more employment than formerly. There -were five times more fields, but each field was five times smaller; they -produced oil, but they produced less wheat; he no longer purchased linens, -but he no longer sold rye. Moreover, the farmer could expend in wages only -the amount of his capital, and his capital went on constantly diminishing. -A great part of it went for buildings, and the various implements needed -for the more varied cultivation in which he had engaged. In short, the -supply of labour remained the same, but as the means of remunerating that -labour fell off, the ultimate result was a forcible reduction of wages. -</p> -<p> -On a greater scale, this is exactly what takes place in the case of a -nation which isolates itself by adopting a prohibitive <i>regime</i>. It -multiplies its branches of industry, I grant, but they become of -diminished importance; it adopts, so to speak, a more complicated <i>industrial -rotation</i>, but it is not so prolific, because its capital and labour -have now to struggle with natural difficulties. A greater proportion of -its circulating capital, which forms the wages fund, must be converted -into fixed capital. What remains may have more varied employment, but the -total mass is not increased. It is like distributing the water of a pond -among a multitude of shallow reservoirs—it covers more ground, and -presents a greater surface to the rays of the sun, and it is precisely for -this reason that it is all the sooner absorbed, evaporated, and lost. -</p> -<p> -The amount of capital and labour being given, they create a smaller amount -of commodities in proportion as they encounter more obstacles. It is -beyond doubt, that when international obstructions force capital and -labour into channels and localities where they meet with greater -difficulties of soil and climate, the general result must be, fewer -products created—that is to say, fewer enjoyments for consumers. -Now, when there are fewer enjoyments upon the whole, will the workman's -share of them be augmented? If it were augmented, as is asserted, then the -rich—the men who make the laws—would find their own share not -only subject to the general diminution, but that diminished share would be -still further reduced by what was added to the labourers' share. Is this -possible? Is it credible? I advise you, workmen, to reject such suspicious -generosity.* -</p> -<pre xml:space="preserve"> -* See <i>Harmonies Économiques</i>, ch. xiv. -</pre> -<p> -<br /><br /> -</p> -<hr /> -<p> -<a name="link2H_4_0016" id="link2H_4_0016"> </a> -</p> -<div style="height: 4em;"> -<br /><br /><br /><br /> -</div> -<h2> -XIII. THEORY, PRACTICE. -</h2> -<p class="pfirst"><span class="dropcap" style="font-size: 4.00em">A</span>s advocates of free trade, we are accused of being theorists, and of not -taking practice sufficiently into account. -</p> -<p> -"What fearful prejudices were entertained against M. Say," says M. -Ferrier,* "by that long train of distinguished administrators, and that -imposing phalanx of authors who dissented from his opinions; and M. Say -was not unaware of it. Hear what he says:—'It has been alleged in -support of errors of long standing, that there must have been some -foundation for ideas which have been adopted by all nations. Ought we not -to distrust observations and reasonings which run counter to opinions -which have been constantly entertained down to our own time, and which -have been regarded as sound by so many men remarkable for their -enlightenment and their good intentions? This argument, I allow, is -calculated to make a profound impression, and it might have cast doubt -upon points which we deem the most incontestable, if we had not seen, by -turns, opinions the most false, and now generally acknowledged to be -false, received and professed by everybody during a long series of ages. -Not very long ago all nations, from the rudest to the most enlightened, -and all men, from the street-porter to the <i>savant</i>, admitted the -existence of four elements. No one thought of contesting that doctrine, -which, however, is false; so much so, that even the greenest assistant in -a naturalist's class-room would be ashamed to say that he regarded earth, -water, and fire as elements.'" -</p> -<pre xml:space="preserve"> -* De l'Administration Commerciale opposee à Oeconomie -Politique, p. 5. -</pre> -<p> -On this M. Ferrier remarks:— -</p> -<p> -"If M. Say thinks to answer thus the very strong objection which he brings -forward, he is singularly mistaken. That men, otherwise well informed, -should have been mistaken for centuries on certain points of natural -history is easily understood, and proves nothing. Water, air, earth, and -fire, whether elements or not, are not the less useful to man.... Such -errors are unimportant: they lead to no popular commotions, no uneasiness -in the public mind; they run counter to no pecuniary interest; and this is -the reason why without any felt inconvenience they may endure for a -thousand years. The physical world goes on as if they did not exist. But -of errors in the moral world, can the same thing be said? Can we conceive -that a system of administration, found to be absolutely false and -therefore hurtful, should be followed out among many nations for -centuries, with the general approval of all well-informed men? Can it be -explained how such a system could coexist with the constantly increasing -prosperity of nations? M. Say admits that the argument which he combats is -fitted to make a profound impression. Yes, indeed; and the impression -remains; for M. Say has rather deepened than done away with it." -</p> -<pre xml:space="preserve"> -* Might we not say, that it is a "fearful prejudice" against -MM. Ferrier and Saint-Chamans, that "<i>economists of all -schools</i>, that is to say, everybody who has studied the -question, should have arrived at the conclusion, that, after -all, liberty is better than constraint, and the laws of God -wiser than those of Colbert." -</pre> -<p> -Let us hear what M. de Saint-Chamans says on the same subject:— -</p> -<p> -"It was only in the middle of the last century, of that eighteenth century -which handed over all subjects and all principles without exception to -free discussion, that these <i>speculative</i> purveyors of ideas, applied -by them to all things without being really applicable to anything, began -to write upon political economy. There existed previously a system of -political economy, not to be found in books, but which had been put in <i>practical</i> -operation by governments. Colbert, it is said, was the inventor of it, and -it was adopted as a rule by all the nations of Europe. The singular thing -is, that in spite of contempt and maledictions, in spite of all the -discoveries of the modern school, it still remains in practical operation. -This system, which our authors have called the <i>mercantile system</i>, -was designed to.... impede, by prohibitions or import duties, the entry of -foreign products, which might ruin our own manufactures by their -competition. Economic writers of all schools* have declared this system -untenable, absurd, and calculated to impoverish any country. It has been -banished from all their books, and forced to take refuge in the <i>practical</i> -legislation of all nations. They cannot conceive why, in measures relating -to national wealth, governments should not follow the advice and opinions -of learned authors, rather than trust to their <i>experience</i> of the -tried working of a system which has been long in operation. Above all, -they cannot conceive why the French government should in economic -questions obstinately set itself to resist the progress of enlightenment, -and maintain in its <i>practice</i> those ancient errors, which all our -economic writers have exposed. But enough of this mercantile system, which -has nothing in its favour but <i>facts</i>, and is not defended by any -speculative writer."* -</p> -<pre xml:space="preserve"> -* Du Système de l'Impot, par M. le Vicomte de Saint-Chamans, -p. 11. -</pre> -<p> -Such language as this would lead one to suppose that in demanding for -every one <i>the free disposal of his property</i>, economists were -propounding some new system, some new, strange, and chimerical social -order, a sort of <i>phalanstère</i>, coined in the mint of their own -brain, and without precedent in the annals of the human race. To me it -would seem that if we have here anything factitious or contingent, it is -to be found, not in liberty, but in protection; not in the free power of -exchanging, but in customs duties employed to overturn artificially the -natural course of remuneration. -</p> -<p> -But our business at present is not to compare, or pronounce between, the -two systems; but to inquire which of the two is founded on experience. -</p> -<p> -The advocates of monopoly maintain that <i>the facts</i> are on their -side, and that we have on our side only <i>theory</i>. -</p> -<p> -They flatter themselves that this long series of public acts, this <i>old -experience</i> of Europe, which they invoke, has presented itself as -something very formidable to the mind of M. Say; and I grant that he has -not refuted it with his wonted sagacity. For my own part, I am not -disposed to concede to the monopolists the domain of <i>facts</i>, for -they have only in their favour facts which are forced and exceptional; and -we oppose to these, facts which are universal, the free and voluntary acts -of mankind at large. -</p> -<p> -What do we say; and what do they say? -</p> -<p> -We say, -</p> -<p> -"You should buy from others what you cannot make for yourself but at a -greater expense." -</p> -<p> -And they say, -</p> -<p> -"It is better to make things for yourself, although they cost you more -than, the price at which you could buy them from others." -</p> -<p> -Now, gentlemen, throwing aside theory, argument, demonstration, all which -seems to affect you with nausea, which of these two assertions has on its -side the sanction of <i>universal practice?</i> -</p> -<p> -Visit your fields, your workshops, your forges, your warehouses; look -above, below, and around you; look at what takes place in your own houses; -remark your own everyday acts; and say what is the principle which guides -these labourers, artisans, and merchants; say what is your own personal <i>practice</i>. -</p> -<p> -Does the farmer make his own clothes? Does the tailor produce the corn he -consumes? Does your housekeeper continue to have your bread made at home, -after she finds she can buy it cheaper from the baker? Do you resign the -pen for the brush, to save your paying <i>tribute</i> to the shoeblack? -Does the entire economy of society not rest upon the separation of -employments, the division of labour—in a word, upon <i>exchange?</i> -And what is exchange, but a calculation which we make with a view to -discontinuing direct production in every case in which we find that -possible, and in which indirect acquisition enables us to effect a saving -in time and in effort? -</p> -<p> -It is not you, therefore, who are the men of <i>practice</i>, since you -cannot point to a single human being who acts upon your principle. -</p> -<p> -But you will say, we never intended to make our principle a rule for -individual relations. We perfectly understand that this would be to break -up the bond of society, and would force men to live like snails, each in -his own shell. All that we contend for is, that our principle regulates <i>de -facto</i>, the regulations which obtain between the different -agglomerations of the human family. -</p> -<p> -Well, I affirm that this principle is still erroneous. The family, the -commune, the canton, the department, the province, are so many -agglomerations, which all, without any exception, reject <i>practically</i> -your principle, and have never dreamt of acting on it. All procure -themselves, by means of exchange, those things which it would cost them -dearer to procure by means of production. And nations would do the same, -did you not hinder them <i>by force</i>. -</p> -<p> -We, then, are the men of practice and of experience; for we oppose to the -restriction which you have placed exceptionally on certain international -exchanges, the practice and experience of all individuals, and of all -agglomerations of individuals, whose acts are voluntary, and can -consequently be adduced as evidence. But you begin by <i>constraining, by -hindering</i>, and then you lay hold of acts which are <i>forced or -prohibited</i>, as warranting you to exclaim, "We have practice and -experience on our side!" -</p> -<p> -You inveigh against our theory, and even against theories in general. But -when you lay down a principle in opposition to ours, you perhaps imagine -you are not proceeding on theory? Clear your heads of that idea. You in -fact form a theory, as we do; but between your theory and ours there is -this difference: -</p> -<p> -Our theory consists merely in observing universal <i>facts</i>, universal -opinions; calculations and ways of proceeding which universally prevail; -and in classifying these, and rendering them Co-ordinate, with a view to -their being more easily understood. -</p> -<p> -Our theory is so little opposed to practice that it is nothing else but <i>practice -explained</i>. We observe men acting as they are moved by the instinct of -self-preservation and a desire for progress, and what they thus do freely -and voluntarily we denominate political or social economy. We can never -help repeating, that each individual man is <i>practically</i> an -excellent economist, producing or exchanging according as he finds it more -to his interest to produce or to exchange. Each, by experience, educates -himself in this science; or rather the science itself is only this same -experience accurately observed and methodically explained. -</p> -<p> -But on your side, you construct a <i>theory</i> in the worst sense of the -word. You imagine, you invent, a course of proceeding which is not -sanctioned by the practice of any living man under the canopy of heaven; -and then you invoke the aid of constraint and prohibition. It is quite -necessary that you should have recourse to <i>force</i>, for you desire -that men should be made to produce those things which they find it <i>more -advantageous</i> to buy; you desire that they should renounce this <i>advantage</i>, -and act upon a doctrine which implies a contradiction in terms. -</p> -<p> -The doctrine which you acknowledge would be absurd in the relations of -individuals; I defy you to extend it, even in speculation, to transaction -between families, communities, or provinces. By your own admission, it is -only applicable to international relations. -</p> -<p> -This is the reason why you are forced to keep repeating: -</p> -<p> -"There are no absolute principles, no inflexible rules. What is <i>good</i> -for an individual, a family, a province, is <i>bad</i> for a nation. What -is <i>good</i> in detail—namely, to purchase rather than produce, -when purchasing is more advantageous than producing—that same is <i>bad</i> -in the gross. The political economy of individuals is not that of -nations;" and other nonsense <i>ejusdèm farino</i>. -</p> -<p> -And to what does all this tend? Look at it a little closer. The intention -is to prove that we, the consumers, are your property! that we are yours -body and soul! that you have an exclusive right over our stomachs and our -limbs! that it belongs to you to feed and clothe us on your own terms, -whatever be your ignorance, incapacity, or rapacity! -</p> -<p> -No, you are not men of practice; you are men of abstraction—and of -extortion. -</p> -<p> -<br /><br /> -</p> -<hr /> -<p> -<a name="link2H_4_0017" id="link2H_4_0017"> </a> -</p> -<div style="height: 4em;"> -<br /><br /><br /><br /> -</div> -<h2> -XIV. CONFLICT OF PRINCIPLES. -</h2> -<p class="pfirst"><span class="dropcap" style="font-size: 4.00em">T</span>here is one thing which confounds me; and it is this: Sincere publicists, -studying the economy of society from the producer's point of view, have -laid down this double formula:— -</p> -<p> -"Governments should order the interests of consumers who are subject to -their laws, in such a way as to be favourable to national industry. -</p> -<p> -"They should bring distant consumers under subjection to their laws, for -the purpose of ordering their interests in a way favourable to national -industry." -</p> -<p> -The first of these formulas gets the name of protection; the second we -call <i>debouches</i>, or the creating of markets, or vents, for our -produce. -</p> -<p> -Both are founded on the <i>datum</i> which we denominate the <i>Balance of -Trade</i>. -</p> -<p> -"A nation is impoverished when it imports; enriched when it exports." -</p> -<p> -For if every purchase from a foreign country is a <i>tribute paid</i> and -a national loss, it follows, of course, that it is right to restrain, and -even prohibit, importations. -</p> -<p> -And if every sale to a foreign country is a <i>tribute received</i>, and a -national profit, it is quite right and natural to create markets for our -products even by force. -</p> -<p> -The <i>system of protection</i> and the <i>colonial system</i> are, then, -only two aspects of one and the same theory. To <i>hinder</i> our -fellow-citizens from buying from foreigners, and to <i>force</i> -foreigners to buy from our fellow-citizens, are only two consequences of -one and the same principle. -</p> -<p> -Now, it is impossible not to admit that this doctrine, if true, makes -general utility to repose on <i>monopoly</i> or internal spoliation, and -on <i>conquest</i> or external spoliation. -</p> -<p> -I enter a cottage on the French side of the Pyrenees. -</p> -<p> -The father of the family has received but slender wages. His half-naked -children shiver in the icy north wind; the fire is extinguished, and there -is nothing on the table. There are wool, firewood, and corn on the other -side of the mountain; but these good things are forbidden to the poor -day-labourer, for the other side of the mountain is not in France. Foreign -firewood is not allowed to warm the cottage hearth; and the shepherd's -children can never know the taste of Biscayan corn,* and the wool of -Navarre can never warm their benumbed limbs. General utility has so -ordered it. Be it so; but let us agree that all this is in direct -opposition to the first principles of justice. To dispose legislatively of -the interests of consumers, and postpone them to the supposed interests of -national industry, is to encroach upon their liberty—it is to -prohibit an act; namely, the act of exchange, which has in it nothing -contrary to good morals; in a word, it is to do them an act of <i>injustice</i>. -</p> -<pre xml:space="preserve"> -* The French word employed is <i>meture</i>, probably a Spanish -word Gallicized—<i>mestûra</i>, meslin, mixed corn, as wheat and -rye.—-Translator. -</pre> -<p> -And yet this is necessary, we are told, unless we wish to see national -labour at a standstill, and public prosperity sustain a fatal shock. -</p> -<p> -Writers of the protectionist school, then, have arrived at the melancholy -conclusion that there is a radical incompatibility between Justice and -Utility. -</p> -<p> -On the other hand, if it be the interest of each nation to <i>sell</i>, -and not to <i>buy</i>, the natural state of their relations must consist -in a violent action and reaction, for each will seek to impose its -products on all, and all will endeavour to repel the products of each. -</p> -<p> -A sale, in fact, implies a purchase, and since, according to this -doctrine, to sell is beneficial, and to buy is the reverse, every -international transaction would imply the amelioration of one people, and -the deterioration of another. -</p> -<p> -But if men are, on the one hand, irresistibly impelled towards what is for -their profit, and if, on the other, they resist instinctively what is -hurtful, we are forced to conclude that each nation carries in its bosom a -natural force of expansion, and a not less natural force of resistance, -which forces are equally injurious to all other nations; or, in other -words, that antagonism and war are the <i>natural</i> state of human -society. -</p> -<p> -Thus the theory we are discussing may be summed up in these two axioms: -</p> -<p> -Utility is incompatible with Justice at home. -</p> -<p> -Utility is incompatible with Peace abroad. -</p> -<p> -Now, what astonishes and confounds me is, that a publicist, a statesman, -who sincerely holds an economical doctrine which runs so violently counter -to other principles which are incontestable, should be able to enjoy one -moment of calm or peace of mind. -</p> -<p> -For my own part, it seems to me, that if I had entered the precincts of -the science by the same gate, if I had failed to perceive clearly that -Liberty, Utility, Justice, Peace, are things not only compatible, but -strictly allied with each other, and, so to speak, identical, I should -have endeavoured to forget what I had learned, and I should have asked: -</p> -<p> -"How God could have willed that men should attain prosperity only through -Injustice and War? How He could have willed that they should be unable to -avoid Injustice and War except by renouncing the possibility of attaining -prosperity? -</p> -<p> -"Dare I adopt, as the basis of the legislation of a great nation, a -science which thus misleads me by false lights, which has conducted me to -this horrible blasphemy, and landed me in so dreadful an alternative? And -when a long train of illustrious philosophers have been conducted by this -science, to which they have devoted their lives, to more consoling results—when -they affirm that Liberty and Utility are perfectly reconcilable with -Justice and Peace—that all these great principles run in infinitely -extended parallels, and will do so to all eternity, without running -counter to each other,—I would ask, Have they not in their favour -that presumption which results from all that we know of the goodness and -wisdom of God, as manifested in the sublime harmony of the material -creation? In the face of such a presumption, and of so many reliable -authorities, ought I to believe lightly that God has been pleased to -implant antagonism and dissonance in the laws of the moral world? No; -before I should venture to conclude that the principles of social order -run counter to and neutralize each other, and are in eternal and -irreconcilable opposition—before I should venture to impose on my -fellow-citizens a system so impious as that to which my reasonings would -appear to lead,—I should set myself to reexamine the whole chain of -these reasonings, and assure myself that at this stage of the journey I -had not missed my way." But if, after a candid and searching examination, -twenty times repeated, I arrived always at this frightful conclusion, that -we must choose between the Bight and the Good, discouraged, I should -reject the science, and bury myself in voluntary ignorance; above all, I -should decline all participation in public affairs, leaving to men of -another temper and constitution the burden and responsibility of a choice -so painful. -</p> -<p> -<br /><br /> -</p> -<hr /> -<p> -<a name="link2H_4_0018" id="link2H_4_0018"> </a> -</p> -<div style="height: 4em;"> -<br /><br /><br /><br /> -</div> -<h2> -XV. RECIPROCITY AGAIN. -</h2> -<p class="pfirst"><span class="dropcap" style="font-size: 4.00em">M</span> de Saint-Cricq inquires, "Whether it is certain that the foreigner will -buy from us as much as he sells?" -</p> -<p> -M. de Dombasle asks, "What reason we have to believe that English -producers will take from us, rather than from some other country of the -world, the commodities they have need of, and an amount of commodities -equivalent in value to that of their exports to France?" -</p> -<p> -I wonder how so many men who call themselves <i>practical</i> men should -have all reasoned without reference to practice! -</p> -<p> -In practice, does a single exchange take place, out of a hundred, out of a -thousand, out of ten thousand perhaps, which represents the direct barter -of commodity for commodity? Never since the introduction of money has any -agriculturist said: I want to buy shoes, hats, advice, lessons; but only -from the shoemaker, the hat-maker, the lawyer, the professor, who will -purchase from me corn to an exactly equivalent value. And why should -nations bring each other under a yoke of this kind? Practically how are -such matters transacted? -</p> -<p> -Let us suppose a people shut out from external relations. A man, we shall -suppose, produces wheat. He sends it to the <i>home</i> market, and offers -it for the highest price he can obtain. He receives in exchange—what? -Coins, which are just so many drafts or orders, varying very much in -amount, by means of which he can draw, in his turn, from the national -stores, when he judges it proper, and subject to due competition, -everything which he may want or desire. Ultimately, and at the end of the -operation, he will have drawn from the mass the exact equivalent of what -he has contributed to it, and, in value, <i>his consumption will exactly -equal his production</i>. -</p> -<p> -If the exchanges of the supposed nation with foreigners are left free, it -is no longer to the <i>national</i>, but to the <i>general</i>, market -that each sends his contributions, and, in turn, derives his supplies for -consumption. He has no need to care whether what he sends into the market -of the world is purchased by a fellow-countryman or by a foreigner; -whether the drafts or orders he receives come from a Frenchman or an -Englishman; whether the commodities for which he afterwards exchanges -these drafts or orders are produced on this or on the other side of the -Rhine or the Pyrenees. There is always in each individual case an exact -balance between what is contributed and what is received, between what is -poured into and what is drawn out of the great common reservoir; and if -this is true of each individual, it is true of the nation at large. -</p> -<p> -The only difference between the two cases is, that in the last each has to -face a more extended market both as regards sales and purchases, and has -consequently more chances of transacting both advantageously. -</p> -<p> -This objection may perhaps be urged: If everybody enters into a league not -to take from the general mass the commodities of a certain individual, -that individual cannot, in his turn, obtain from the mass what he is in -want of. It is the same of nations. -</p> -<p> -The reply to this is, that if a nation cannot obtain what it has need of -in the general market, it will no longer contribute anything to that -market. It will work for itself. It will be forced in that case to submit -to what you want to impose on it beforehand—<i>isolation</i>. -</p> -<p> -And this will realize the ideal of the prohibitive <i>regime</i>. -</p> -<p> -Is it not amusing to think that you inflict upon the nation, now and -beforehand, this very <i>regime</i>, from a fear that it might otherwise -run the risk of arriving at it independently of your exertions? -</p> -<p> -<br /><br /> -</p> -<hr /> -<p> -<a name="link2H_4_0019" id="link2H_4_0019"> </a> -</p> -<div style="height: 4em;"> -<br /><br /><br /><br /> -</div> -<h2> -XVI. OBSTRUCTED NAVIGATION PLEADING FOR THE PROHIBITIONISTS. -</h2> -<p class="pfirst"><span class="dropcap" style="font-size: 4.00em">S</span>ome years ago I happened to be at Madrid, and went to the Cortes. The -subject of debate was a proposed treaty with Portugal for improving the -navigation of the Douro. One of the deputies rose and said: "If the -navigation of the Douro is improved in the way now proposed, the traffic -will be carried on at less expense. The grain of Portugal will, in -consequence, be sold in the markets of Castile at a lower price, and will -become a formidable rival to our <i>national industry</i>. I oppose the -project, unless, indeed, our ministers will undertake to raise the tariff -of customs to the extent required to re-establish the equilibrium." The -Assembly found the argument unanswerable. -</p> -<p> -Three months afterwards I was at Lisbon. The same question was discussed -in the Senate. A noble hidalgo made a speech: "Mr President," he said, -"this project is absurd. You place guards, at great expense, along the -banks of the Douro to prevent Portugal being invaded by Castilian grain; -and at the same time you propose, also at great expense, to facilitate -that invasion. This is a piece of inconsistency to which I cannot assent. -Let us leave the Douro to our children, as it has come to us from our -fathers." -</p> -<p> -Afterwards, when the subject of improving the navigation of the Garonne -was discussed, I remembered the arguments of the Iberian orators, and I -said to myself, If the Toulouse deputies were as good economists as the -Spanish deputies, and the representatives of Bordeaux as acute logicians -as those of Oporto, assuredly they would leave the Garonne -</p> -<p> -"Dormir au bruit flatteur de son onde naissante;" -</p> -<p> -for the canalisation of the Garonne would favour the invasion of Toulouse -products, to the prejudice of Bordeaux, and the inundation of Bordeaux -products would do the same thing to the detriment of Toulouse. -</p> -<p> -<br /><br /> -</p> -<hr /> -<p> -<a name="link2H_4_0020" id="link2H_4_0020"> </a> -</p> -<div style="height: 4em;"> -<br /><br /><br /><br /> -</div> -<h2> -XVII. A NEGATIVE RAILWAY. -</h2> -<p class="pfirst"><span class="dropcap" style="font-size: 4.00em">I</span> have said that when, unfortunately, one has regard to the interest of -the producer, and not to that of the consumer, it is impossible to avoid -running counter to the general interest, because the demand of the -producer, as such, is only for efforts, wants, and obstacles. -</p> -<p> -I find a remarkable illustration of this in a Bordeaux newspaper. -</p> -<p> -M. Simiot proposes this question:— -</p> -<p> -Should the proposed railway from Paris to Madrid offer a solution of -continuity at Bordeaux? -</p> -<p> -He answers the question in the affirmative, and gives a multiplicity of -reasons, which I shall not stop to examine, except this one: -</p> -<p> -The railway from Paris to Bayonne should have a break at Bordeaux, for if -goods and passengers are forced to stop at that town, profits will accrue -to bargemen, pedlars, commissionaires, hotel-keepers, etc. -</p> -<p> -Here we have clearly the interest of labour put before the interest of -consumers. -</p> -<p> -But if Bordeaux has a right to profit by a gap in the line of railway, and -if such profit is consistent with the public interest, then Angoulème, -Poitiers, Tours, Orleans, nay, more, all the intermediate places, Ruffec, -Châtellerault, etc., should also demand gaps, as being for the general -interest, and, of course, for the interest of national industry; for the -more these breaks in the line are multiplied, the greater will be the -increase of consignments, commissions, transhipments, etc., along the -whole extent of the railway. In this way, we shall succeed in having a -line of railway composed of successive gaps, and which may be denominated -a <i>Negative Railway</i>. -</p> -<p> -Let the protectionists say what they will, it is not the less certain that -<i>the principle of restriction</i> is the very same as the <i>principle -of gaps</i>; the sacrifice of the consumer's interest to that of the -producer,—in other words, the sacrifice of the end to the means. -</p> -<p> -<br /><br /> -</p> -<hr /> -<p> -<a name="link2H_4_0021" id="link2H_4_0021"> </a> -</p> -<div style="height: 4em;"> -<br /><br /><br /><br /> -</div> -<h2> -XVIII. THERE ARE NO ABSOLUTE PRINCIPLES. -</h2> -<p class="pfirst"><span class="dropcap" style="font-size: 4.00em">W</span>e cannot wonder enough at the facility with which men resign themselves -to continue ignorant of what it is most important that they should know; -and we may be certain that such ignorance is incorrigible in those who -venture to proclaim this axiom: There are no absolute principles. -</p> -<p> -You enter the legislative precincts. The subject of debate is whether the -law should prohibit international exchanges, or proclaim freedom. -</p> -<p> -A deputy rises, and says: -</p> -<p> -If you tolerate these exchanges, the foreigner will inundate you with his -products: England with her textile fabrics, Belgium with coals, Spain with -wools, Italy with silks, Switzerland with cattle, Sweden with iron, -Prussia with corn; so that home industry will no longer be possible. -</p> -<p> -Another replies: -</p> -<p> -If you prohibit international exchanges, the various bounties which nature -has lavished on different climates will be for you as if they did not -exist. You cannot participate in the mechanical skill of the English, in -the wealth of the Belgian mines, in the fertility of the Polish soil, in -the luxuriance of the Swiss pastures, in the cheapness of Spanish labour, -in the warmth of the Italian climate; and you must obtain from a -refractory and misdirected production those commodities which, through -exchange, would have been furnished to you by an easy production. -</p> -<p> -Assuredly, one of these deputies must be wrong. But which? We must take -care to make no mistake on the subject; for this is not a matter of -abstract opinion merely. You have to choose between two roads, and one of -them leads necessarily to <i>poverty</i>. -</p> -<p> -To get rid of the dilemma, we are told that there are no absolute -principles. -</p> -<p> -This axiom, which is so much in fashion nowadays, not only countenances -indolence, but ministers to ambition. -</p> -<p> -If the theory of prohibition comes to prevail, or if the doctrine of free -trade comes to triumph, one brief enactment will constitute our whole -economic code. In the first case, the law will proclaim that <i>all -exchanges with foreign countries are prohibited</i>; in the second, that -<i>all exchanges with foreign countries are free</i>; and many grand and -distinguished personages will thereby lose their importance. -</p> -<p> -But if exchange does not possess a character which is peculiar to it,—if -it is not governed by any natural law,—if, capriciously, it be -sometimes useful and sometimes detrimental,—if it does not find its -motive force in the good which it accomplishes, its limit in the good -which it ceases to accomplish,—if its consequences cannot be -estimated by those who effect exchanges;—in a word, if there be no -absolute principles, then we must proceed to weigh, balance, and regulate -transactions, we must equalize the conditions of labour, and try to find -out the average rate of profits—a colossal task, well deserving the -large emoluments and powerful influence awarded to those who undertake it. -</p> -<p> -On entering Paris, which I had come to visit, I said to myself, Here are a -million of human beings, who would all die in a short time if provisions -of every kind ceased to flow towards this great metropolis. Imagination is -baffled when it tries to appreciate the vast multiplicity of commodities -which must enter to-morrow through the barriers in order to preserve the -inhabitants from falling a prey to the convulsions of famine, rebellion, -and pillage. And yet all sleep at this moment, and their peaceful slumbers -are not disturbed for a single instant by the prospect of such a frightful -catastrophe. On the other hand, eighty departments have been labouring -to-day, without concert, without any mutual understanding, for the -provisioning of Paris. How does each succeeding day bring what is wanted, -nothing more, nothing less, to so gigantic a market? What, then, is the -ingenious and secret power which governs the astonishing regularity of -movements so complicated, a regularity in which everybody has implicit -faith, although happiness and life itself are at stake? That power is an -<i>absolute principle</i>, the principle of freedom in transactions. We -have faith in that inward light which Providence has placed in the heart -of all men, and to which He has confided the preservation and indefinite -amelioration of our species, namely, a regard to personal <i>interest</i>—since -we must give it its right name—a principle so active, so vigilant, -so foreseeing, when it is free in its action. In what situation, I would -ask, would the inhabitants of Paris be, if a minister should take it into -his head to substitute for this power the combinations of his own genius, -however superior we might suppose them to be—if he thought to -subject to his supreme direction this prodigious mechanism, to hold the -springs of it in his hands, to decide by whom, or in what manner, or on -what conditions, everything needed should be produced, transported, exchanged, -and consumed? Truly, there may be much suffering within the walls of Paris—poverty, -despair, perhaps starvation, causing more tears to flow than ardent -charity is able to dry up; but I affirm that it is probable, nay, that it -is certain, that the arbitrary intervention of government would multiply -infinitely those sufferings, and spread over all our fellow-citizens those -evils which at present affect only a small number of them. -</p> -<p> -This faith, then, which we repose in a principle, when the question -relates only to our home transactions, why should we not retain, when the -same principle is applied to our international transactions, which are -undoubtedly less numerous, less delicate, and less complicated? And if it -is not necessary that the <i>prefecture</i> should regulate our Parisian -industries, weigh our chances, balance our profits and losses, see that -our circulating medium is not exhausted, and equalize the conditions of -our home labour, why should it be necessary that the Customhouse, -departing from its fiscal duties, should pretend to exercise a protective -action over our external commerce? -</p> -<p> -<br /><br /> -</p> -<hr /> -<p> -<a name="link2H_4_0022" id="link2H_4_0022"> </a> -</p> -<div style="height: 4em;"> -<br /><br /><br /><br /> -</div> -<h2> -XIX. NATIONAL INDEPENDENCE. -</h2> -<p class="pfirst"><span class="dropcap" style="font-size: 4.00em">A</span>mong the arguments which we hear adduced in favour of the restrictive <i>regime</i>, -we must not forget that which is founded on <i>national independence</i>. -</p> -<p> -"What should we do in case of war," it is said, "if we are placed at the -mercy of England for iron and coal?" -</p> -<p> -English monopolists do not fail to cry out in their turn: -</p> -<p> -"What would become of Great Britain, in case of war, if she is dependent -on France for provisions?" -</p> -<p> -One thing is overlooked, which is this—that the kind of dependence -which results from exchange, from commercial transactions, is a <i>reciprocal -dependence</i>. We cannot be dependent on the foreigner without the -foreigner being dependent on us. Now, this is the very essence of society. -To break up natural relations is not to place ourselves in a state of -independence, but in a state of isolation. -</p> -<p> -Remark this: A nation isolates itself looking forward to the possibility -of war; but is not this very act of isolating itself the beginning of war? -It renders war more easy, less burdensome, and, it may be, less unpopular. -Let countries be permanent markets for each other's produce; let their -reciprocal relations be such that they cannot be broken without inflicting -on each other the double suffering of privation and a glut of commodities; -and they will no longer stand in need of naval armaments, which ruin them, -and overgrown armies, which crush them; the peace of the world will not -then be compromised by the caprice of a Thiers or of a Palmerston; and war -will disappear for want of what supports it, for want of resources, -inducements, pretexts, and popular sympathy. -</p> -<p> -I am quite aware that I shall be reproached (it is the fashion of the day) -with basing the fraternity of nations on men's personal interest—vile, -prosaic self-interest. Better far, it may be thought, that it should have -had its basis in charity, in love, even in a little self-abnegation, and -that, interfering somewhat with men's material comforts, it should have -had the merit of a generous sacrifice. -</p> -<p> -When shall we be done with these puerile declamations? When will <i>tartuferie</i> -be finally banished from science? When shall we cease to exhibit this -nauseous contradiction between our professions and our practice? We hoot -at and execrate personal <i>interest</i>; in other words, we denounce what -is useful and good (for to say that all men are interested in anything is -to say that the thing is good in itself), as if personal interest were not -the necessary, eternal, and indestructible mainspring to which Providence -has confided human perfectibility. Are we not represented as being all -angels of disinterestedness? And does the thought never occur to those who -say so, that the public begins to see with disgust that this affected -language disfigures the pages of those very writers who axe most -successful in filling their own pockets at the public expense? Oh! -affectation! affectation! thou art verily the besetting sin of our times! -</p> -<p> -What! because material prosperity and peace are things correlative, -because it has pleased God to establish this beautiful harmony in the -moral world, am I not to admire, am I not to adore His ordinances, am I -not to accept with gratitude laws which make justice the condition of -happiness? You desire peace only in as far as it runs counter to material -prosperity; and liberty is rejected because it does not impose sacrifices. -If abnegation has indeed so many charms for you, why do you fail to -practise it in private life? Society will be grateful to you, for some -one, at least, will reap the fruit; but to desire to impose it upon -mankind as a principle is the very height of absurdity, for the abnegation -of all is the sacrifice of all, which is evil erected into a theory. -</p> -<p> -But, thank Heaven, one can write or read many of these declamations -without the world ceasing on that account to obey the social motive force, -which leads us to shun evil and seek after good, and which, whether they -like it or not, we must denominate personal interest. -</p> -<p> -After all, it is singular enough to see sentiments of the most sublime -self-denial invoked in support of spoliation itself. See to what this -boasted disinterestedness tends! These men who are so fantastically -delicate as not to desire peace itself, if it is founded on the vile -interest of mankind, put their hand into the pockets of others, and -especially of the poor; for what article of the tariff protects the poor? -Be pleased, gentlemen, to dispose of what belongs to yourselves as you -think proper, but leave us the disposal of the fruit of our own toil, to -use it or exchange it as we see best. Declaim on self-sacrifice as much as -you choose, it is all very fine and very beautiful, but be at least -consistent. -</p> -<p> -<br /><br /> -</p> -<hr /> -<p> -<a name="link2H_4_0023" id="link2H_4_0023"> </a> -</p> -<div style="height: 4em;"> -<br /><br /><br /><br /> -</div> -<h2> -XX. HUMAN LABOUR, NATIONAL LABOUR. -</h2> -<p class="pfirst"><span class="dropcap" style="font-size: 4.00em">M</span>achine-breaking—prohibition of foreign commodities—are two -acts founded on the same doctrine. -</p> -<p> -We see men who clap their hands when a great invention is introduced, and -who nevertheless adhere to the protectionist <i>regime</i>. Such men are -grossly inconsistent! -</p> -<p> -With what do they reproach free trade? With encouraging the production by -foreigners, more skilled or more favourably situated than we are, of -commodities which, but for free trade, would be produced at home. In a -word, they accuse free trade of being injurious to <i>national labour?</i> -</p> -<p> -For the same reason, should they not reproach machinery with accomplishing -by natural agents what otherwise would have been done by manual labour, -and so of being injurious to <i>human labour?</i> -</p> -<p> -The foreign workman, better and more favourably situated than the home -workman for the production of certain commodities, is, with reference to -the latter, a veritable <i>economic machine,</i> crushing him by -competition. In like manner, machinery, which executes a piece of work at -a lower price than a certain number of men could do by manual labour, is, -in relation to these manual labourers, a veritable <i>foreign competitor</i>, -who paralyzes them by his rivalry. -</p> -<p> -If, then, it is politic to protect <i>national labour</i> against the -competition of <i>foreign labour</i>, it is not less so to protect <i>human -labour</i> against the rivalry of <i>mechanical labour</i>. -</p> -<p> -Thus, every adherent of the <i>regime</i> of protection, if he is logical, -should not content himself with prohibiting foreign products; he should -proscribe also the products of the shuttle and the plough. -</p> -<p> -And this is the reason why I like better the logic of those men who, -declaiming against the invasion of foreign merchandise, declaim likewise -against the excess of production which is due to the inventive power of -the human mind. -</p> -<p> -Such a man is M. de Saint-Chamans. "One of the strongest arguments against -free trade," he says, "is the too extensive employment of machinery, for -many workmen are deprived of employment, either by foreign competition, -which lowers the price of our manufactured goods, or by instruments which -take the place of men in our workshops."* -</p> -<pre xml:space="preserve"> -* Du Système d'impôts, p. 438. -</pre> -<p> -M. de Saint-Chamans has seen clearly the analogy, or, we should rather -say, the identity, which obtains between imports and machinery. For this -reason, he proscribes both; and it is really agreeable to have to do with -such intrepid reasoners, who, even when wrong, carry out their argument to -its logical conclusion. -</p> -<p> -But here is the mess in which they land themselves. -</p> -<p> -If it be true, a priori, that the domain of invention and that of labour -cannot be simultaneously extended but at each other's expense, it must be -in those countries where machinery most abounds—in Lancashire, for -example—that we should expect to find the fewest workmen. And if, on -the other hand, we establish the fact that mechanical power and manual -labour coexist, and to a greater extent, among rich nations than among -savages, the conclusion is inevitable, that these two powers do not -exclude each other. -</p> -<p> -I cannot convince myself how any thinking being can enjoy a moment's -repose in presence of the following dilemma: Either the inventions of man -are not injurious to manual labour, as general facts attest, since there -are more of both in England and France than among the Hurons and -Cherokees, and that being so, I am on a wrong road, though I know neither -where nor when I missed my way; at all events, I see I am wrong, and I -should commit the crime of lese-humanity were I to introduce my error into -the legislation of my country. -</p> -<p> -Or else, the discoveries of the human mind limit the amount of manual -labour, as special facts appear to indicate; for I see every day some -machine or other superseding twenty or a hundred workmen; and then I am -forced to acknowledge a flagrant, eternal, and incurable antithesis -between the intellectual and physical powers of man—between his -progress and his present wellbeing; and in these circumstances I am forced -to say that the Creator of man might have endowed him with reason, or with -physical strength, with moral force, or with brute force; but that He -mocked him by conferring on him, at the same time, faculties which are -destructive of each other. -</p> -<p> -The difficulty is pressing and puzzling; but you contrive to find your way -out of it by adopting the strange apophthegm: -</p> -<p> -<i>In political economy, there are no absolute principles</i>. -</p> -<p> -In plain language, this means: -</p> -<p> -"I know not whether it be true or false; I am ignorant of what constitutes -general good or evil. I give myself no trouble about that. The immediate -effect of each measure upon my own personal interest is the only law which -I can consent to recognise." -</p> -<p> -There are no principles! You might as well say there are no facts; for -principles are merely formulas which classify such facts as are well -established. -</p> -<p> -Machinery, and the importation of foreign commodities, certainly produce -effects. These effects may be good or bad; on that there may be difference -of opinion. But whatever view we take of them, it is reduced to a formula, -by one of these two principles: Machinery is a good; or, machinery is an -evil: Importations of foreign produce are beneficial; or, such -importations are hurtful. But to assert that there are no principles, -certainly exhibits the lowest degree of abasement to which the human mind -can descend; and I confess that I blush for my country when I hear such a -monstrous heresy proclaimed in the French Chambers, and with their assent; -that is to say, in the face and with the assent of the <i>elite</i> of our -fellow-citizens; and this in order to justify their imposing laws upon us -in total ignorance of the real state of the case. -</p> -<p> -But then I am told to destroy the sophism, by proving that machinery is -not hurtful to human labour, nor the importation of foreign products to -national labour. -</p> -<p> -A work like the present cannot well include very full or complete -demonstrations. My design is rather to state difficulties than to resolve -them; to excite reflection rather than to satisfy doubts. No conviction -makes so lasting an impression on the mind as that which it works out for -itself. But I shall endeavour nevertheless to put the reader on the right -road. -</p> -<p> -What misleads the adversaries of machinery and foreign importations is, -that they judge of them by their immediate and transitory effects, instead -of following them out to their general and definitive consequences. -</p> -<p> -The immediate effect of the invention and employment of an ingenious -machine is to render superfluous, for the attainment of a given result, a -certain amount of manual labour. But its action does not stop there. For -the very reason that the desired result is obtained with fewer efforts, -the product is handed over to the public at a lower price; and the -aggregate of savings thus realized by all purchasers, enables them to -procure other satisfactions; that is to say, to encourage manual labour in -general to exactly the extent of the manual labour which has been saved in -the special branch of industry which has been recently improved. So that -the level of labour has not fallen, while that of enjoyments has risen. -</p> -<p> -Let us render this evident by an example. -</p> -<p> -Suppose there are used annually in this country ten millions of hats at 15 -shillings; this makes the sum which goes to the support of this branch of -industry £7,500,000 sterling. A machine is invented which allows these -hats to be manufactured and sold at 10 shillings. The sum now wanted for -the support of this industry is reduced to £5,000,000, provided the demand -is not augmented by the change. But the remaining sum of £2,500,000 is not -by this change withdrawn from the support of <i>human labour</i>. That -sum, economized by the purchasers of hats, will enable them to satisfy -other wants, and, consequently, to that extent will go to remunerate the -aggregate industry of the country. With the five shillings saved, John -will purchase a pair of shoes, James a book, Jerome a piece of furniture, -etc. Human labour, taken in the aggregate, will continue, then, to be -supported and encouraged to the extent of £7,500,000; but this sum will -yield the same number of hats, plus all the satisfactions and enjoyments -corresponding to £2,500,000 that the employment of the machine has enabled -the consumers of hats to save. These additional enjoyments constitute the -clear profit which the country will have derived from the invention. This -is a free gift, a tribute which human genius will have derived from -nature. We do not at all dispute, that in the course of the transformation -a certain amount of labour will have been <i>displaced</i>; but we cannot -allow that it has been destroyed or diminished. -</p> -<p> -The same thing holds of the importation of foreign commodities. Let us -revert to our former hypothesis. -</p> -<p> -The country manufactures ten millions of hats, of which the cost price was -15 shillings. The foreigner sends similar hats to our market, and -furnishes them at 10 shillings each. I maintain that the <i>national -labour</i> will not be thereby diminished. -</p> -<p> -For it must produce to the extent of £5,000,000, to enable it to pay for -10 millions of hats at 10 shillings. -</p> -<p> -And then there remains to each purchaser five shillings saved on each hat, -or in all, £2,500,000, which will be spent on other enjoyments—that -is to say, which will go to support labour in other departments of -industry. -</p> -<p> -Then the aggregate labour of the country will remain what it was, and the -additional enjoyments represented by £2,500,000 saved upon hats, will form -the clear profit accruing from imports under the system of free trade. -</p> -<p> -It is of no use to try to frighten us by a picture of the sufferings -which, on this hypothesis, the displacement of labour will entail. -</p> -<p> -For, if the prohibition had never been imposed, the labour would have -found its natural place under the ordinary law of exchange, and no -displacement would have taken place. -</p> -<p> -If, on the other hand, prohibition has led to an artificial and -unproductive employment of labour, it is prohibition, and not liberty, -which is to blame for a displacement which is inevitable in the transition -from what is detrimental to what is beneficial. -</p> -<p> -At all events, let no one pretend that because an abuse cannot be done -away with, without inconvenience to those who profit by it, what has been -suffered to exist for a time should be allowed to exist for ever. -</p> -<p> -<br /><br /> -</p> -<hr /> -<p> -<a name="link2H_4_0024" id="link2H_4_0024"> </a> -</p> -<div style="height: 4em;"> -<br /><br /><br /><br /> -</div> -<h2> -XXI. RAW MATERIALS. -</h2> -<p class="pfirst"><span class="dropcap" style="font-size: 4.00em">I</span>t is said that the most advantageous of all branches of trade is that -which supplies manufactured commodities in exchange for raw materials. For -these raw materials are the aliment and support of <i>national labour</i>. -</p> -<p> -Hence the conclusion is drawn: -</p> -<p> -That the best law of customs is that which gives the greatest possible -facility to the importation of raw materials, and which throws most -obstacles in the way of importing finished goods. -</p> -<p> -There is no sophism in political economy more widely disseminated than -this. It is cherished not only by the protectionist school, but also, and -above all, by the school which dubs itself liberal; and it is unfortunate -that it should be so, for what can be more injurious to a good cause than -that it should be at the same time vigorously attacked and feebly -defended? -</p> -<p> -Commercial liberty is likely to have the fate of liberty in general; it -will only find a place in the statute-book after it has taken possession -of men's minds and convictions. But if it be true that a reform, in order -to be solidly established, should be generally understood, it follows that -nothing can so much retard reform as that which misleads public opinion; -and what is more calculated to mislead public opinion than works which, in -advocating freedom, invoke aid from the doctrines of monopoly? -</p> -<p> -Some years ago three of the great towns of France—Lyons, Bordeaux, -and Havre—united in a movement against the restrictive <i>regime</i>. -All Europe was stirred on seeing raised what they took for the banner of -liberty. Alas! it proved to be also the banner of monopoly—of a -monopoly a little more niggardly and much more absurd than that of which -they seemed to desire the overthrow. By the aid of the sophism which I -have just endeavoured to expose, the petitioners did nothing more than -reproduce the doctrine of protection to national industry, tacking to it -an additional inconsistency. -</p> -<p> -It was, in fact, nothing else than the <i>regime</i> of prohibition. Just -listen to M. de Saint-Cricq:— -</p> -<p> -"Labour constitutes the wealth of a nation, because labour alone creates -those material objects which our wants demand; and universal ease and -comfort consist in the abundance of these things." So much for the -principle. -</p> -<p> -"But this abundance must be produced by <i>national labour</i>. If it were -the result of foreign labour, national labour would be immediately brought -to a stand." Here lies the error. <i>(See the preceding sophism.)</i> -</p> -<p> -"What course should an agricultural and manufacturing country take under -such circumstances? Reserve its markets for the products of its own soil -and of its own industry." Such is the end and design. -</p> -<p> -"And for that purpose, restrain by duties, and, if necessary, prohibit -importation of the products of the soil and industry of other nations." -Such are the means. -</p> -<p> -Let us compare this system with that which the Bordeaux petition -advocates. -</p> -<p> -Commodities are there divided into three classes:— -</p> -<p> -"The first includes provisions, and <i>raw materials upon which no human -labour has been bestowed. In principle, a wise economy would demand that -this class should be free of duties</i>. Here we have no labour, no -protection. -</p> -<p> -"The second consists of products which have, <i>to some extent, been -prepared</i>. This preparation warrants such products being <i>charged -with a certain amount of duty</i>." Here protection begins, because here, -according to the petitioners, begins <i>national labour</i>. -</p> -<p> -"The third comprises goods and products in their finished and perfect -state. These contribute nothing to national labour, and we regard this -class as the most taxable." Here labour, and production along with it, -reach their maximum. -</p> -<p> -We thus see that the petitioners profess their belief in the doctrine, -that foreign labour is injurious to national labour; and this is the <i>error</i> -of the prohibitive system. -</p> -<p> -They demand that the home market should be reserved for home industry. -That is the <i>design</i> of the system of prohibition. -</p> -<p> -They demand that foreign labour should be subjected to restrictions and -taxes. These are the means employed by the system of prohibition. -</p> -<p> -What difference, then, can we possibly discover between the Bordeaux -petitioners and the Corypheus of restriction? One difference, and one only—the -greater or less extension given to the word labour. -</p> -<p> -M. de Saint-Cricq extends it to everything, and so he wishes to protect -all. -</p> -<p> -"Labour constitutes all the wealth of a people," he says; "to protect -agricultural industry, and all agricultural industry; to protect -manufacturing industry, and all manufacturing industry, is the cry which -should never cease to be heard in this Chamber." -</p> -<p> -The Bordeaux petitioners take no labour into account but that of the -manufacturers; and for that reason they would admit them to the benefits -of protection. -</p> -<p> -"Raw materials are commodities upon which no human labour has been -bestowed. In principle, we should not tax them. Manufactured products can -no longer serve the cause of national industry, and we regard them as the -best subjects for taxation." -</p> -<p> -It is not our business in this place to inquire whether protection to -national industry is reasonable. M. de Saint-Cricq and the Bordeaux -gentlemen are at one upon this point, and, as we have shown in the -preceding chapters, we on this subject differ from both. -</p> -<p> -Our present business is to discover whether it is by M. de Saint-Cricq, or -by the Bordeaux petitioners, that the word labour is used in a correct -sense. -</p> -<p> -Now, in this view of the question, we think that M. de Saint-Cricq has -very much the best of it; and to prove this, we may suppose them to hold -some such dialogue as the following:— -</p> -<p> -M. de Saint-Cricq: You grant that national labour should be protected. You -grant that the products of no foreign labour can be introduced into our -market without superseding a corresponding amount of our national labour. -Only, you contend that there are a multiplicity of products possessed of -value (for they sell), but upon which no human labour has been bestowed -[vierges de tout travail humain]. And you enumerate, among other things, -com, flour, meat, cattle, tallow, salt, iron, copper, lead, coal, wools, -hides, seeds, etc. -</p> -<p> -If you will only prove to me that the value of these things is not due to -labour, I will grant that it is useless to protect them. -</p> -<p> -But, on the other hand, if I demonstrate to you that there is as much -labour worked up in a 100 fr. worth of wool as in a 100 fr. worth of -textile fabrics, you will allow that the one is as worthy of protection as -the other. -</p> -<p> -Now, why is this sack of wool worth 100 fr.? Is it not because that is its -cost price? and what does its cost price represent, but the aggregate -wages of all the labour, and profits of all the capital, which have -contributed to the production of the commodity? -</p> -<p> -The Bordeaux Petitioners: Well, perhaps as regards wool you may be right. -But take the case of a sack of corn, a bar of iron, a hundredweight of -coals,—are these commodities produced by labour? Are they not -created by nature? -</p> -<p> -M. de Saint-Cricq: Undoubtedly nature creates the elements of all these -things, but it is labour which produces the value. I was wrong myself in -saying that labour created material objects, and that vicious form of -expression has led me into other errors. It does not belong to man to -create, to make anything out of nothing, be he agriculturist or -manufacturer; and if by production is meant creation, all our labour must -be marked down as unproductive, and yours, as merchants, more unproductive -than all others, excepting perhaps my own. -</p> -<p> -The agriculturist, then, cannot pretend to have created corn, but he has -created value; I mean to say, he has, by his labour, and that of his -servants, labourers, reapers, etc., transformed into corn substances which -had no resemblance to it whatever. The miller who converts the corn into -flour, the baker who converts the flour into bread, do the same thing. -</p> -<p> -In order that man may be enabled to clothe himself, a multitude of -operations are necessary. Prior to all intervention of human labour, the -true raw materials of cloth are the air, the water, the heat, the gases, -the light, the salts, which enter into its composition. These are the raw -materials upon which strictly speaking, no human labour has been employed. -They are <i>vierges de tout travail humain</i>; and since they have no -value, I should never dream of protecting them. But the first application -of labour converts these substances into grass and provender, a second -into wool, a third into yarn, a fourth into a woven fabric, a fifth into -clothing. Who can assert that the whole of these operations, from the -first furrow laid open by the plough, to the last stitch of the tailor's -needle, do not resolve themselves into labour? -</p> -<p> -And it is because these operations are spread over several branches of -industry, in order to accelerate and facilitate the accomplishment of the -ultimate object, which is to furnish clothing to those who have need of -it, that you desire, by an arbitrary distinction, to rank the importance -of such works in the order in which they succeed each other, so that the -first of the series shall not merit even the name of labour, and that the -last, being labour <i>par excellence</i>, shall be worthy of the favours -of protection? -</p> -<p> -The Petitioners: Yes; we begin to see that corn, like wool, is not exactly -a product of which it can be said that no human labour has been bestowed -upon it; but the agriculturist has not, at least, like the manufacturer, -done everything himself or by means of his workmen; nature has assisted -him, and if there is labour worked up in corn, it is not the simple -product of labour. -</p> -<p> -M. de Saint-Cricq: But its value resolves itself exclusively into labour. -I am happy that nature concurs in the material formation of grain. I could -even wish that it were entirely her work; but you must allow that I have -constrained this assistance of nature by my labour, and when I sell you my -corn you will remark this, that it is not for the labour of nature that I -ask you to pay, but for my own. -</p> -<p> -But, as you state the case, manufactured commodities are no longer the -exclusive products of labour. Is the manufacturer not beholden to nature -in his processes? Does he not avail himself of the assistance of the -steam-engine, of the pressure of the atmosphere, just as, with the -assistance of the plough, I avail myself of its humidity? Has he created -the laws of gravitation, of the transmission of forces, of affinity? -</p> -<p> -The Petitioners: Well, this is the case of the wool over again; but coal -is assuredly the work, the exclusive work, of nature. It is indeed a -product upon which no human labour has ever been bestowed. -</p> -<p> -M. de Saint-Cricq: Yes; nature has undoubtedly created the coal, but -labour has imparted value to it. For the millions of years during which it -was buried 100 fathoms under ground, unknown to everybody, it was -destitute of value. It was necessary to search for it—that is -labour; it was necessary to send it to market—that is additional -labour. Then the price you pay for it in the market is nothing else than -the remuneration of the labour of mining and transport.* -</p> -<pre xml:space="preserve"> -* I do not particularize the parts of the remuneration -falling to the lessee, the capitalist, etc., for several -reasons:—1st, Because, on looking at the thing more -closely, you will see that the remuneration always resolves -itself into the reimbursement of advances or the payment of -anterior labour. 2dly, Because, under the term labour, I -include not only the wages of the workmen, but the -legitimate recompense of everything which co-operates in the -work of production. 3dly (and above all), Because the -production of manufactured products is, like that of raw -materials, burdened with auxiliary remunerations other than -the mere expense of manual labour; and, moreover, this -objection, frivolous in itself, would apply as much to the -most delicate processes of manufacture, as to the rudest -operations of agriculture. -</pre> -<p> -Thus far we see that M. de Saint-Cricq has the best of the argument; that -the value of raw materials, like that of manufactured commodities, -represents the cost of production, that is to say, the labour worked up in -them; that it is not possible to conceive of a product possessing value, -which has had no human labour bestowed on it; that the distinction made by -the petitioners is futile in theory; that, as the basis of an unequal -distribution of favours, it would be iniquitous in practice, since the -result would be that one-third of our countrymen, who happened to be -engaged in manufactures, would obtain the advantages of monopoly, on the -alleged ground that they produce by labour, whilst the other two-thirds—namely, -the agricultural population—would be abandoned to competition under -the pretext that they produce without labour. -</p> -<p> -The rejoinder to this, I am quite sure, will be, that a nation derives -more advantages from importing what are called raw materials, whether -produced by labour or not, and exporting manufactured commodities. This -will be repeated and insisted on, and it is an opinion very widely -accredited. -</p> -<p> -"The more abundant raw materials are," says the Bordeaux petition, "the -more are manufactures promoted and multiplied." -</p> -<p> -"Raw materials," says the same document in another place, "open up an -unlimited field of work for the inhabitants of the countries into which -they are imported." -</p> -<p> -"Raw materials," says the Havre petition, "constituting as they do the -elements of labour, must be submitted to a different treatment, and be -gradually admitted at the lowest rate of duty." The same petition -expresses a wish that manufactured products should be admitted, not -gradually, but after an indefinite lapse of time, not at the lowest rate -of duty, but at a duty of 20 per cent. -</p> -<p> -"Among other articles, the low price and abundance of which are a -necessity," says the Lyons petition, "manufacturers include all raw -materials." -</p> -<p> -All this is founded on an illusion. -</p> -<p> -We have seen that all value represents labour. Now, it is quite true that -manufacturing labour increases tenfold, sometimes a hundredfold, the value -of the raw material; that is to say, it yields ten times, a hundred times, -more profit to the nation. Hence men are led to reason thus: The -production of a hundredweight of iron brings in a gain of only fifteen -shillings to workmen of all classes. The conversion of this hundredweight -of iron into the mainsprings of watches raises their earnings to £500; and -will any one venture to say that a nation has not a greater interest to -secure for its labour a gain of five hundred pounds than a gain of fifteen -shillings? We do not exchange a hundredweight of unwrought iron for a -hundredweight of watch-springs, nor a hundredweight of unwashed wool for a -hundredweight of cashmere shawls; but we exchange a certain value of one -of these materials for an equal value of another. Now, to exchange equal -value for equal value is to exchange equal labour for equal labour. It is -not true, then, that a nation which sells five pounds' worth of wrought -fabrics or watch-springs, gains more than a nation which sells five -pounds' worth of wool or iron. -</p> -<p> -In a country where no law can be voted, where no tax can be imposed, but -with the consent of those whose dealings the law is to regulate, and whose -pockets the tax is to affect, the public cannot be robbed without first -being imposed on and misled. Our ignorance is the raw material of every -extortion from which we suffer, and we may be certain beforehand, that -every sophism is the precursor of an act of plunder. My good friends I -when you detect a sophism in a petition, button up your breeches-pocket, -for you may be sure that this is the mark aimed at. -</p> -<p> -Let us see, then, what is the real object secretly aimed at by the -shipowners of Bordeaux and Havre, and the manufacturers of Lyons, and -which is concealed under the distinction which they attempt to draw -between agricultural and manufactured commodities. -</p> -<p> -"It is principally this first class (that which comprises raw materials, -upon which no human labour has been bestowed) which affords," say the -Bordeaux petitioners, "the principal support to our merchant shipping...." -In principle, a wise economy would not tax this class.... The second -(commodities partly wrought up) may be taxed to a certain extent. The -third (commodities which call for no more exertion of labour) we regard as -the fittest subjects of taxation. -</p> -<p> -The Havre petitioners "consider that it is indispensable to reduce -gradually the duty on raw materials to the lowest rate, in order that our -manufacturers may gradually find employment for the shipping interest, -which furnishes them with the first and indispensable materials of -labour." -</p> -<p> -The manufacturers could not remain behindhand in politeness towards the -shipowners. So the Lyons petition asks for the free introduction of raw -materials, "in order to prove," as they express it, "that the interests of -the manufacturing are not always opposed to those of the maritime towns." -</p> -<p> -No; but then the interests of both, understood as the petitioners -understand them, are in direct opposition to the interests of agriculture -and of consumers. -</p> -<p> -Well, gentlemen, we have come at length to see what you are aiming at, and -the object of your subtle economical distinctions. You desire that the law -should restrain the transport of finished goods across the ocean, in order -that the more costly conveyance of raw and rough materials, bulky, and -mixed up with refuse, should afford greater scope for your merchant -shipping, and more largely employ your marine resources. This is what you -call a wise economy. -</p> -<p> -On the same principle, why do you not ask that the pines of Russia should -be brought to you with their branches, bark, and roots; the silver of -Mexico in its mineral state; the hides of Buenos Ayres sticking to the -bones of the diseased carcases from which they have been torn? -</p> -<p> -I expect that railway shareholders, the moment they are in a majority in -the Chambers, will proceed to make a law forbidding the manufacture of the -brandy which is consumed in Paris. And why not? Would not a law enforcing -the conveyance of ten casks of wine for every cask of brandy afford -Parisian industry the indispensable materials of its labour, and give -employment to our locomotive resources? -</p> -<p> -How long will men shut their eyes to this simple truth? -</p> -<p> -Manufactures, shipping, labour—all have for end the general, the -public good; to create useless industries, to favour superfluous -conveyances, to support a greater amount of labour than is necessary, not -for the good of the public, but at the expense of the public—is to -realize a true <i>petitio principii</i>. It is not labour which is -desirable for its own sake; it is consumption. All labour without a -commensurate result is a loss. You may as well pay sailors for pitching -stones into the sea as pay them for transporting useless refuse. Thus, we -arrive at the result to which all economic sophisms, numerous as they are, -conduct us, namely, confounding the means with the end, and developing the -one at the expense of the other. -</p> -<p> -<br /><br /> -</p> -<hr /> -<p> -<a name="link2H_4_0025" id="link2H_4_0025"> </a> -</p> -<div style="height: 4em;"> -<br /><br /><br /><br /> -</div> -<h2> -XXII. METAPHORS. -</h2> -<p class="pfirst"><span class="dropcap" style="font-size: 4.00em">A</span> sophism sometimes expands, and runs through the whole texture of a long -and elaborate theory. More frequently, it shrinks and contracts, assumes -the guise of a principle, and lurks in a word or a phrase. -</p> -<p> -May God protect us from the devil and from metaphors! was the exclamation -of Paul-Louis. And it is difficult to say which of them has done most -mischief in this world of ours. The devil, you will say; for he has put -the spirit of plunder into all our hearts. True, but he has left free the -means of repressing abuses by the resistance of those who suffer from -them. It is the sophism which paralyzes this resistance. The sword which -malice puts into the hands of assailants would be powerless, did sophistry -not break the buckler which should shield the party assailed. It was with -reason, therefore, that Malebranche inscribed on the title-page of his -work this sentence: <i>L'erreur est la cause de la misère des hommes</i>. -</p> -<p> -Let us see in what way this takes place. Ambitious men are often actuated -by sinister and wicked intentions; their design, for example, may be to -implant in the public mind the germ of international hatred. This fatal -germ may develop itself, light up a general conflagration, arrest -civilization, cause torrents of blood to be shed, and bring upon the -country the most terrible of all scourges, invasion. At any rate, and -apart from this, such sentiments of hatred lower us in the estimation of -other nations, and force Frenchmen who retain any sense of justice to -blush for their country. These are undoubtedly most serious evils; and to -guard the public against the underhand practices of those who would expose -the country to such hazard, it is only necessary to see clearly into their -designs. How do they manage to conceal them? By the use of metaphors. They -twist, distort, and pervert the meaning of three or four words, and the -thing is done. -</p> -<p> -The word <i>invasion</i> itself is a good illustration of this. -</p> -<p> -A French ironmaster exclaims: Preserve us from the invasion of English -iron. An English landowner exclaims in return: Preserve us from the -invasion of French corn. And then they proceed to interpose barriers -between the two countries. These barriers create isolation, isolation -gives rise to hatred, hatred to war, war to invasion. What does it -signify? cry the two sophists; is it not better to expose ourselves to an -eventual invasion than accept an invasion which is certain? And the people -believe them, and the barriers are kept up. -</p> -<p> -And yet what analogy is there between an exchange and an invasion? What -possible similarity can be imagined between a ship of war which comes to -vomit fire and devastation on our towns, and a merchant ship which comes -to offer a free voluntary exchange of commodities for commodities? -</p> -<p> -The same thing holds of the use made of the word <i>inundation</i>. This -word is ordinarily used in a bad sense, for we often see our fields -injured, and our harvests carried away by floods. If, however, they leave -on our soil something of greater value than what they carry away, like the -inundations of the Nile, we should be thankful for them, as the Egyptians -are. Before we declaim, then, against the inundations of foreign products—before -proceeding to restrain them by irksome and costly obstacles—we -should inquire to what class they belong, and whether they ravage or -fertilize. What should we think of Mehemet Ali, if, instead of raising, at -great cost, bars across the Nile, to extend wider its inundations, he were -to spend his money in digging a deeper channel to prevent Egypt being -soiled by the foreign slime which descends upon her from the Mountains of -the Moon? We display exactly the same degree of wisdom and sense, when we -desire, at the cost of millions, to defend our country.... From what? From -the benefits which nature has bestowed on other climates. -</p> -<p> -Among the metaphors which conceal a pernicious theory, there is no one -more in use than that presented by the words <i>tribute and tributary</i>. -</p> -<p> -These words have now become so common that they are used as synonymous -with <i>purchase and purchaser</i>, and are employed indiscriminately. -</p> -<p> -And yet a tribute is as different from a purchase as a theft is from an -exchange; and I should like quite as well to hear it said, Cartouche has -broken into my strong-box and purchased a thousand pounds, as to hear one -of our deputies repeat, We have paid Germany tribute for a thousand horses -which she has sold us. -</p> -<p> -For what distinguishes the act of Cartouche from a purchase is, that he -has not put into my strong-box, and with my consent, a value equivalent to -what he has taken out of it. -</p> -<p> -And what distinguishes our remittance of £20,000 which we have made to -Germany from a tribute paid to her is this, that she has not received the -money gratuitously, but has given us in exchange a thousand horses, which -we have judged to be worth the £20,000. -</p> -<p> -Is it worth while exposing seriously such an abuse of language? Yes; for -these terms are used seriously both in newspapers and in books. -</p> -<p> -Do not let it be supposed that these are instances of a mere <i>lapsus -linguo</i> on the part of certain ignorant writers! For one writer who -abstains from so using them, I will point you out ten who admit them, and -amongst the rest, the D'Argouts, the Dupins, the Villeles—peers, -deputies, ministers of state,—men, in short, whose words are laws, -and whose sophisms, even the most transparent, serve as a basis for the -government of the country. -</p> -<p> -A celebrated modern philosopher has added to the categories of Aristotle -the sophism which consists in employing a phrase which includes a <i>petitio -pinncipii</i>. He gives many examples of it; and he should have added the -word tributary to his list. The business, in fact, is to discover whether -purchases made from foreigners are useful or hurtful. They are hurtful, -you say. And why? Because they render us tributaries to the foreigner. -This is just to use a word which implies the very thing to be proved. -</p> -<p> -It may be asked how this abuse of words first came to be introduced into -the rhetoric of the monopolists? -</p> -<p> -Money leaves the country to satisfy the rapacity of a victorious enemy. -Money also leaves the country to pay for commodities. An analogy is -established between the two cases by taking into account only the points -in which they resemble each other, and keeping out of view the points in -which they differ. -</p> -<p> -Yet this circumstance—that is to say, the non-reimbursement in the -first case, and the reimbursement voluntarily agreed upon in the second—establishes -betwixt them such a difference that it is really impossible to class them -in the same category. To hand over a hundred pounds by force to a man who -has caught you by the throat, or to hand them over voluntarily to a man -who furnishes you with what you want, are things as different as light and -darkness. You might as well assert that it is a matter of indifference -whether you throw your bread into the river, or eat it, for in both cases -the bread is destroyed. The vice of this reasoning, like that applied to -the word tribute, consists in asserting an entire similitude between two -cases, looking only at their points of resemblance, and keeping out of -sight the points in which they differ. -</p> -<p> -<br /><br /> -</p> -<hr /> -<p> -<a name="link2H_CONC" id="link2H_CONC"> </a> -</p> -<div style="height: 4em;"> -<br /><br /><br /><br /> -</div> -<h2> -CONCLUSION. -</h2> -<p class="pfirst"><span class="dropcap" style="font-size: 4.00em">A</span>ll the sophisms which I have hitherto exposed have reference to a single -question—the system of restriction. There are other tempting -subjects, such as <i>vested interests, inopportuneness, draining away our -money</i>, etc., etc., with which I shall not at present trouble the -reader. -</p> -<p> -Nor does Social Economy confine herself to this limited circle. <i>Fourierisme, -Saint-Simonisme</i>, communism, mysticism, sentimentalism, false -philanthropy, affected aspirations after a chimerical equality and -fraternity; questions relating to luxury, to wages, to machinery, to the -pretended tyranny of capital, to colonies, to markets and vents for -produce, to conquests, to population, to association, emigration, taxes, -and loans,—have encumbered the field of science with a multiplicity -of parasitical arguments, of sophisms which afford work to the hoe and the -grubber of the diligent economist. -</p> -<p> -I am quite aware of the inconvenience attending this plan, or rather of -this absence of plan. To attack one by one so many incoherent sophisms, -which sometimes run foul of each other, and more frequently run into each -other, is to enter into an irregular and capricious struggle, and involve -ourselves in perpetual repetitions. -</p> -<p> -How much I should prefer to explain simply the situation in which things -are, without occupying myself with the thousand aspects under which -ignorance sees them!... To explain the laws under which societies prosper -or decay, is to demolish virtually all these sophisms at once. When -Laplace described all that was then known of the movements of the heavenly -bodies, he dissipated, without even naming them, all the reveries of the -Egyptian, Greek, and Hindoo astrologers far more effectually than he could -have done by refuting them directly in innumerable volumes. Truth is one, -and the work which explains it is an edifice at once durable and imposing: -</p> -<pre xml:space="preserve"> -Il brave les tyrans avides, -Plus hardi que les Pyramides -Et plus durable que l'airain. -</pre> -<p> -Error is multifarious and of an ephemeral nature; and the work which -combats it does not carry in itself a principle of greatness and duration. -</p> -<p> -But if the power, and perhaps the occasion, have been wanting to enable me -to proceed in the manner of Laplace and of Say, I cannot help thinking -that the form I have adopted has also its modest utility. It seems to me -well suited to the wants of our day, and the occasional moments which are -set aside for study. -</p> -<p> -A treatise has no doubt unquestionable superiority, but on one condition—namely, -that it is read and carefully pondered and thought over. It is addressed -to a select class of readers. Its mission is to fix first of all, and -afterwards enlarge, the circle of our acquired knowledge. -</p> -<p> -A refutation of vulgar errors and prejudices cannot occupy this high -position. It aspires merely to clear the road before the march of truth, -to prepare men's minds for its reception, to rectify public opinion, and -disarm dangerous ignorance. -</p> -<p> -It is, above all, in the department of Social Economy that this -hand-to-hand struggle, that these constantly-recurring battles with -popular errors, are of true practical utility. -</p> -<p> -The sciences may be divided into two classes. -</p> -<p> -One of these classes may be known only to <i>savans</i>. It includes those -sciences the application of which constitutes the business of special -professions. The vulgar reap the fruit, in spite of their ignorance. A man -may find use for a watch, though ignorant of mechanics and astronomy, and -he may be carried along by a locomotive or a steamer, trusting to the -skill of the engineer and the pilot. We walk according to the laws of -equilibrium, although unacquainted with these laws, just as M. Jourdain -had talked prose all his life without knowing it. -</p> -<p> -But there are sciences which exercise on the public mind an influence -which is only in proportion to public enlightenment, and derive all their -efficacy, not from knowledge accumulated in some gifted minds, but from -knowledge diffused over the general masses. Among these we include morals, -medicine, social economy, and, in countries where men are their own -masters, Politics. It is to such sciences that the saying of Bentham -specially applies, "To disseminate them is better than to advance them." -What signifies it, that some great man, or even that God himself, should -have promulgated the laws of morality, as long as men, imbued with false -notions, mistake virtues for vices, and vices for virtues? What matters it -that Smith, Say, and, according to M. de Saint-Chamans, economists of all -schools, have proclaimed, in reference to commercial transactions, the -superiority of liberty over constraint, if the men who make our laws, and -for whom our laws are made, think differently? -</p> -<p> -Those sciences, which have been correctly named social, have also this -peculiarity, that being of universal and daily application, no one will -confess himself ignorant of them. When the business is to resolve a -question in chemistry or geometry, no one pretends to have acquired these -sciences by intuition, no one is ashamed to consult M. Thenard, or makes -any difficulty about referring to the works of Legendre or Bezout. But in -the social sciences, authority is scarcely acknowledged. As each man daily -takes charge of his morals, whether good or bad, of his health, of his -purse, of his politics, whether sound or absurd, so each man believes -himself qualified to discuss, comment, and pronounce judgment on social -questions. Are you ill? There is no old woman who will not at once tell -you the cause of your ailment, and the remedy for it. "Humours," she will -say; "you must take physic." But what are humours? and is there any such -disease? About this she gives herself no concern. I cannot help thinking -of this old woman when I hear social maladies explained by these hackneyed -phrases:—"The superabundance of products," "the tyranny of capital," -"an industrial plethora," and other such commonplaces, of which we cannot -even say, <i>Verba et voces, protereaque nihil</i>, for they are so many -pestilent errors. -</p> -<p> -From what I have said, two things result—1st, That the social -sciences must abound more in sophisms than others, because in them each -man takes counsel of his own judgment and instincts; 2d, That it is in -these sciences that sophisms are especially mischievous, because they -mislead public opinion, and in a matter, too, with reference to which -public opinion is force, is law. -</p> -<p> -In these sciences, then, we have need of two sorts of books, those which -explain them, and those which further and advance them—those which -establish truth, and those which combat error. -</p> -<p> -It seems to me that the inherent fault of this little work, repetition, is -exactly what will make it useful. -</p> -<p> -In the question I have treated, each sophism has undoubtedly its own -formula, and its special bearing, but all may be traced to a common root, -which is, <i>forgetting men's interests as consumers</i>. To point out -that a thousand errors may be traced to this prolific sophism, is to teach -the public to detect it, to estimate it at its true worth, and to distrust -it, under all circumstances. -</p> -<p> -After all, the design of my present work is not exactly to implant -convictions, but rather to awaken doubts. -</p> -<p> -I have no expectation that the reader, on laying down the book, will -exclaim <i>I know</i>; I would much rather that he should say candidly, <i>I -am ignorant!</i> -</p> -<p> -"I am ignorant, for I begin to fear that there is something illusory in -the flattering promises of scarcity." (Sophism I.) -</p> -<p> -"I am not so much charmed with obstacles as I once was. (Sophism II.) -</p> -<p> -"<i>Effort without result</i> no longer appears to me so desirable as <i>result -without effort</i>." (Sophism III.) -</p> -<p> -"It is very possible that the secret of trade does not consist, like the -secret of arms (if we adopt the definition of the bully in the <i>Bourgeois -Gentilhomme</i>), in giving and not receiving." (Sophism VI.) -</p> -<p> -"I can understand that a commodity is worth more in proportion as it has -had more labour bestowed upon it; but in exchange, will two equal values -cease to be equal values, because the one proceeds from the plough, and -the other from the loom?" (Sophism XXI.) -</p> -<p> -"I confess that I begin to think it singular that the human race should be -improved by shackles, and enriched by taxes; and, truth to say, I should -be relieved of a troublesome weight, I should experience unmitigated -satisfaction, were it proved to me, as the author of the <i>Sophismes</i> -asserts, that there is no incompatibility between thriving circumstances -and justice, between peace and liberty, between the extension of labour -and the progress of intelligence." (Sophisms XIV. and XX.) -</p> -<p> -"Then, without being quite convinced by his arguments, to which I know not -whether to give the name of reasonings or of paradoxes, I shall apply -myself to the acknowledged masters of the science." -</p> -<p> -Let us conclude this monography of sophism with a final and important -observation. -</p> -<p> -The world is not sufficiently alive to the influence exercised over it by -sophisms. -</p> -<p> -If I must speak my mind, when the <i>right of the strongest</i> has been -put aside, sophisms have set up in its place <i>the right of the most -cunning</i>; and it is difficult to say which of these two tryants has -been the more fatal to humanity. -</p> -<p> -Men have an immoderate love of enjoyment, of influence, of consideration, -of power—in a word, of wealth. -</p> -<p> -At the same time, they are urged on by a strong, an overpowering, -inclination to procure the things they so much desire, at the expense of -other people. -</p> -<p> -But these other people—in plain language, the public—have an -equally strong desire to keep what they have got, if they can, and if they -know it. -</p> -<p> -Spoliation, which plays so great a part in this world's affairs, has, -then, only two agents at command, <i>force and cunning</i>; and two -limits, <i>courage and intelligence</i>. -</p> -<p> -Force employed to effect spoliation forms the groundwork of human annals. -To trace back its history, would be to reproduce very nearly the history -of all nations—Assyrians, Babylonians, Medes, Persians, Egyptians, -Greeks, Romans, Goths, Franks, Huns, Turks, Arabs, Monguls, Tartars; not -to speak of Spaniards in America, Englishmen in India, Frenchmen in -Africa, Russians in Asia, etc. -</p> -<p> -But civilized nations, at least, composed of men who produce wealth, have -become sufficiently numerous, and sufficiently strong to defend -themselves. Does this mean that they are no longer plundered? Not at all; -they are plundered as much as ever, and, what is more, they plunder one -another. -</p> -<p> -Only, the agent employed has been changed; it is no longer by <i>force, -but by cunning</i>, that they seize upon the public wealth. -</p> -<p> -To rob the public, we must first deceive it. The trick consists in -persuading the public that the theft is for its advantage; and by this -means inducing it to accept, in exchange for its property, services which -are fictitious, and often worse. Hence comes the Sophism,—Sophism -theocratic, Sophism economic, Sophism political, Sophism financial. Since; -then, force is held in check, the Sophism is not only an evil, but the -very genius of evil It must in its turn be held in check also. And for -that end we must render the public more cunning than the cunning, as it -has already become stronger than the strong. -</p> -<p> -Good Public! it is under the influence of this conviction that I dedicate -to you this first essay—although the preface is strangely -transposed, and the dedication somewhat late. -</p> -<h3> -END OF THE FIRST SERIES. -</h3> -<p> -<br /><br /> -</p> -<hr /> -<p> -<a name="link2H_4_0027" id="link2H_4_0027"> </a> -</p> -<div style="height: 4em;"> -<br /><br /><br /><br /> -</div> -<h2> -SECOND SERIES. -</h2> -<p> -<br /><br /> -</p> -<hr /> -<p> -<a name="link2H_4_0028" id="link2H_4_0028"> </a> -</p> -<div style="height: 4em;"> -<br /><br /><br /><br /> -</div> -<h2> -I. PHYSIOLOGY OF SPOLIATION. -</h2> -<p class="pfirst"><span class="dropcap" style="font-size: 4.00em">W</span>hy should I go on tormenting myself with this dry and dreary science of -<i>Political Economy?</i> -</p> -<p> -Why? The question is reasonable. Labour of every kind is in itself -sufficiently repugnant to warrant one in asking to what result it leads? -</p> -<p> -Let us see, then, how it is. -</p> -<p> -I do not address myself to those philosophers who profess to adore -poverty, if not on their own account, at least on the part of the human -race. -</p> -<p> -I speak to those who deem wealth, of some importance. We understand by -that word, not the opulence of some classes, but the ease, the material -prosperity, the security, the independence, the instruction, the dignity -of all. -</p> -<p> -There are only two means of procuring the necessaries, conveniences, and -enjoyments of life: Production and Spoliation. -</p> -<p> -There are some people who represent Spoliation as an accident, a local and -transient abuse, branded by the moralist, denounced by the law, and -unworthy of the Economist's attention. -</p> -<p> -In spite of benevolence, in spite of optimism, we are forced to -acknowledge that Spoilation plays too prominent a part in the world, and -mingles too largely in important human affairs, to warrant the social -sciences, especially Political Economy, in holding it as of no account. -</p> -<p> -I go further. That which prevents the social order from attaining that -perfection of which it is susceptible, is the constant effort of its -members to live and enjoy themselves at the expense of each other. So that -if Spoliation did not exist, social science would be without object, for -society would then be perfect. -</p> -<p> -I go further still. When Spoliation has once become the recognised means -of existence of a body of men united and held together by social ties, -they soon proceed to frame a law which sanctions it, and to adopt a system -of morals which sanctities it. -</p> -<p> -It is sufficient to enumerate some of the more glaring forms which -Spoliation assumes, in order to show the place which it occupies in human -transactions. -</p> -<p> -There is first of all War. Among savages the conqueror puts to death the -vanquished, in order to acquire a right, which, if not incontestable, is, -at least, uncontested, to his enemy's hunting grounds. -</p> -<p> -Then comes Slavery. When man comes to find that the land may be made -fertile by means of labour, he says to his brother man, "Thine be the -labour, and mine the product." -</p> -<p> -Next we have Priestcraft. "According as you give or refuse me a portion of -your substance, I will open to you the gate of Heaven or of Hell." -</p> -<p> -Lastly comes Monopoly. Its distinguishing character is to leave in -existence the great social law of service for service, but to bring force -to bear upon the bargain, so as to impair the just proportion between the -service received and the service rendered. -</p> -<p> -Spoliation bears always in its bosom that germ of death by which it is -ultimately destroyed. It is rarely the many who despoil the few. Were it -so, the few would soon be reduced to such a state as to be no longer able -to satisfy the cupidity of the many, and spoliation would die out for want -of support. -</p> -<p> -It is almost always the majority who are oppressed, but spoliation is not -the less on this account subject to an inevitable check. -</p> -<p> -For, if the agent be Force, as in the cases of War and Slavery, it is -natural that Force, in the long run, should pass to the side of the -greatest number. -</p> -<p> -And, if the agent be Cunning, as in the case of Priestcraft and Monopoly, -it is natural that the majority should become enlightened, otherwise -intelligence would cease to be intelligence. -</p> -<p> -Another natural law deposits a second germ of death in the heart of -spoliation, which is this: -</p> -<p> -Spoliation not only <i>displaces</i> wealth, but always partially <i>destroys</i> -it. -</p> -<p> -War annihilates many values. -</p> -<p> -Slavery paralyzes, to a great extent, men's faculties. -</p> -<p> -Priestcraft diverts men's efforts towards objects which are puerile or -hurtful. -</p> -<p> -Monopoly transfers wealth from one pocket to another, but much is lost in -the transference. -</p> -<p> -This is an admirable law. Without it, provided there existed an -equilibrium between the forces of the oppressors and oppressed, spoliation -would have no limits. In consequence of the operation of this law, the -equilibrium tends always to be upset; either because the spoliators have -the fear of such a loss of wealth, or because, in the absence of such -fear, the evil constantly increases, and it is in the nature of anything -which constantly gets worse and worse, ultimately to perish and be -annihilated. -</p> -<p> -There comes at last a time when, in its progressive acceleration, this -loss of wealth is such that the spoliator finds himself poorer than he -would have been had there been no spoliation. -</p> -<p> -Take, for example, a people to whom the expense of war costs more than the -value of the booty. -</p> -<p> -A master who pays dearer for slave labour than for free labour. -</p> -<p> -A system of priestcraft, which, renders people so dull and stupid, and -destroys their energy to such an extent, that there is no longer anything -to be got from them. -</p> -<p> -A monopoly which increases its efforts at absorption in proportion as -there is less to absorb, just as one should endeavour to milk a cow more -vigorously in proportion as there is less milk to be got. -</p> -<p> -Monopoly, it will be seen, is a species of the genus spoliation. There are -many varieties; among others, Sinecures, Privileges, Restrictions. -</p> -<p> -Among the forms which it assumes, there are some which are very simple and -primitive. Of this kind are feudal rights. Under this <i>regime</i> the -masses are despoiled, and they know it. It implies an abuse of force, and -goes down when force is wanting. -</p> -<p> -Others are very complicated. The masses are frequently despoiled without -knowing it. They may even imagine that they owe all to spoliation—not -only what is left to them, but what is taken from them, and what is lost -in the process. Nay more, I affirm that, in course of time, and owing to -the ingenious mechanism to which they become accustomed, many men become -spoliators without knowing that they are so, or desiring to be so. -Monopolies of this kind are engendered by artifice and nourished by error. -They disappear only with advancing enlightenment. -</p> -<p> -I have said enough to show that political economy has an evident practical -utility. It is the torch which, by exposing craft and dissipating error, -puts an end to this social disorder of spoliation. Some one—I rather -think a lady—has rightly described our science as "<i>la serrure de -sûrete du pecule populaire</i>." -</p> -<h3> -COMMENTARY. -</h3> -<p> -Were this little book destined to last for three or four thousand years, -and, like a new Koran, to be read, re-read, pondered over, and studied -sentence by sentence, word by word, letter by letter; if it were destined -to a place in all the libraries of the world, and to be explained by -avalanches of annotations and paraphrases, I might abandon to their fate -the preceding observations, though somewhat obscure from their -conciseness; but since they require a gloss, I think it as well to be my -own commentator. -</p> -<p> -The true and equitable law of human transactions is the <i>exchange, -freely bargained for, of service for service</i>. Spoliation consists in -banishing by force or artifice this liberty of bargaining, for the purpose -of enabling a man or a class to receive a service without rendering an -equivalent service. -</p> -<p> -Spoliation by force consists in waiting till a man has produced a -commodity, and then depriving him of it by the strong hand. -</p> -<p> -This kind of spoliation is formally forbidden by the decalogue—<i>Thou -shalt not steal</i>. -</p> -<p> -When this takes place between individuals, it is called theft, and leads -to the hulks; when it takes place between nations, it is called <i>conquest, -and leads to glory</i>. -</p> -<p> -Whence this difference? It is proper to search out its caùse, for it will -reveal to us the existence of an irresistible power, public opinion, -which, like the atmosphere, surrounds and envelops us so thoroughly that -we cease to perceive it. Rousseau never said anything truer than this: <i>Il -faut beaucoup de philosophie pour observer les faits qui sont trop près de -nous</i>—-"You need much philosophy to observe accurately things -which are under your nose." -</p> -<p> -A thief for the very reason that he does his work secretly, has always -public opinion against him. He frightens all who are within his reach. Yet -if he has associates, he takes pride in displaying before them his skill -and prowess. Here we begin to perceive the force of opinion; for the -applause of his accomplices takes away the sense of guilt, and even -prompts him to glory in his shame. -</p> -<p> -The <i>warrior</i> lives in a different medium. The public opinion which -brands him is elsewhere, among the nations he has conquered, and he does -not feel its pressure. The public opinion at home applauds and sustains -him. He and his companions in arms feel sensibly the bond which imites -them. The country which has created enemies, and brought danger upon -herself, feels it necessary to extol the bravery of her sons. She decrees -to the boldest, who have enlarged her frontiers, or brought her, in the -greatest amount of booty, honours, renown, and glory. Poets sing their -exploits, and ladies twine wreaths and garlands for them. And such is the -power of public opinion that it takes from spoliation all idea of -injustice, and from the spoliator all sense of wrongdoing. -</p> -<p> -The public opinion which reacts against military spoliation makes itself -felt, not in the conquering, but in the conquered, country, and exercises -little influence. And yet it is not altogether inoperative, and makes -itself the more felt in proportion as nations have more frequent -intercourse, and understand each other better. In consequence, we see that -the study of languages, and a freer communication between nations, tends -to bring about and render predominant a stronger feeling against this -species of spoliation. -</p> -<p> -Unfortunately, it not unfrequently happens that the nations which surround -an aggressive and warlike people are themselves given to spoliation when -they can accomplish it, and thus become imbued with the same prejudices. -</p> -<p> -In that case there is only one remedy—time; and nations must be -taught by painful experience the enormous evils of mutual spoliation. -</p> -<p> -We may note another check—a superior and growing morality. But the -object of this is to multiply virtuous actions. How then can morality -restrain acts of spoliation when public opinion places such acts in the -rank of the most exalted virtue? What more powerful means of rendering a -people moral than religion? And what religion more favourable to peace -than Christianity? Yet what have we witnessed for eighteen hundred years? -During all these ages we have seen men fight, not only in spite of their -religion, but in name of religion itself. -</p> -<p> -The wars waged by a conquering nation are not always offensive and -aggressive wars. Such a nation is sometimes so unfortunate as to be -obliged to send its soldiers into the field to defend the domestic hearth, -and to protect its families, its property, its independence, and its -liberty. War then assumes a character of grandeur and sacredness. The -national banner, blessed by the ministers of the God of peace, represents -all that is most sacred in the land; it is followed as the living image of -patriotism and of honour; and warlike virtues are extolled above all other -virtues. But when the danger is past, public opinion still prevails; and -by the natural reaction of a spirit of revenge, which is mistaken for -patriotism, the banner is paraded from capital to capital. It is in this -way that nature seems to prepare a punishment for the aggressor. -</p> -<p> -It is the fear of this punishment, and not the progress of philosophy, -which retains arms in the arsenals; for we cannot deny that nations the -most advanced in civilization go to war, and think little of justice when -they have no reprisals to fear, as the Himalaya, the Atlas, and the -Caucasus bear witness. -</p> -<p> -If religion is powerless, and if philosophy is equally powerless, how then -are wars to be put an end to? -</p> -<p> -Political economy demonstrates, that even as regards the nation which -proves victorious; war is always made in the interest of the few, and at -the expense of the masses. When the masses, then, shall see this clearly, -the weight of public opinion, which is now divided, will come to be -entirely on the side of peace. -</p> -<p> -Spoliation by force assumes still another form. No man will engage -voluntarily in the business of production in order to be robbed of what he -produces. Man himself is therefore laid hold of, robbed of his freedom and -personality, and forced to labour. The language held to him is not, "<i>If -you do this for me, I will do that for you;" but this, "Yours be the -fatigue, and mine the enjoyment</i>." This is slavery, which always -implies abuse of force. -</p> -<p> -It is important to inquire whether it is not in the very nature of a force -which is incontestably dominant to commit abuses. For my own part, I -should be loath to trust it, and would as soon expect a stone pitched from -a height to stop midway of its own accord, as absolute power to prescribe -limits to itself. -</p> -<p> -I should like, at least, to have pointed out to me a country and an epoch -in which slavery has been abolished by the free, graceful, and voluntary -act of the masters. -</p> -<p> -Slavery affords a second and striking example of the insufficiency of -religious and philanthropical sentiments, when set in opposition to the -powerful and energetic sentiment of self-interest. This may appear a -melancholy view of the subject to certain modern schools who seek for the -renovating principle of society in self-sacrifice. Let them begin, then, -by reforming human nature. -</p> -<p> -In the West Indies, ever since the introduction of slavery, the masters, -from father to son, have professed the Christian religion. Many times a -day they repeat these words, "All men are brethren: to love your neighbour -is to fulfil the whole law." -</p> -<p> -And they continue to have slaves. Nothing appears to them more natural and -legitimate. Do modern reformers expect that their system of morals will -ever be as universally accepted,' as popular, of as great authority, and -be as much on men's lips, as the Gospel? And if the Gospel has not been -able to penetrate from the lips to the heart, by piercing or surmounting -the formidable barrier of self-interest, how can they expect that their -system of morals is to work this miracle? -</p> -<p> -What! is slavery then invulnerable? No; what has introduced it will -destroy it, I mean self-interest; provided that, in favouring the special -interests which have created this scourge, we do not run counter to the -general interests from which we look for the remedy. -</p> -<p> -It is one of the truths which political economy has demonstrated, that -free labour is essentially progressive, and slave labour necessarily -stationary. The triumph of the former, therefore, over the latter is -inevitable. What has become of the culture of indigo by slave labour? -</p> -<p> -Free labour directed to the production of sugar will lower its price more -and more, and slave property will become less and less valuable to the -owners. Slavery would long since have gone down of its own accord in -America, if in Europe our laws had not raised the price of sugar -artificially. It is for this reason that we see the masters, their -creditors, and their delegates working actively to maintain these laws, -which are at present the pillars of the edifice. -</p> -<p> -Unfortunately, they still carry along with them the sympathies of those -populations from among whom slavery has disappeared, and this again shows -how powerful an agent public opinion is. -</p> -<p> -If public opinion is sovereign, even in the region of Force, it is very -much more so in the region of Craft [<i>Ruse</i>], In truth, this is its -true domain. Cunning is the abuse of intelligence, and public opinion is -the progress of intelligence. These two powers are at least of the same -nature. Imposture on the part of the spoliator implies credulity on the -part of those despoiled, and the natural antidote to credulity is truth. -Hence it follows that to enlighten men's minds is to take away from this -species of spoliation what supports and feeds it. -</p> -<p> -I shall pass briefly in review some specimens of spoliation which are due -to craft exercised on a very extensive scale. -</p> -<p> -The first which presents itself is spoliation by priestcraft [<i>ruse -thêocratique</i>]. -</p> -<p> -What is the object in view? The object is to procure provisions, -vestments, luxury, consideration, influence, power, by exchanging -fictitious for real services. -</p> -<p> -If I tell a man, "I am going to render you great and immediate services," -I must keep my word, or this man will soon be in a situation to detect the -imposture, and my artifice will be instantly unmasked. -</p> -<p> -But if I say to him, "In exchange for your services I am going to render -you immense service, not in this world, but in another; for after this -life is ended, your being eternally happy or miserable depends upon me. I -am an intermediate being between God and His creature, and I can, at my -will, open the gates of heaven or of hell." If this man only believes me, -I have him in my power. -</p> -<p> -This species of imposture has been practised wholesale since the beginning -of the world, and we know what plenitude of power was exercised by the -Egyptian priests. -</p> -<p> -It is easy to discover how these impostors proceed. We have only to ask -ourselves what we should do were we in their place. -</p> -<p> -If I arrived among an ignorant tribe with views of this sort, and -succeeded by some extraordinary and marvellous act to pass myself off for -a supernatural being, I should give myself out for an envoy of God, and as -possessing absolute control over the future destinies of man. -</p> -<p> -Then I should strictly forbid any inquiry into the validity of my titles -and pretensions. I should do more. As reason would be my most dangerous -antagonist, I should forbid the use of reason itself, unless applied to -this formidable subject. In the language of the savages, I should <i>taboo</i> -this question and everything relating to it. To handle it, or even think -of it, should be declared an unpardonable sin. -</p> -<p> -It would be the very triumph of my art to guard with a <i>taboo</i> -barrier every intellectual avenue which could possibly lead to a discovery -of my imposture; and what better security than to declare even doubt to be -sacrilege? -</p> -<p> -And still to this fundamental security I should add others. For example, -effectually to prevent enlightenment ever reaching the masses, I should -appropriate to myself and my accomplices the monopoly of all knowledge, -which I would conceal under the veil of a dead language and hieroglyphic -characters; and in order that I should never be exposed to any danger, I -would take care to establish an institution which would enable me, day -after day, to penetrate the secrets of all consciences. -</p> -<p> -It would not be amiss that I should at the same time satisfy some of the -real wants of my people, especially if, in doing so, I could increase my -influence and authority. Thus, as men have great need of instruction, and -of being taught morals, I should constitute myself the dispenser of these. -By this means I should direct as I saw best the minds and hearts of my -people. I should establish an indissoluble connexion between morals and my -authority. I should represent them as incapable of existing, except in -this state of union; so that, if some bold man were to attempt to stir a -tabooed question, society at large, which could not dispense with moral -teaching, would feel the earth tremble under its feet, and would turn with -rage against this frantic innovator. -</p> -<p> -When things had come to this pass, it is obvious that the people would -become my property in a stricter sense than if they were my slaves. The -slave curses his chains—they would hug theirs; and I should thus -succeed in imprinting the brand of servitude, not on their foreheads, but -on their innermost consciences. -</p> -<p> -Public opinion alone can overturn such an edifice of iniquity; but where -can it make a beginning, when every stone of the edifice is tabooed? It is -obviously an affair of time and the printing-press. -</p> -<p> -God forbid that I should desire to shake the consoling religious -convictions which connect this life of trial with a life of felicity. But -that our irresistible religious aspirations have been abused, is what no -one, not even the head of the Church himself, can deny. It appears to me -that there is a sure test by which a people can discover whether they are -duped or not. Examine Religion and the Priest, in order to discover -whether the priest is the instrument of religion, or whether religion is -not rather the instrument of the priest. -</p> -<p> -<i>If the priest is the instrument of religion</i>, if his sole care is to -spread over the country morals and blessings, he will be gentle, tolerant, -humble, charitable, full of zeal; his life will be a reflection of his -Divine Model; he will preach liberty and equality among men, peace and -fraternity between nations; he will repel the seductions of temporal -power, desiring no alliance with what of all things in the world most -requires to be kept in check; he will be a man of the people, a man of -sound counsels, a man of consolation, a man of public opinion, a man of -the Gospel. -</p> -<p> -If, on the contrary, <i>religion is the instrument of the priest</i>, he -will treat it as we treat an instrument, which we alter, bend, and twist -about in all directions, so as to make it available for the purpose we -have in view. He will increase the number of questions which are tabooed; -his morals will change with times, men, and circumstances. He will -endeavour to impose upon people by gestures and studied attitudes; and -will mumble a hundred times a day words, the meaning of which has -evaporated, and which have come to be nothing better than a vain -conventionalism. He will traffic in sacred things, but in such a way as -not to shake men's faith in their sacredness; and he will take care, when -he meets with acute, clear-sighted people, not to carry on this traffic so -openly or actively as in other circumstances. He will mix himself up with -worldly intrigues; and he will take the side of men in power, provided -they embrace his side. In a word, in all his actions, we shall discover -that his object is not to advance the cause of religion through the -clergy, but the cause of the clergy through religion; and as so many -efforts must have an object, and as this object, on our hypothesis, can be -nothing else than wealth and power, the most incontestable sign of the -people having been duped is that the priest has become rich and powerful. -</p> -<p> -It is quite evident that a true religion may be abused as well as a false -religion. The more respectable its authority is, the more is it to be -feared that the proofs of that respectability will be pressed too far. But -the results will be widely different. Abuses have a tendency to excite the -sound, enlightened, and independent portion of the population to -rebellion. And it is a much more serious thing to shake public belief in a -true than in a false religion. -</p> -<p> -Spoliation by such means, and the intelligence of a people, are always in -an inverse ratio to each other; for it is of the nature of abuses to be -carried as far only as safety permits. Not that in the midst of the most -ignorant people pure and devoted priests are never to be found; but the -question is, how can we prevent a knave from assuming the cassock, and -ambition from encircling his brow with a mitre? Spoliators obey the -Malthusian law: they multiply as the means of existence increase; and a -knave's means of existence is the credulity of his dupes. Public opinion -must be enlightened. There is no other remedy. -</p> -<p> -Another variety of spoliation by craft and artifice is to be found in what -are called <i>commercial frauds</i>, an expression, as it appears to me, -not sufficiently broad; for not only is the merchant who adulterates his -commodities, or uses a false measure, guilty of fraud, but the physician -who gets paid for bad advice, and the advocate who fans and encourages -lawsuits. In an exchange between two services, one of them may be of bad -quality; but here, the services received being stipulated for beforehand, -spoliation must evidently recede before the advance of public -enlightenment. -</p> -<p> -Next in order come abuses of <i>public services</i>—a vast field of -spoliation, so vast that we can only glance at it. -</p> -<p> -Had man been created a solitary animal, each man would work for himself. -Individual wealth would, in that case, be in proportion to the services -rendered by each man to himself. -</p> -<p> -<i>But, man being a sociable animal, services are exchanged for other -services</i>; a proposition which you may, if you choose, construe -backwards [<i>à rebours</i>]. -</p> -<p> -There exist in society wants so general, so universal, that its members -provide for them by organizing public services. Such, for example, is the -need of security. We arrange, we club together, to remunerate by services -of various kinds those who render us the service of watching over the -general security. -</p> -<p> -There is nothing which does not come within the domain of political -economy. Do this for me, and I will do that for you. The essence of the -transaction is the same, the remunerative process alone is different; but -this last is a circumstance of great importance. -</p> -<p> -In ordinary transactions, each man is the judge, both of the service he -receives and the service he renders. He can always refuse an exchange, or -make it elsewhere; whence the necessity of bringing to market services -which will be willingly accepted. -</p> -<p> -It is not so in state matters, especially before the introduction of -representative government. Whether we have need of such services as the -government furnishes or not, whether they are good or bad, we are forced -always to accept them such as they are, and at the price at which the -government estimates them. -</p> -<p> -Now it is the tendency of all men to see through the small end of the -telescope the services which they render, and through the large end the -services which they receive. In private transactions, then, we should be -led a fine dance, if we were without the security afforded by <i>a price -freely and openly bargained for</i>. -</p> -<p> -Now this guarantee we have either not at all or to a very limited extent -in public transactions. And yet the government, composed of men (although -at the present day they would persuade us that legislators are something -more than men), obeys the universal tendency. The government desires to -render us great service, to serve us more than we need, and to make us -accept, as true services, services which are sometimes very far from being -so, and to exact from us in return other services or contributions. -</p> -<p> -In this way the state is also subject to the Malthusian law. It tends to -pass the level of its means of existence, it grows great in proportion to -these means, and these means consist of the people's substance. Woe, then, -to those nations who are unable to set bounds to the action of the -government! Liberty, private enterprise, wealth, thrift, independence, all -will be wanting in such circumstances. -</p> -<p> -For there is one circumstance especially which it is very necessary to -mark—it is this: Among the services which we demand from the -government, the principal one is security. To ensure this there is needed -a force which is capable of overcoming all other forces, individual or -collective, internal or external, which can be brought against it. -Combined with that unfortunate disposition, which we discover in men to -live at other people's expense, there is here a danger which is -self-evident. -</p> -<p> -Just consider on what an immense scale, as we learn from history, -spoliation has been exercised through the abuse and excess of the powers -of government. Consider what services have been rendered to the people, -and what services the public powers have exacted from them, among the -Assyrians, the Babylonians, Egyptians, Romans, Persians, Turks, Chinese, -Russians, English, Spaniards, Frenchmen. Imagination is startled at the -enormous disproportion. -</p> -<p> -At length, representative government has been instituted, and we should -have thought, <i>a priori</i>, that these disorders would have disappeared -as if by enchantment. -</p> -<p> -In fact, the principle of representative government is this: "The people -themselves, by their representatives, are to decide on the nature and -extent of the functions which they judge it right to regard as public -services, and the amount of remuneration to be attached to such services." -</p> -<p> -The tendency to appropriate the property of others, and the tendency to -defend that property, being thus placed in opposite scales, we should have -thought that the second would have outweighed the first. -</p> -<p> -I am convinced that this is what must ultimately happen, but it has not -happened hitherto. -</p> -<p> -Why? For two very simple reasons. Governments have had too much, and the -people too little, sagacity. -</p> -<p> -Governments are very skilful. They act with method and consistency, upon a -plan well arranged, and constantly improved by tradition and experience. -They study men, and their passions. If they discover, for example, that -they are actuated by warlike impulses, they stimulate this fatal -propensity, and add fuel to the flame. They surround the nation with -dangers through the action of diplomacy, and then they very naturally -demand more soldiers, more sailors, more arsenals and fortifications; -sometimes they have not even to solicit these, but have them offered; and -then they have rank, pensions, and places to distribute. To meet all this, -large sums of money are needed, and taxes and loans are resorted to. -</p> -<p> -If the nation is generous, government undertakes to cure all the ills of -humanity; to revive trade, to make agriculture flourish, to develop -manufactures, encourage arts and learning, extirpate poverty, etc., etc. -All that requires to be done is to create offices, and pay functionaries. -</p> -<p> -In short, the tactics consist in representing restraints as effective -services; and the nation pays, not for services, but for disservices. -Governments, assuming gigantic proportions, end by eating up half the -revenues they exact. And the people, wondering at being obliged to work so -hard, after hearing of inventions which are to multiply products <i>ad -infinitum</i>.... continue always the same overgrown children they were -before. -</p> -<p> -While the government displays so much skill and ability, the people -display scarcely any. When called upon to elect those whose province it is -to determine the sphere and remuneration of governmental action, whom do -they choose? The agents of the government. Thus, they confer on the -executive the power of fixing the limits of its own operations and -exactions. They act like the <i>Bourgeois Gentilhomme</i>, who, in place -of himself deciding on the number and cut of his coats, referred the whole -thing—to his tailor. -</p> -<p> -And when matters have thus gone on from bad to worse, the people at length -have their eyes opened, not to the remedy—(they have not got that -length yet)—but to the evil. -</p> -<p> -To govern is so agreeable a business, that every one aspires to it. The -counsellors of the people never cease telling them: We see your -sufferings, and deplore them. It would be very different if we governed -you. -</p> -<p> -In the meantime, and sometimes for a long period, there are rebellions and -<i>emeutes</i>. When the people are vanquished, the expense of the war -only adds to their burdens. When they are victorious, the <i>personnel</i> -of the government is changed, and the abuses remain unreformed. -</p> -<p> -And this state of things will continue until the people shall learn to -know and defend their true interests—so that we always come back to -this, that there is no resource but in the progress of public -intelligence. -</p> -<p> -Certain nations seem marvellously disposed to become the prey of -government spoliation; those especially where the people, losing sight of -their own dignity and their own energy, think themselves undone if they -are not <i>governed and controlled</i> in everything. Without having -travelled very much, I have seen countries where it is believed that -agriculture can make no progress unless experimental farms are maintained -by the government; that there would soon be no horses but for the state <i>haras</i>; -and that fathers of families would either not educate their children, or -have them taught immorality, if the state did not prescribe the course of -education, etc., etc. In such a country, revolutions succeed each other, -and the governing powers are changed in rapid succession. But the governed -continue nevertheless to be governed on the principle of mercy and -compassion (for the tendency which I am here exposing is the very food -upon which governments live), until at length the people perceive that it -is better to leave the greatest possible number of services in the -category of those which the parties interested exchange at <i>a price -fixed by free and open bargaining</i>. -</p> -<p> -We have seen that an exchange of services constitutes society; and it must -be an exchange of good and loyal services. But we have shown also that men -have a strong interest, and consequently an irresistible bent, to -exaggerate the relative value of the services which they render. And, in -truth, I can perceive no other cure for this evil but the free acceptance -or the free refusal of those to whom these services are offered. -</p> -<p> -Whence it happens that certain men have recourse to the law in order that -it may control this freedom in certain branches of industry. This kind of -spoliation is called Privilege or Monopoly. Mark well its origin and -character. -</p> -<p> -Everybody knows that the services which he brings to the general market -are appreciated and remunerated in proportion to their rarity. The -intervention of law is invoked to drive out of the market all those who -come to offer analogous services; or, which comes to the same thing, if -the assistance of an instrument or a machine is necessary to enable such -services to be rendered, the law interposes to give exclusive possession -of it. -</p> -<p> -This variety of spoliation being the principal subject of the present -volume, I shall not enlarge upon it in this place, but content myself with -one remark. -</p> -<p> -When monopoly is an isolated fact, it never fails to enrich the man who is -invested with it. It may happen, then, that other classes of producers, in -place of waiting for the downfall of this monopoly, demand for themselves -similar monopolies. This species of spoliation, thus erected into a -system, becomes the most ridiculous of mystifications for everybody; and -the ultimate result is, that each man believes himself to be deriving -greater profit from a market which is impoverished by all. -</p> -<p> -It is unnecessary to add, that this strange <i>regime</i> introduces a -universal antagonism among all classes, all professions, and all nations; -that it calls for the interposition (constant, but always uncertain) of -government action; that it gives rise to all the abuses we have -enumerated; that it places all branches of industry in a state of hopeless -insecurity; and that it accustoms men to rely upon the law, and not upon -themselves, for their means of subsistence. It would be difficult to -imagine a more active cause of social perturbation. -</p> -<p> -But it may be said, Why make use of this ugly term, Spoliation? It is -coarse, it wounds, irritates, and turns against you all calm and moderate -men—it envenoms the controversy. -</p> -<p> -To speak plainly, I respect the persons, and I believe in the sincerity of -nearly all the partisans of protection; I claim no right to call in -question the personal probity, the delicacy, the philanthropy, of any one -whatsoever. I again repeat that protection is the fruit, the fatal fruit, -of a common error, of which everybody, or at least the majority of men, -are at once the victims and the accomplices. But with all this I cannot -prevent things being as they are. -</p> -<p> -Figure Diogenes putting his head out of his tub, and saying, "Athenians, -you are served by slaves. Has it never occurred to you, that you thereby -exercise over your brethren the most iniquitous species of spoliation?" -</p> -<p> -Or, again, figure a tribune speaking thus in the forum: "Romans, you -derive all your means of existence from the pillage of all nations in -succession." -</p> -<h3> -JUSTIFICATION. -</h3> -<p> -In saying so, they would only speak undoubted truth. But are we to -conclude from this that Athens and Rome were inhabited only by bad and -dishonest people, and hold in contempt Socrates and Plato, Cato and -Cincinnatus? -</p> -<p> -Who could entertain for a moment any such thought? But these great men -lived in a social medium which took away all consciousness of injustice. -We know that Aristotle could not even realize the idea of any society -existing without slavery. -</p> -<p> -Slavery in modern times has existed down to our own day without exciting -many scruples in the minds of planters. Armies serve as the instruments of -great conquests, that is to say, of great spoliations. But that is not to -say that they do not contain multitudes of soldiers and officers -personally of as delicate feelings as are usually to be found in -industrial careers, if not indeed more so; men who would blush at the very -thought of anything dishonest, and would face a thousand deaths rather -than stoop to any meanness. -</p> -<p> -We must not blame individuals, but rather the general movement which -carries them along, and blinds them to the real state of the case; a -movement for which society at large is responsible. -</p> -<p> -The same thing holds of monopoly. I blame the system, and not individuals—society -at large, and not individual members of society. If the greatest -philosophers have been unable to discover the iniquity of slavery, how -much more easily may agriculturists and manufacturers have been led to -take a wrong view of the nature and effects of a system of restriction! -</p> -<p> -<br /><br /> -</p> -<hr /> -<p> -<a name="link2H_4_0029" id="link2H_4_0029"> </a> -</p> -<div style="height: 4em;"> -<br /><br /><br /><br /> -</div> -<h2> -II. TWO PRINCIPLES OF MORALITY. -</h2> -<p class="pfirst"><span class="dropcap" style="font-size: 4.00em">H</span>aving reached, if he has reached, the end of the last chapter, I fancy I -hear the reader exclaim: -</p> -<p> -"Well, are we wrong in reproaching economists with being dry and cold? -What a picture of human nature! What! Is spoliation, then, to be regarded -as an inevitable, almost normal, force, assuming all forms, at work under -all pretexts, by law and without law, jobbing and abusing things the most -sacred, working on feebleness and credulity by turns, and making progress -just in proportion as these are prevalent! Is there in the world a more -melancholy picture than this?" -</p> -<p> -The question is not whether the picture be melancholy, but whether it is -true. History will tell us. -</p> -<p> -It is singular enough that those who decry political economy (or <i>economisme</i>, -as they are pleased to call it), because that science studies man and the -world as they are, are themselves much further advanced in pessimism, at -least as regards the past and the present, than the economists whom they -disparage. Open their books and their journals; and what do you find? -Bitterness, hatred of society, carried to such a pitch that the very word -civilization is in their eyes the synonym of injustice, dis-order, and -anarchy. They go the length even of denouncing liberty, so little -confidence have they in the development of the human race as the natural -result of its organization. Liberty! it is liberty, as they think, which -is impelling us nearer and nearer to ruin. -</p> -<p> -True, these writers are optimists in reference to the future. For if the -human race, left to itself, has pursued a wrong road for six thousand -years, a discoverer has appeared, who has pointed out the true way of -safety; and however little the flock may regard the pastor's crook, they -will be infallibly led towards the promised land, where happiness, without -any effort on their part, awaits them, and where order, security, and -harmony are the cheap reward of improvidence. -</p> -<p> -The human race have only to consent to these reformers changing (to use -Rousseau's expression) <i>its physical and moral constitution</i>. -</p> -<p> -It is not the business of political economy to inquire what society might -have become had God made man otherwise than He has been pleased to make -him. It may perhaps be a subject of regret that in the beginning, -Providence should have forgotten to call to its counsels some of our -modern <i>organisateurs</i>. And as the celestial mechanism would have -been very differently constructed had the Creator consulted Alphonsus the -Wise, in the same way had He only taken the advice of Fourrier, the social -order would have had no resemblance to that in which we are forced to -breathe, live, and move. But since we are here—since <i>in eo -vivimus, movemur, et minus</i>—all we have to do is to study and -make ourselves acquainted with the laws of the social order in which we -find ourselves, especially if its amelioration depends essentially on our -knowledge of these laws. -</p> -<p> -We cannot prevent the human heart from being the seat of insatiable -desires. -</p> -<p> -We cannot so order it that these desires should be satisfied without -labour. -</p> -<p> -We cannot so order it that man should not have as much repugnance to -labour as desire for enjoyment. -</p> -<p> -We cannot so order it that from this organization there should not result -a perpetual effort on the part of certain men to increase their own share -of enjoyments at the expense of others; throwing over upon them, by force -or cunning, the labour and exertion which are the necessary condition of -such enjoyments being obtained. -</p> -<p> -It is not for us to go in the face of universal history, or stifle the -voice of the past, which tells us that such has been the state of things -from the beginning. We cannot deny that war, slavery, thraldom, -priestcraft, government abuses, privileges, frauds of every kind, and -monopolies, have been the incontestable and terrible manifestations of -these two sentiments combined in the heart of man—<i>desire of -enjoyments, and repugnance to fatigue</i>. -</p> -<p> -<i>In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread</i>. Yes, but every one -desires to have the greatest possible quantity of bread, with the least -possible amount of sweat. Such is the testimony of history. -</p> -<p> -But let us be thankful that history also shows us that the diffusion of -enjoyments and of efforts has a tendency to become more and more equal -among men. -</p> -<p> -Unless we shut our eyes to the light of the sun, we must admit that -society has in this respect made progress. -</p> -<p> -If this be so, there must be in society a natural and providential force, -a law which repels more and more the principle of dishonesty, and realizes -more and more the principle of justice. -</p> -<p> -We maintain that this force exists in society, and that God has placed it -there. If it did not exist, we should be reduced, like Utopian dreamers, -to seek for it in artificial arrangements, in arrangements which imply a -previous alteration in the physical and moral constitution of man; or -rather, we should conclude that the search was useless and vain, for the -simple reason that we cannot understand the action of a lever without its -fulcrum. -</p> -<p> -Let us try, then, to describe the beneficent force which tends gradually -to surmount the mischievous and injurious force to which we have given the -name of spoliation, and the presence of which is only too well explained -by reasoning, and established by experience. -</p> -<p> -Every injurious or hurtful act has necessarily two terms: the point whence -it comes, and the point to which it tends—the <i>terminus a quo, and -the terminus ad quern</i>—the man who acts, and the man acted upon; -or, in the language of the schoolmen, the <i>agent and the patient</i>. -</p> -<p> -We may be protected, then, from an injurious act in two ways: by the -voluntary abstention of the agent; or by the resistance of the patient. -</p> -<p> -These two moral principles, far from running counter to each other, concur -in their action, namely, the religious or philosophical moral principle, -and the moral principle which I shall venture to term economic. -</p> -<p> -The religious moral principle, in order to ensure the suppression of an -injurious act, addresses its author, addresses man in his capacity of -agent, and says to him: "Amend your life; purify your conduct; cease to do -evil; learn to do well; subdue your passions; sacrifice self-interest; -oppress not your neighbour, whom it is your duty to love and assist; first -of all, be just, and be charitable afterwards." This species of moral -principle will always be esteemed the most beautiful and touching, that -which best displays the human race in its native majesty, which will be -most extolled by the eloquent, and call forth the greatest amount of -admiration and sympathy. -</p> -<p> -The economic moral principle aspires at attaining the same result; but -addresses man more especially in the capacity of patient. It points out to -him the effects of human actions, and by that simple explanation, -stimulates him to react against those who injure him, and honour those who -are useful to him. It strives to disseminate among the oppressed masses -enough of good sense, information, and well-founded distrust, to render -oppression more and more difficult and dangerous. -</p> -<p> -We must remark, too, that the economic principle of morality does not fail -to act likewise on the oppressor. An injurious act is productive of both -good and evil; evil for the man who is subject to it, and good for the man -who avails himself of it; without which indeed it would not have been -thought of. But the good and the evil are far from compensating each -other. The sum total of evil always and necessarily preponderates over the -good; because the very fact that oppression is present entails a loss of -power, creates dangers, provokes reprisals, and renders, costly -precautions necessary. The simple explanation of these effects, then, not -only provokes reaction on the part of the oppressed, but brings over to -the side of justice all whose hearts are not perverted, and disturbs the -security of the oppressors themselves. -</p> -<p> -But it is easy to understand that this economic principle of morality, -which is rather virtual than formal; which is only, after all, a -scientific demonstration, which would lose its efficacy if it changed its -character; which addresses itself not to the heart, but to the intellect; -which aims at convincing rather than persuading; which does not give -advice, but furnishes proofs; whose mission is not to touch the feelings, -but enlighten the judgment, which obtains over vice no other victory than -that of depriving it of support; it is easy, I say, to understand why this -principle of morality should be accused of being dry and prosaic. -</p> -<p> -The reproach is well founded in itself, without being just in its -application. It just amounts to saying that political economy does not -discuss everything, that it does not comprehend everything—that it -is not, in short, universal science. But who ever claimed for it this -character, or put forward on its behalf so exorbitant a pretension? -</p> -<p> -The accusation would be well founded only if political economy presented -its processes as exclusive, and had the presumption, if we may so speak, -to deny to philosophy and religion their own proper and peculiar means of -working for the cultivation and improvement of man. -</p> -<p> -Let us admit, then, the simultaneous action of morality, properly so -called, and of political economy; the one branding the injurious act in -its motive, and exposing its unseemliness, the other discrediting it in -our judgment, by a picture of its effects. -</p> -<p> -Let us admit even that the triumph of the religious moralist, when -achieved, is more beautiful, more consoling, more fundamental But we must -at the same time acknowledge that the triumph of the economist is more -easy and more certain. -</p> -<p> -In a few lines, which are worth many large volumes, J. B. Say has said -that, to put an end to the disorder introduced into an honourable family -by hypocrisy there are only two alternatives: to <i>reform Tartuffe, or -sharpen the wits of Orgon</i>. Molière, that great painter of the human -heart, appears constantly to have regarded the second of these processes -as the more efficacious. -</p> -<p> -It is the same thing in real life, and on the stage of the world. -</p> -<p> -Tell me what Cæsar did, and I will tell you what the character was of the -Romans of his time. -</p> -<p> -Tell me what modern diplomacy accomplishes, and I will tell you what is -the moral condition of the nations among whom it is exercised. -</p> -<p> -We should not be paying nearly two milliards [£80,000,000 sterling] of -taxes, if we did not empower those who live upon them to vote them. -</p> -<p> -We should not have been landed in all the difficulties and charges to -which the African question has given rise, had we had our eyes open to the -fact that <i>two and two make four, in political economy, as well as in -arithmetic</i>. -</p> -<p> -M. Guizot would not have felt himself authorized to say that <i>France is -rich enough to pay for her glory</i>, if France had never been smitten -with the love of false glory. -</p> -<p> -The same statesman would never have ventured to say that liberty is too -precious a thing for France to stand higgling about its price, had France -only reflected that a <i>heavy budget and liberty are incompatible</i>. -</p> -<p> -It is not by monopolists, but by their victims, that monopolies are -maintained. -</p> -<p> -In the matter of elections, it is not because there are parties who offer -bribes that there are parties open to receive them, but the contrary; and -the proof of this is, that it is the parties who receive the bribes who, -in the long run, defray the cost of corruption. Is it not their business -to put an end to the practice? -</p> -<p> -Let the religious principle of morality, if it can, touch the hearts of -the Tartuffes, the Cæsars, the planters of colonies, the sinecurists, the -monopolists, etc. The clear duty of political economy is to enlighten -their dupes. -</p> -<p> -Of these two processes, which exercises the more efficacious influence on -social progress? I feel it almost unnecessary to say, that I believe it is -the second; and I fear we can never exempt mankind from the necessity of -learning first of all <i>defensive morality</i>. -</p> -<p> -After all I have heard and read and observed, I have never yet met with an -instance of an abuse which had been in operation on a somewhat extensive -scale, put an end to by the voluntary renunciation of those who profit by -it. -</p> -<p> -On the other hand, I have seen many abuses put down by the determined -resistance of those who suffered from them. -</p> -<p> -To expose the effects of abuses, then, is the surest means of putting an -end to them. And this holds especially true of abuses like the policy of -restriction, which, whilst inflicting real evils on the masses, are -productive of nothing to those who imagine they profit by them but -illusion and deception! -</p> -<p> -After all, can the kind of morality we are advocating of itself enable us -to realize all that social perfection which the sympathetic nature of the -soul of man and its noble faculties authorize us to look forward to and -hope for? I am far from saying so. Assume the complete diffusion of -defensive morality, it resolves itself simply into the conviction that -men's interests, rightly understood, are always in accord with justice and -general utility. Such a society, although certainly well ordered, would -not be very attractive. There would be fewer cheats simply because there -would be fewer dupes. Vice always lurking in the background, and starved, -so to speak, for want of support, would revive the moment that support was -restored to it. -</p> -<p> -The prudence of each would be enforced by the vigilance of all; and -reform, confining itself to the regulation of external acts, and never -going deeper than the skin, would fail to penetrate men's hearts and -consciences. Such a society would remind us of one of those exact, -rigorous, and just men, who are ready to resent the slightest invasion of -their rights, and to defend themselves on all sides from attacks. You -esteem them; you perhaps admire them; you would elect them as deputies; -but you would never make them your friends. -</p> -<p> -But the two principles of morality I have described, instead of running -counter to each other, work in concert, attacking vice from opposite -directions. Whilst the economists are doing their part, sharpening the -wits of the Orgons, eradicating prejudices, exciting just and necessary -distrust, studying and explaining the true nature of things and of -actions, let the religious moralist accomplish on his side his more -attractive, although more difficult, labours. Let him attack dishonesty in -a hand-to-hand fight; let him pursue it into the most secret recesses of -the heart; let him paint in glowing colours the charms of beneficence, of -self-sacrifice, of devotion; let him open up the fountains of virtue, -where we can only dry up the fountains of vice. This is his duty, and a -noble duty it is. But why should he contest the utility of the duty which -has devolved upon us? -</p> -<p> -In a society which, without being personally and individually virtuous, -would nevertheless be well ordered through the action of the economic -principle of morality (which means a knowledge of the economy of the -social body), would not an opening be made for the work of the religious -moralist? -</p> -<p> -Habit, it is said, is a second nature. -</p> -<p> -A country might still be unhappy, although for a long time each man may -have been unused to injustice through the continued resistance of an -enlightened public. But such a country, it seems to me, would be well -prepared to receive a system of teaching more pure and elevated. We get a -considerable way on the road to good, when we become unused to evil. Men -can never remain stationary. Diverted from the path of vice, feeling that -it leads only to infamy, they would feel so much the more sensibly the -attractions of virtue. -</p> -<p> -Society must perhaps pass through this prosaic state of transition, in -which men practise virtue from motives of prudence, in order to rise -afterwards to that fairer and more poetic region where such calculating -motives are no longer wanted. -</p> -<p> -<br /><br /> -</p> -<hr /> -<p> -<a name="link2H_4_0030" id="link2H_4_0030"> </a> -</p> -<div style="height: 4em;"> -<br /><br /><br /><br /> -</div> -<h2> -III. THE TWO HATCHETS. -</h2> -<p> -<i>Petition of Jacques Bonhomme, Carpenter, to M. Cunin-Gridaine, Minister -of Commerce</i>. -</p> -<p> -Monsieur le Fabricant-Ministre, -</p> -<p> -I am a carpenter to trade, as was St Joseph of old; and I handle the -hatchet and adze, for your benefit. -</p> -<p> -Now, while engaged in hewing and chopping from morning to night upon the -lands of our Lord the King, the idea has struck me that my labour may be -regarded as <i>national</i>, as well as yours. -</p> -<p> -And, in these circumstances, I cannot see why protection should not visit -my woodyard as well as your workshop. -</p> -<p> -For, sooth to say, if you make cloths I make roofs; and both, in their own -way, shelter our customers from cold and from rain. -</p> -<p> -And yet I run after customers; and customers run after you. You have found -out the way of securing them by hindering them from supplying themselves -elsewhere, while mine apply to whomsoever they think proper. -</p> -<p> -What is astonishing in all this? Monsieur Cunin, the Minister of State, -has not forgotten M. Cunin, the manufacturer—all quite natural. But, -alas! my humble trade has not given a Minister to France, although -practised, in Scripture times, by far more august personages. -</p> -<p> -And in the immortal code which I find embodied in Scripture, I cannot -discover the slightest expression which could be quoted by carpenters, as -authorizing them to enrich themselves at the expense of other people. -</p> -<p> -You see, then, how I am situated. I earn fifteen pence a day, when it is -not Sunday or holiday. I offer you my services at the same time as a -Flemish carpenter offers you his, and, because he abates a halfpenny, you -give him the preference. -</p> -<p> -But I desire to clothe myself; and if a Belgian weaver presents his cloth -alongside of yours, you drive him and his cloth out of the country. -</p> -<p> -So that, being forced to frequent your shop, although the dearest, my poor -fifteen pence go no further in reality than fourteen. -</p> -<p> -Nay, they are not worth more than thirteen! for in place of expelling the -Belgian weaver at your own cost (which was the least you could do), you, -for your own ends, make me pay for the people you set at his heels. -</p> -<p> -And as a great number of your co-legislators, with whom you are on a -marvellously good footing, take each a halfpenny or a penny, under pretext -of protecting iron, or coal, or oil, or corn, I find, when everything is -taken into account, that of my fifteen pence, I have only been able to -save seven pence or eight pence from pillage. -</p> -<p> -You will no doubt tell me that these small halfpence, which pass in this -way from my pocket to yours, maintain workpeople who reside around your -castle, and enable you to live in a style of magnificence. To which I will -only reply, that if the pence had been left with me, the person who earned -them, they would have maintained workpeople in my neighbourhood. -</p> -<p> -Be this as it may, Monsieur le Ministre-fabricant, knowing that I should -be but ill received by you, I have not come to require you, as I had good -right to do, to withdraw the restriction which you impose on your -customers. I prefer following the ordinary course, and I approach you to -solicit a little bit of protection for myself. -</p> -<p> -Here, of course, you will interpose a difficulty. "My good friend," you -will say, "I would protect you and your fellow-workmen with all my heart; -but how can I confer customhouse favours on carpenter-work? What use would -it be to prohibit the importation of houses by sea or by land?" -</p> -<p> -That would be a good joke, to be sure; but, by dint of thinking, I have -discovered another mode of favouring the children of St Joseph; which you -will welcome the more willingly, I hope, as it differs in nothing from -that which constitutes the privilege which you vote year after year in -your own favour. -</p> -<p> -The means of favouring us, which I have thus marvellously discovered, is -to prohibit the use of sharp axes in this country. -</p> -<p> -I maintain that such a restriction would not be in the least more -illogical or more arbitrary than the one to which you subject us in the -case of your cloth. -</p> -<p> -Why do you drive away the Belgians? Because they sell cheaper than you. -And why do they sell cheaper than you? Because they have a certain degree -of superiority over you as manufacturers. -</p> -<p> -Between you and a Belgian, therefore, there is exactly the same difference -as in my trade there would be between a blunt and a sharp axe. -</p> -<p> -And you force me, as a tradesman, to purchase from you the product of the -blunt hatchet? -</p> -<p> -Regard the country at large as a workman who desires, by his labour, to -procure all things he has want of, and, among others, cloth. -</p> -<p> -There are two means of effecting this. -</p> -<p> -The first is to spin and weave the wool. -</p> -<p> -The second is to produce other articles, as, for example, French clocks, -paper-hangings, or wines, and exchange them with the Belgians for the -cloth wanted. -</p> -<p> -Of these two processes, the one which gives the best result may be -represented by the sharp axe, and the other by the blunt one. -</p> -<p> -You do not deny that at present, in France, we obtain a piece of stuff by -the work of our own looms (that is the blunt axe) <i>with more labour</i> -than by producing and exchanging wines (that is the sharp axe). So far are -you from denying this, that it is precisely because of this <i>excess of -labour</i> (in which you make wealth to consist) that you recommend, nay, -that you <i>compel</i> the employment of the worse of the two hatchets. -</p> -<p> -Now, only be consistent, be impartial, and if you mean to be just, treat -the poor carpenters as you treat yourselves. -</p> -<p> -Pass a law to this effect: -</p> -<p> -"<i>No one shall henceforth be permitted to employ any beams or rafters, -but such as are produced and fashioned by blunt hatchets</i>." -</p> -<p> -And see what will immediately happen. -</p> -<p> -Whereas at present we give a hundred blows of the axe, we shall then give -three hundred. The work which we now do in an hour will then require three -hours. What a powerful encouragement will thus be given to labour! -Masters, journeymen, apprentices! our sufferings are now at an end. We -shall be in demand; and, therefore, well paid. Whoever shall henceforth -desire to have a roof to cover him must comply with our exactions, just as -at present whoever desires clothes to his back must comply with yours. -</p> -<p> -And should the theoretical advocates of free trade ever dare to call in -question the utility of the measure, we know well where to seek for -reasons to confute them Your Inquiry of 1834 is still to be had. With that -weapon, we shall conquer; for you have there admirably pleaded the cause -of restriction, and of blunt axes, which are in reality the same thing. -</p> -<p> -<br /><br /> -</p> -<hr /> -<p> -<a name="link2H_4_0031" id="link2H_4_0031"> </a> -</p> -<div style="height: 4em;"> -<br /><br /><br /><br /> -</div> -<h2> -IV. LOWER COUNCIL OF LABOUR. -</h2> -<p class="pfirst"><span class="dropcap" style="font-size: 4.00em">W</span>hat! you have the face to demand for all citizens a right to sell, buy, -barter, and exchange; to render and receive service for service, and to -judge for themselves, on the single condition that they do all honestly, -and comply with the demands of the public treasury? Then you simply desire -to deprive our workmen of employment, of wages, and of bread?" -</p> -<p> -This is what is said to us. I know very well what to think of it; but what -I wish to know is, what the workmen themselves think of it. -</p> -<p> -I have at hand an excellent instrument of inquiry. Not those Upper -Councils of Industry, where extensive proprietors who call themselves -labourers, rich shipowners who call themselves sailors, and wealthy -shareholders who pass themselves off for workmen, turn their philanthropy -to account in a way which we all know. -</p> -<p> -No; it is with workmen, who are workmen in reality, that we have to do—joiners, -carpenters, masons, tailors, shoemakers, dyers, blacksmiths, innkeepers, -grocers, etc., etc.,—and who, in my village, have founded a friendly -society. -</p> -<p> -I have transformed this friendly society, at my own hand, into a Lower -Council of Labour, and instituted an inquiry which will be found of great -importance, although it is not crammed with figures, or inflated to the -bulk of a quarto volume, printed at the expense of the State. -</p> -<p> -My object was to interrogate these plain, simple people as to the manner -in which they are, or believe themselves to be, affected by the policy of -protection. The president pointed out that this would be infringing to -some extent on the fundamental conditions of the Association. For in -France, this land of liberty, people who associate give up their right to -talk politics—in other words, their right to discuss their common -interests. However, after some hesitation, he agreed to include the -question in the order of the day. -</p> -<p> -They divided the assembly into as many committees as there were groups of -distinct trades, and delivered to each committee a schedule to be filled -up after fifteen days' deliberation. -</p> -<p> -On the day fixed, the worthy president (we adopt the official style) took -the chair, and there were laid upon the table (still the official style) -fifteen reports, which he read in succession. -</p> -<p> -The first which was taken into consideration was that of the tailors. Here -is an exact and literal copy of it:— -</p> -<h3> -EFFECTS OF PROTECTION.—REPORT OF THE TAILORS. -</h3> -<p> -Inconveniences. -</p> -<p> -1st, In consequence of the policy of protection, we pay dearer for bread, -meat, sugar, firewood, thread, needles, etc., which is equivalent in our -case to a considerable reduction of wages. -</p> -<p> -2d, In consequence of the policy of 'protection, our customers also pay -dearer for everything, and this leaves them less to spend upon clothing; -whence it follows that we have less employment, and, consequently, smaller -returns. -</p> -<p> -3d, In consequence of the policy of protection, the stuffs which we make -up are dear, and people on that account wear their clothes longer, or -dispense with part of them. This, again, is equivalent to a diminution of -employment, and forces us to offer our services at a lower rate of -remuneration. -</p> -<p> -Advantages. -</p> -<p> -None. -</p> -<p> -Note.—After all our inquiries, deliberations, and discussions, we -have been quite unable to discover that in any respect whatever the policy -of protection has been of advantage to our trade. -</p> -<p> -Here is another report:— -</p> -<h3> -EFFECTS OF PROTECTION.—REPORT OF THE BLACKSMITHS. -</h3> -<p> -Inconveniences. -</p> -<p> -1st, The policy of protection imposes a tax upon us every time we eat, -drink, or warm or clothe ourselves, and this tax does not go to the -treasury. -</p> -<p> -2d, It imposes a like tax upon all our fellow-citizens who are not of our -trade, and they, being so much the poorer, have recourse to cheap -substitutes for our work, which deprives us of the employment we should -otherwise have had. None. -</p> -<p> -3d, It keeps up iron at so high a price, that it is not employed in the -country for ploughs, grates, gates, balconies, etc.; and our trade, which -might furnish employment to so many other people who are in want of it, no -longer furnishes employment to ourselves. -</p> -<p> -4th, The revenue which the treasury fails to obtain from commodities which -are not imported is levied upon the salt we use, postages, etc. -</p> -<p> -All the other reports (with which it is unnecessary to trouble the reader) -are to the same tune. Gardeners, carpenters, shoemakers, clogmakers, -boatmen, millers, all give vent to the same complaints. -</p> -<p> -I regret that there are no agricultural labourers in our association. -Their report would assuredly have been very instructive. -</p> -<p> -But, alas! in our country of the Landes, the poor labourers, protected -though they be, have not the means of joining an association, and, having -insured their cattle, they find they cannot themselves become members of a -friendly society. The boon of protection does not hinder them from being -the parias of our social order. What shall I say of the vine-dressers? -</p> -<p> -What I remark, especially, is the good sense displayed by our villagers in -perceiving not only the direct injury which the policy of protection does -them, but the indirect injury, which, although in the first instance -affecting their customers, falls back, <i>par ricochet</i>, upon -themselves. -</p> -<p> -This is what the economists of the <i>Moniteur Industriel</i> do not -appear to understand. -</p> -<p> -And perhaps those men whose eyes a dash of protection has fascinated, -especially our agriculturists, would be willing to give it up, if they -were enabled to see this side of the question. -</p> -<p> -In that case they might perhaps say to themselves, "Better far to be -self-supported in the midst of a set of customers in easy circumstances, -than to be protected in the midst of an impoverished clientèle." -</p> -<p> -For to desire to enrich by turns each separate branch of industry by -creating a void round each in succession, is as vain an attempt as it -would be for a man to try to leap over his own shadow. -</p> -<p> -<br /><br /> -</p> -<hr /> -<p> -<a name="link2H_4_0032" id="link2H_4_0032"> </a> -</p> -<div style="height: 4em;"> -<br /><br /><br /><br /> -</div> -<h2> -V. DEARNESS-CHEAPNESS. -</h2> -<p class="pfirst"><span class="dropcap" style="font-size: 4.00em">I</span> think it necessary to submit to the reader some theoretical remarks on -the illusions to which the words dearness and cheapness give rise. At -first sight, these remarks may, I feel, be regarded as subtle, but the -question is not whether they are subtle or the reverse, but whether they -are true. Now, I not only believe them to be perfectly true, but to be -well fitted to suggest matter of reflection to men (of whom there are not -a few) who have sincere faith in the efficacy of a protectionist policy. -</p> -<p> -The advocates of Liberty and the defenders of Restriction are both obliged -to employ the expressions, dearness, cheapness. The former declare -themselves in favour of cheapness with a view to the interest of the -consumer; the latter pronounce in favour of dearness, having regard -especially to the interest of the producer. Others content themselves with -saying, The producer and consumer are one and the same person; which -leaves undecided the question whether the law should promote cheapness or -dearness. -</p> -<p> -In the midst of this conflict, it would seem that the law has only one -course to follow, and that is to allow prices to settle and adjust -themselves naturally. But then we are attacked by the bitter enemies of <i>laissez -faire</i>. At all hazards they want the law to interfere, without knowing -or caring in what direction. And yet it lies with those who desire to -create by legal intervention an artificial dearness or an unnatural -cheapness, to explain the grounds of their preference. The <i>onus -probandi</i> rests upon them exclusively. Liberty is always esteemed good, -till the contrary is proved; and to allow prices to settle and adjust -themselves naturally, is liberty. -</p> -<p> -But the parties to this dispute have changed positions. The advocates of -dearness have secured the triumph of their system, and it lies with the -defenders of natural prices to prove the goodness of their cause. On both -sides, the argument turns on two words; and it is therefore very essential -to ascertain what these two words really mean. -</p> -<p> -But we must first of all notice a series of facts which are fitted to -disconcert the champions of both camps. -</p> -<p> -To engender dearness, the restrictionists have obtained protective duties, -and a cheapness, which is to them inexplicable, has come to deceive their -hopes. -</p> -<p> -To create cheapness, the free-traders have occasionally succeeded in -securing liberty, and, to their astonishment, an elevation of prices has -been the consequence. -</p> -<p> -For example, in France, in order to favour agriculture, a duty of 22 per -cent has been imposed on foreign wool, and it has turned out that French -wool has been sold at a lower price after the measure than before it. -</p> -<p> -In England, to satisfy the consumer, they lowered, and ultimately removed, -the duty on foreign wool; and it has come to pass that in that country the -price of wool is higher than ever. -</p> -<p> -And these are not isolated facts; for the price of wool is governed by -precisely the same laws which govern the price of everything else. The -same result is produced in all analogous cases. Contrary to expectation, -protection has, to some extent, brought about a fall, and competition, to -some extent, a rise of prices. -</p> -<p> -When the confusion of ideas thence arising had reached its height, the -protectionists began saying to their adversaries, "It is our system which -brings about the cheapness of which you boast so much." To which the reply -was, "It is liberty which has induced the dearness which you find so -useful."* -</p> -<p> -At this rate, would it not be amusing to see cheapness become the -watch-word of the Rue Hauteville, and dearness the watchword of the Rue -Choiseul? -</p> -<p> -Evidently there is in all this a misconception, an illusion, which it is -necessary to clear up; and this is what I shall now endeavour to do. -</p> -<p> -Put the case of two isolated nations, each composed of a million of -inhabitants. Grant that, <i>coteris paribus</i>, the one possesses double -the quantity of everything,—corn, meat, iron, furniture, fuel, -books, clothing, etc.,—which the other possesses. -</p> -<p> -It will be granted that the one is twice as rich as the other. -</p> -<p> -And yet there is no reason to affirm that a difference in <i>actual money -prices</i>** exists in the two countries. Nominal prices may perhaps be -higher in the richer country. It may be that in the United States -everything is nominally dearer than in Poland, and that the population of -the former country should, nevertheless, be better provided with all that -they need; whence we infer that it is not the nominal price of products, -but their comparative abundance, which constitutes wealth. When, then, we -desire to pronounce an opinion on the comparative merits of restriction -and free-trade, we should not inquire which of the two systems engenders -dearness or cheapness, but which of the two brings abundance or scarcity. -</p> -<pre xml:space="preserve"> -* Recently, M. Duchâtel, who had formerly advocated free -trade, with a view to low prices, said to the Chamber: It -would not be difficult for me to prove that protection leads -to cheapness. - -**The expression, <i>prix absolus</i> (absolute prices), which -the author employs here and in chap. xi. of the First Series -(ante), is not, I think, used by English economists, and -from the context in both instances I take it to mean <i>actual -money prices;</i> or what Adam Smith terms <i>nominal prices</i>,— -Translator. -</pre> -<p> -For, observe this, that products being exchanged for each other, a -relative scarcity of all, and a relative abundance of all, leave the -nominal prices of commodities in general at the same point; but this -cannot be affirmed of the relative condition of the inhabitants of the two -countries. -</p> -<p> -Let us dip a little deeper still into this subject. -</p> -<p> -When we see an increase and a reduction of duties produce effects so -different from what we had expected, depreciation often following -taxation, and enhancement following free trade, it becomes the imperative -duty of political economy to seek an explanation of phenomena so much -opposed to received ideas; for it is needless to say that a science, if it -is worthy of the name, is nothing else than a faithful statement and a -sound explanation of facts. -</p> -<p> -Now the phenomenon we are here examining is explained very satisfactorily -by a circumstance of which we must never lose sight. -</p> -<p> -Dearness is due to two causes, and not to one only. -</p> -<p> -The same thing holds of cheapness. -</p> -<p> -It is one of the least disputed points in political economy that price is -determined by the relative state of supply and demand. -</p> -<p> -There are then two terms which affect price—supply and demand. These -terms are essentially variable. They may be combined in the same -direction, in contrary directions, and in infinitely varied proportions. -Hence the combinations of which price is the result are inexhaustible. -</p> -<p> -High price may be the result, either of diminished supply, or of increased -demand. -</p> -<p> -Low price may be the result of increased supply, or of diminished demand. -</p> -<p> -Hence there are two kinds of dearness, and two kinds of cheapness. -</p> -<p> -There is a <i>dearness</i> of an injurious kind, that which proceeds from -a diminution of supply, for that implies scarcity, privation (such as has -been felt this year* from the scarcity of corn); and there is a dearness -of a beneficial kind, that which results from an increase of demand, for -the latter presupposes the development of general wealth. -</p> -<pre xml:space="preserve"> -* This was written in 1847.—Translator. -</pre> -<p> -In the same way, there is a <i>cheapness</i> which is desirable, that -which has its source in abundance; and an injurious cheapness, that has -for its cause the failure of demand, and the impoverishment of consumers. -</p> -<p> -Now, be pleased to remark this; that restriction tends to induce, at the -same time, both the injurious cause of dearness, and the injurious cause -of cheapness: injurious dearness, by diminishing the supply, for this is -the avowed object of restriction; and injurious cheapness, by diminishing -also the demand; seeing that it gives a false direction to labour and -capital, and fetters consumers with taxes and trammels. -</p> -<p> -So that, as regards price, these two tendencies neutralize each other; and -this is the reason why the restrictive system, restraining, as it does, -demand and supply at one and the same time, does not in the long run -realize even that dearness which is its object. -</p> -<p> -But, as regards the condition of the population, these causes do not at -all neutralize each other; on the contrary, they concur in making it -worse. -</p> -<p> -The effect of freedom of trade is exactly the opposite. In its general -result, it may be that it does not realize the cheapness it promises; for -it has two tendencies, one towards desirable cheapness through the -extension of supply, or abundance; the other towards appreciable dearness -by the development of demand, or general wealth. These two tendencies -neutralize each other in what concerns nominal price, but they concur in -what regards the material prosperity of the population. -</p> -<p> -In short, under the restrictive system, in as far as it is operative, men -recede towards a state of things, in which both demand and supply are -enfeebled. Under a system of freedom, they progress towards a state of -things in which both are developed simultaneously, and without necessarily -affecting nominal prices. Such prices form no good criterion of wealth. -They may remain the same whilst society is falling into a state of the -most abject poverty, or whilst it is advancing towards a state of the -greatest prosperity. -</p> -<p> -We shall now, in a few words, show the practical application of this -doctrine. -</p> -<p> -A cultivator of the south of France believes himself to be very rich, -because he is protected by duties from external competition. He may be as -poor as Job; but he nevertheless imagines that sooner or later he will get -rich by protection. In these circumstances, if we ask him the question -which was put by the Odier Committee in these words,— -</p> -<p> -"Do you desire—yes or no—to be subject to foreign -competition?" His first impulse is to answer "No," and the Odier Committee -proudly welcome his response. -</p> -<p> -However, we must go a little deeper into the matter. Unquestionably, -foreign competition—nay, competition in general—is always -troublesome; and if one branch of trade alone could get quit of it, that -branch of trade would for some time profit largely. -</p> -<p> -But protection is not an isolated favour; it is a system. If, to the -profit of the agriculturist, protection tends to create a scarcity of corn -and of meat, it tends likewise to create, to the profit of other -industries, a scarcity of iron, of cloth, of fuel, tools, etc.,—a -scarcity, in short, of everything. -</p> -<p> -Now, if a scarcity of corn tends to enhance its price through a diminution -of supply, the scarcity of all other commodities for which corn is -exchanged tends to reduce the price of corn by a diminution of demand, so -that it is not at all certain that ultimately corn will be a penny dearer -than it would have been under a system of free trade. There is nothing -certain in the whole process but this—that as there is upon the -whole less of every commodity in the country, each man will be less -plentifully provided with everything he has occasion to buy. -</p> -<p> -The agriculturist should ask himself whether it would not be more for his -interest that a certain quantity of corn and cattle should be imported -from abroad, and that he should at the same time find himself surrounded -by a population in easy circumstances, able and willing to consume and pay -for all sorts of agricultural produce. -</p> -<p> -Suppose a department in which the people are clothed in rags, fed upon -chesnuts, and lodged in hovels. How can agriculture flourish in such a -locality? What can the soil be made to produce with a well-founded -expectation of fair remuneration? Meat? The people do not eat it. Milk? -They must content themselves with water. Butter? It is regarded as a -luxury. Wool? The use of it is dispensed with as much as possible. Does -any one imagine that all the ordinary objects of consumption can thus be -put beyond the reach of the masses, without tending to lower prices as -much as protection is tending to raise them? -</p> -<p> -What has been said of the agriculturist holds equally true of the -manufacturer. Our manufacturers of cloth assure us that external -competition will lower prices by increasing the supply. Granted; but will -not these prices be again raised by an increased demand? Is the -consumption of cloth a fixed and invariable quantity? Has every man as -much of it as he would wish to have? And if general wealth is advanced and -developed by the abolition of all these taxes and restrictions, will the -first use to which this emancipation is turned by the population not be to -dress better? -</p> -<p> -The question,—the constantly-recurring question,—then, is not -to find out whether protection is favourable to any one special branch of -industry, but whether, when everything is weighed, balanced, and taken -into account, restriction is, in its own nature, more productive than -liberty. -</p> -<p> -Now, no one will venture to maintain this. On the contrary, we are -perpetually met with the admission, "You are right in principle." -</p> -<p> -If it be so, if restriction confers no benefit on individual branches of -industry without doing a greater amount of injury to general wealth, we -are forced to conclude that actual money prices, considered by themselves, -only express a relation between each special branch of industry and -industry in general, between supply and demand; and that, on this account, -a remunerative price, which is the professed object of protection, is -rather injured than favoured by the system. -</p> -<h3> -SUPPLEMENT.* -</h3> -<pre xml:space="preserve"> -* What follows appeared in the <i>Libre Échange</i> of 1st August -1847.—Editor. -</pre> -<p> -The article which we have published under the title of Dearness, -Cheapness, has brought us several letters. We give them, along with our -replies:— -</p> -<p> -Mr Editor,—You upset all our ideas. I endeavoured to aid the cause -of free trade, and found it necessary to urge the consideration of -cheapness. I went about everywhere, saying, "When freedom of trade is -accorded, bread, meat, cloth, linen, iron, fuel, will go on falling in -price." This displeased those who sell, but gave great pleasure to those -who buy these commodities. And now you throw out doubts as to whether free -trade will bring us cheapness or not. What, then, is to be gained by it? -What gain will it be to the people if foreign competition, which may -damage their sales, does not benefit them in their purchases? -</p> -<p> -Mr Free-trader,—Allow us to tell you that you must have read only -half the article which has called forth your letter. We said that free -trade acts exactly in the same way as roads, canals, railways, and -everything else which facilitates communication by removing obstacles. Its -first tendency is to increase the supply of the commodity freed from duty, -and consequently to lower its price. But by augmenting at the same time -the supply of all other commodities for which this article is exchanged, -it increases the demand, and the price by this means rises again. You ask -what gain this would be to the people? Suppose a balance with several -scales, in each of which is deposited a certain quantity of the articles -you have enumerated. If you add to the corn in one scale it will tend to -fall; but if you add a little cloth, a little iron, a little fuel, to what -the other scales contained, you will redress the equilibrium. If you look -only at the beam, you will find nothing changed. But if you look at the -people for whose use these articles are produced, you will find them -better fed, clothed, and warmed. -</p> -<p> -Mr Editor,—I am a manufacturer of cloth, and a protectionist. I -confess that your article on dearness and cheapness has made me reflect. -It contains something specious which would require to be well established -before we declare ourselves converted. -</p> -<p> -Mr Protectionist,—We say that your restrictive measures have an -iniquitous object in view, namely, artificial dearness. But we do not -affirm that they always realize the hopes of those who promote them. It is -certain that they inflict on the consumer all the injurious consequences -of scarcity. It is not certain that they always confer a corresponding -advantage on the producer. Why? Because if they diminish the supply, they -diminish also the demand. -</p> -<p> -This proves that there is in the economic arrangement of this world a -moral force, a <i>vis medieatrix</i>, which causes unjust ambition in the -long run to fall a prey to self-deception. -</p> -<p> -Would you have the goodness, Sir, to remark that one of the elements of -the prosperity of each individual branch of industry is the general wealth -of the community. The value of a house is not always in proportion to what -it has cost, but likewise in proportion to the number and fortune of the -tenants. Are two houses exactly similar necessarily of the same value? By -no means, if the one is situated in Paris and the other in Lower Brittany. -Never speak of price without taking into account collateral circumstances, -and let it be remembered that no attempt is so bootless as to endeavour to -found the prosperity of parts on the ruin of the whole. And yet this is -what the policy of restriction pretends to do. -</p> -<p> -Consider what would have happened at Paris, for example, if this strife of -interests had been attended with success. -</p> -<p> -Suppose that the first shoemaker who established himself in that city had -succeeded in ejecting all others; that the first tailor, the first mason, -the first printer, the first watchmaker, the first physician, the first -baker, had been equally successful. Paris would at this moment have been -still a village of 1200 or 1500 inhabitants. It has turned out very -differently. The market of Paris has been open to all (excepting those -whom you still keep out), and it is this freedom which has enlarged and -aggrandized it. The struggles of competition have been bitter and long -continued, and this is what has made Paris a city of a million of -inhabitants. The general wealth has increased, no doubt; but has the -individual wealth of the shoemakers and tailors been diminished? This is -the question you have to ask. You may say that according as the number of -competitors increased, the price of their products would go on falling. -Has it done so? No; for if the supply has been augmented, the demand has -been enlarged. -</p> -<p> -The same thing will hold good of your commodity, cloth; let it enter -freely. You will have more competitors in the trade, it is true; but you -will have more customers, and, above all, richer customers. Is it possible -you can never have thought of this, when you see nine-tenths of your -fellow-citizens underclothed in winter, for want of the commodity which -you manufacture? -</p> -<p> -If you wish to prosper, allow your customers to thrive. This is a lesson -which you have* been very long in learning. When it is thoroughly learnt, -each man will seek his own interest in the general good; and then -jealousies between man and man, town and town, province and province, -nation and nation, will no longer trouble the world. -</p> -<p> -<br /><br /> -</p> -<hr /> -<p> -<a name="link2H_4_0033" id="link2H_4_0033"> </a> -</p> -<div style="height: 4em;"> -<br /><br /><br /><br /> -</div> -<h2> -VI. TO ARTISANS AND WORKMEN. -</h2> -<p class="pfirst"><span class="dropcap" style="font-size: 4.00em">M</span>any journals have attacked me in your presence and hearing. Perhaps you -will not object to read my defence? -</p> -<p> -I am not suspicious. When a man writes or speaks, I take for granted that -he believes what he says. -</p> -<p> -And yet, after reading and re-reading the journals to which I now reply, I -seem unable to discover any other than melancholy tendencies. -</p> -<p> -Our present business is to inquire which is more favourable to your -interests,—liberty or restriction. -</p> -<p> -I believe that it is liberty,—they believe that it is restriction. -It is for each party to prove his own thesis. -</p> -<p> -Was it necessary to insinuate that we free-traders are the agents of -England, of the south of France, of the government? -</p> -<p> -On this point, you see how easy recrimination would be. -</p> -<p> -We are the agents of England, they say, because some of us employ the -words meeting and free-trader! -</p> -<p> -And do they not make use of the words drawback and budget? -</p> -<p> -We, it would seem, imitate Cobden and the English democracy! -</p> -<p> -And do they not parody Lord George Bentinck and the British aristocracy? -</p> -<p> -We borrow from perfidious Albion the doctrine of liberty! -</p> -<p> -And do they not borrow from the same source the quibbles of protection? -</p> -<p> -We follow the lead of Bordeaux and the south! -</p> -<p> -And do they not avail themselves of the cupidity of Lille and the north? -</p> -<p> -We favour the secret designs of the ministry, whose object is to divert -public attention from their real policy! -</p> -<p> -And do they not act in the interest of the civil list, which profits most -of all from the policy of protection? -</p> -<p> -You see, then, very clearly, that if we did not despise this war of -disparagement, arms would not be wanting to carry it on. But this is -beside the question. -</p> -<p> -The question, and we must never lose sight of it, is this: <i>Whether is -it better for the working classes to be free, or not to be free to -purchase foreign commodities?</i> -</p> -<p> -Workmen! they tell you that "If you are free to purchase from the -foreigner those things which you now produce yourselves, you will cease to -produce them; you will be without employment, without wages, and without -bread; it is therefore for your own good to restrain your liberty." -</p> -<p> -This objection returns upon us under two forms:—They say, for -example, "If we clothe ourselves with English cloth; if we make our -ploughs of English iron; if we cut our bread with English knives; if we -wipe our hands with English towels,—what will become of French -workmen, what will become of national labour?" -</p> -<p> -Tell me, workmen! if a man should stand on the quay at Boulogne, and say -to every Englishman who landed, "If you will give me these English boots, -I will give you this French hat;" or, "If you will give me that English -horse, I will give you this French tilbury;" or ask him, "Will you -exchange that machine made at Birmingham, for this clock made at Paris?" -or, again, "Can you arrange to barter this Newcastle coal against this -champagne wine?" Tell me whether, assuming this man to make his proposals -with discernment, any one would be justified in saying that our national -labour, taken in the aggregate, would suffer in consequence? -</p> -<p> -Nor would it make the slightest difference in this respect were we to -suppose twenty such offers to be made in place of one, or a million such -barters to be effected in place of four; nor would it in any respect alter -the case were we to assume the intervention of merchants and money, -whereby such transactions would be greatly facilitated and multiplied. -</p> -<p> -Now, when one country buys from another wholesale, to sell again in -retail, or buys in retail, to sell again in the lump, if we trace the -transaction to its ultimate results, we shall always find that <i>commerce -resolves itself into barter, products for products, services for services. -If, then, barter does no injury to national labour, since it implies as -much national labour given as foreign labour received, it follows that a -hundred thousand millions of such acts of barter would do as little injury -as one</i>. -</p> -<p> -But who would profit? you will ask. The profit consists in turning to most -account the resources of each country, so that the same amount of labour -shall yield everywhere a greater amount of satisfactions and enjoyments. -</p> -<p> -There are some who in your case have recourse to a singular system of -tactics. They begin by admitting the superiority of the free to the -prohibitive system, in order, doubtless, not to have the battle to fight -on this ground. -</p> -<p> -Then they remark that the transition from one system to another is always -attended with some displacement of labour. -</p> -<p> -Lastly, they enlarge on the sufferings, which, in their opinion, such -displacements must always entail. They exaggerate these sufferings, they -multiply them, they make them the principal subject of discussion, they -present them as the exclusive and definitive result of reform, and in this -way they endeavour to enlist you under the banners of monopoly. -</p> -<p> -This is just the system of tactics which has been employed to defend every -system of abuse; and one thing I must plainly avow, that it is this system -of tactics which constantly embarrasses those who advocate reforms, even -those most useful to the people. You will soon see the reason of this. -</p> -<p> -When an abuse has once taken root, everything is arranged on the -assumption of its continuance. Some men depend upon it for subsistence, -others depend upon them, and so on, till a formidable edifice is erected. -</p> -<p> -Would you venture to pull it down? All cry out, and remark this—the -men who bawl out appear always at first sight to be in the right, because -it is far easier to show the derangements which must accompany a reform -than the arrangements which must follow it. -</p> -<p> -The supporters of abuses cite particular instances of sufferings; they -point out particular employers who, with their workmen, and the people who -supply them with materials, are about to be injured; and the poor reformer -can only refer to the general good which must gradually diffuse itself -over the masses. That by no means produces the same sensation. -</p> -<p> -Thus, when the question turns on the abolition of slavery. "Poor men!" is -the language addressed to the negroes, "who is henceforth to support you. -The manager handles the lash, but he likewise distributes the cassava." -</p> -<p> -The slaves regret to part with their chains, for they ask themselves, -"Whence will come the cassava?" -</p> -<p> -They fail to see that it is not the manager who feeds them, but their own -labour—which feeds both them and the manager. -</p> -<p> -When they set about reforming the convents in Spain, they asked the -beggars, "Where will you now find food and clothing? The prior is your -best friend. Is it not very convenient to be in a situation to address -yourselves to him?" -</p> -<p> -And the mendicants replied, "True; if the prior goes away, we see very -clearly that we shall be losers, and we do not see at all so clearly who -is to come in his place." -</p> -<p> -They did not take into account that if the convents bestowed alms, they -lived upon them; so that the nation had more to give away than to receive. -</p> -<p> -In the same way, workmen! monopoly, quite imperceptibly, saddles you with -taxes, and then, with the produce of these taxes, finds you employment. -</p> -<p> -And your sham friends exclaim, "But for monopolies, where would you find -employment?" -</p> -<p> -And you, like the Spanish beggars, reply, "True, true; the employment -which the monopolists find us is certain. The promises of liberty are of -uncertain fulfilment." -</p> -<p> -For you do not see that they take from you in the first instance the money -with part of which they afterwards afford you employment. -</p> -<p> -You ask, Who is to find you employment? And the answer is, that you will -give employment to one another! With the money of which he is no longer -deprived by taxation, the shoemaker will dress better, and give employment -to the tailor. The tailor will more frequently renew his <i>chaussure</i>, -and afford employment to the shoemaker; and the same thing will take place -in all other departments of trade. -</p> -<p> -It has been said that under a system of free trade we should have fewer -workmen in our mines and spinning-mills. -</p> -<p> -I do not think so. But if this happened, we should necessarily have a -greater number of people working freely and independently, either in their -own houses or at out-door employment. -</p> -<p> -For if our mines and spinning-factories are not capable of supporting -themselves, as is asserted, without the aid of taxes levied from the <i>public -at large</i>, the moment these taxes are repealed <i>everybody</i> will be -by so much in better circumstances; and it is this improvement in the -general circumstances of the community which lends support to individual -branches of industry. -</p> -<p> -Pardon my dwelling a little longer on this view of the subject; for my -great anxiety is to see you all ranged on the side of liberty. -</p> -<p> -Suppose that the capital employed in manufactures yields 5 per cent, -profit. But Mondor has an establishment in which he employs £100,000, at a -loss, instead of a profit, of 5 per cent. Between the loss and the gain -supposed there is a difference of £10,000. What takes place? A small tax -of £10,000 is coolly levied from the public, and handed over to Mondor. -You don't see it, for the thing is skilfully disguised. It is not the -tax-gatherer who waits upon you to demand your share of this burden; but -you pay it to Mondor, the ironmaster, every time that you purchase your -trowels, hatchets, and planes. Then they tell you that unless you pay this -tax, Mondor will not be able to give employment; and his workmen, James -and John, must go without work. And yet, if they gave up the tax, it would -enable you to find employment for one another, independently of Mondor. -</p> -<p> -And then, with a little patience, after this smooth pillow of protection -has been taken from under his head, Mondor, you may depend upon it, will -set his wits to work, and contrive to convert his loss into a profit, and -James and John will not be sent away, in which case there will be profit -for everybody. -</p> -<p> -You may still rejoin, "We allow that, after the reform, there will be more -employment, upon the whole, than before; in the meantime, James and John -are starving." -</p> -<p> -To which I reply: -</p> -<p> -1st, That when labour is only displaced, to be augmented, a man who has a -head and hands is seldom left long in a state of destitution. -</p> -<p> -2d, There is nothing to hinder the State's reserving a fund to meet, -during the transition, any temporary want of employment, in which, -however, for my own part, I do not believe. -</p> -<p> -3d, If I do not misunderstand the workmen, they are quite prepared to -encounter any temporary suffering necessarily attendant on a transfer of -labour from one department to another, by which the community are more -likely to be benefited and have justice done them. I only wish I could say -the same thing of their employers! -</p> -<p> -What! will it be said that because you are workmen you are for that reason -unintelligent and immoral? Your pretended friends seem to think so. Is it -not surprising that in your hearing they should discuss such a question, -talking exclusively of wages and profits without ever once allowing the -word justice to pass their lips? And yet they know that restriction is -unjust. Why have they not the courage to admit it, and say to you, -"Workmen! an iniquity prevails in this country, but it is profitable to -you, and we must maintain it." Why? because they know you would disclaim -it. -</p> -<p> -It is not true that this injustice is profitable to you. Give me your -attention for a few moments longer, and then judge for yourselves. -</p> -<p> -What is it that we protect in France? Things which are produced on a great -scale by rich capitalists and in large establishments, as iron, coal, -cloth, and textile fabrics; and they tell you that this is done, not in -the interest of employers, but in yours, and in order to secure you -employment. -</p> -<p> -And yet whenever <i>foreign labour</i> presents itself in our markets, in -such a shape that it may be injurious to you, but advantageous for your -employers, it is allowed to enter without any restriction being imposed. -</p> -<p> -Are there not in Paris thirty thousand Germans who make clothes and shoes? -Why are they permitted to establish themselves alongside of you while the -importation of cloth is restricted? Because cloth is manufactured in grand -establishments which belong to manufacturing legislators. But clothes are -made by workmen in their own houses. In converting wool into cloth, these -gentlemen desire to have no competition, because that is their trade; but -in converting cloth into coats, they allow it, because that is your trade. -</p> -<p> -In making our railways, an embargo was laid on English rails, but English -workmen were brought over. Why was this? Simply because English rails came -into competition with the iron produced in our great establishments, while -the English labourers were only your rivals. -</p> -<p> -We have no wish that German tailors and English navvies should be kept out -of France. What we ask is, that the entry of cloth and rails should be -left free. We simply demand justice and equality before the law, for all. -</p> -<p> -It is a mockery to tell us that customs restrictions are imposed for your -benefit. Tailors, shoemakers, carpenters, masons, blacksmiths, -shopkeepers, grocers, watchmakers, butchers, bakers, dressmakers! I defy -you all to point out a single way in which restriction is profitable to -you, and I shall point out, whenever you desire it, four ways in which it -is hurtful to you. -</p> -<p> -And, after all, see how little foundation your journalists have for -attributing self-abnegation to the monopolists. -</p> -<p> -I may venture to denominate the rate of wages which settles and -establishes itself naturally under a regime of freedom, the <i>natural -rate of wages</i>. When you affirm, therefore, that restriction is -profitable to you, it is tantamount to affirming that it adds an <i>overplus -to your natural</i> wages. Now, a surplus of wages beyond the natural rate -must come from some quarter or other; it does not fall from the skies, but -comes from those who pay it. -</p> -<p> -You are landed, then, in this conclusion by your pretended friends, that -the policy of protection has been introduced in order that the interests -of capitalists should be sacrificed to those of the workmen. -</p> -<p> -Do you think this probable? -</p> -<p> -Where is your place, then, in the Chamber of Peers? When did you take your -seat in the Palais Bourbon? Who has consulted you? And where did this idea -of establishing a policy of protection take its rise? -</p> -<p> -I think I hear you answer, "It is not we who have established it. Alas! we -are neither Peers, nor Deputies, nor Councillors of State. The capitalists -have done it all." -</p> -<p> -Verily, they must have been in a good humour that day! What! these -capitalists have made the law; they have established a policy of -prohibition for the express purpose of enabling you to profit at their -expense! -</p> -<p> -But here is something stranger still. -</p> -<p> -How does it come to pass that your pretended friends, who hold forth to -you on the goodness, the generosity, and the self-abnegation of -capitalists, never cease condoling with you on your being deprived of your -political rights? From their point of view, I would ask what you could -make of such rights if you had them? The capitalists have a monopoly of -legislation;—granted. By means of this monopoly, they have adjudged -themselves a monopoly of iron, of cloth, of textile fabrics, of coal, of -wood, of meat,—granted likewise. But here are your pretended -friends, who tell you that in acting thus, capitalists have impoverished -themselves, without being under any obligation to do so, in order to -enrich you who have no right to be enriched! Assuredly, if you were -electors and deputies tomorrow, you could not manage your affairs better -than they are managed for you; you could not manage them so well. -</p> -<p> -If the industrial legislation under which you live is intended for your -profit, it is an act of perfidy to demand for you political rights; for -these new-fashioned democrats never can get quit of this dilemma—the -law made by the bourgeoisie either gives you more, or it gives you less -than your natural wages. If that law gives you less, they deceive you, in -soliciting you to maintain it. If it gives you more, they still deceive -you, by inviting you to demand political rights at the very time when the -bourgeoisie are making sacrifices for you, which, in common honesty, you -could not by your votes exact, even if you had the power. -</p> -<p> -Workmen! I should be sorry indeed if this address should excite in your -minds feelings of irritation against the rich. If self-interest, ill -understood, or too apt to be alarmed, still maintains monopoly, let us not -forget that monopoly has its root in errors which are common to both -capitalists and labourers. -</p> -<p> -Instead of exciting the one class against the other, let us try to bring -them together. And for that end what ought we to do? If it be true that -the natural social tendencies concur in levelling inequalities among men, -we have only to allow these tendencies to act, remove artificial -obstructions which retard their operation, and allow the relations of the -various classes of society to be established on principles of Justice—principles -always mixed up, in my mind at least, with the principle of Liberty. -</p> -<p> -<br /><br /> -</p> -<hr /> -<p> -<a name="link2H_4_0034" id="link2H_4_0034"> </a> -</p> -<div style="height: 4em;"> -<br /><br /><br /><br /> -</div> -<h2> -VII. A CHINESE STORY. -</h2> -<p class="pfirst"><span class="dropcap" style="font-size: 4.00em">W</span>e hear a great outcry against the cupidity and the egotism of the age! -</p> -<p> -For my own part, I see the world, Paris especially, peopled with Deciuses. -</p> -<p> -Open the thousand volumes, the thousand newspapers of all sorts and sizes, -which the Parisian press vomits forth every day on the country—are -they not all the work of minor saints? -</p> -<p> -How vividly they depict the vices of the times! How touching the -tenderness they display for the masses! How liberally they invite the rich -to share with the poor, if not the poor to share with the rich! How many -plans of social reforms, social ameliorations, and social organizations! -What shallow writer fails to devote himself to the wellbeing of the -working classes? We have only to contribute a few shillings to procure -them leisure to deliver themselves up to their humane lucubrations. -</p> -<p> -And then they declare against the egotism and individualism of our age! -</p> -<p> -There is nothing which they do not pretend to enlist in the service of the -working classes—there is positively no exception, not even the -Customhouse. You fancy, perhaps, that the Customhouse is merely an -instrument of taxation, like the <i>octroi</i> or the toll-bar? Nothing of -the kind. It is essentially an institution for promoting the march of -civilization, fraternity, and equality. What would you be at? It is the -fashion to introduce, or affect to introduce, sentiment and sentimentalism -everywhere, even into the toll-gatherer's booth. -</p> -<p> -The Customhouse, we must allow, has a very singular machinery for -realizing philanthropical aspirations. -</p> -<p> -It includes an army of directors, sub-directors, inspectors, -sub-inspectors, comptrollers, examiners, heads of departments, clerks, -supernumeraries, aspirant-supernumeraries, not to speak of the officers of -the active service; and the object of all this complicated machinery is to -exercise over the industry of the people a negative action, which is -summed up in the word obstruct. -</p> -<p> -Observe, I do not say that the object is to tax, but to obstruct. To -prevent, not acts which are repugnant to good morals or public order, but -transactions which are in themselves not only harmless, but fitted to -maintain peace and union among nations. -</p> -<p> -And yet the human race is so flexible and elastic that it always surmounts -these obstructions. And then we hear of the labour market being glutted. -</p> -<p> -If you hinder a people from obtaining its subsistence from abroad, it will -produce it at home. The labour is greater and more painful, but -subsistence must be had. If you hinder a man from traversing the valley, -he must cross the hills. The road is longer and more difficult, but he -must get to his journey's end. -</p> -<p> -This is lamentable, but we come now to what is ludicrous. When the law has -thus created obstacles, and when, in order to overcome them, society has -diverted a corresponding amount of labour from other employments, you are -no longer permitted to demand a reform. If you point to the obstacle, you -are told of the amount of labour to which it has given employment. And if -you rejoin that this labour is not created, but displaced, you are -answered, in the words of the <i>Esprit Public</i>, "The impoverishment -alone is certain and immediate; as to our enrichment, it is more than -problematical." -</p> -<p> -This reminds me of a Chinese story, which I shall relate to you. -</p> -<p> -There were in China two large towns, called <i>Tchin</i> and <i>Tchan</i>. -</p> -<p> -A magnificent canal united them. The Emperor thought fit to order enormous -blocks of stone to be thrown into it, for the purpose of rendering it -useless. -</p> -<p> -On seeing this, Kouang, his first mandarin, said to him: -</p> -<p> -"Son of Heaven! this is a mistake." -</p> -<p> -To which the Emperor replied: -</p> -<p> -"Kouang! you talk nonsense." -</p> -<p> -I give you only the substance of their conversation. -</p> -<p> -At the end of three months, the Celestial Emperor sent again for the -mandarin, and said to him: -</p> -<p> -"Kouang, behold!" -</p> -<p> -And Kouang opened his eyes, and looked. -</p> -<p> -And he saw at some distance from the canal a multitude of men at work. -Some were excavating, others were filling up hollows, levelling, and -paving; and the mandarin, who was very knowing, said to himself, They are -making a highway. -</p> -<p> -When other three months had elapsed, the Emperor again sent for Kouang, -and said to him: -</p> -<p> -"Look!" -</p> -<p> -And Kouang looked. -</p> -<p> -And he saw the road completed, and from one end of it to the other he saw -here and there inns for travellers erected. Crowds of pedestrians, carts, -palanquins, came and went, and innumerable Chinese, overcome with fatigue, -carried backwards and forwards heavy burdens from Tchin to Tchan, and from -Tchan to Tchin; and Kouang said to himself, It is the destruction of the -canal which gives employment to these poor people. But the idea never -struck him that their labour was simply <i>diverted from other employments</i>. -</p> -<p> -Three months more passed, and the Emperor said to Kouang: "Look!" -</p> -<p> -And Kouang looked. -</p> -<p> -And he saw that the hostelries were full of travellers, and that to supply -their wants there were grouped around them butchers' and bakers' stalls, -shops for the sale of edible birds' nests, etc. He also saw that, the -artisans having need of clothing, there had settled among them tailors, -shoemakers, and those who sold parasols and fans; and as they could not -sleep in the open air, even in the Celestial Empire, there were also -masons, carpenters, and slaters. Then there were officers of police, -judges, fakirs; in a word, a town with its faubourgs had risen round each -hostelry. -</p> -<p> -And the Emperor asked Kouang what he thought of all this. And Kouang said -that he never could have imagined that the destruction of a canal could -have provided employment for so many people; for the thought never struck -him that this was not employment created, but <i>labour diverted</i> from -other employments, and that men would have eaten and drank in passing -along the canal as well as in passing along the highroad. -</p> -<p> -However, to the astonishment of the Chinese, the Son of Heaven at length -died and was buried. -</p> -<p> -His successor sent for Kouang, and ordered him to have the canal cleared -out and restored. -</p> -<p> -And Kouang said to the new Emperor: -</p> -<p> -"Son of Heaven! you commit a blunder." -</p> -<p> -And the Emperor replied: -</p> -<p> -"Kouang, you talk nonsense." -</p> -<p> -But Kouang persisted, and said: "Sire, what is your object?" -</p> -<p> -"My object is to facilitate the transit of goods and passengers between -Tchin and Tchan, to render carriage less expensive, in order that the -people may have tea and clothing cheaper." -</p> -<p> -But Kouang was ready with his answer. He had received the night before -several numbers of the Moniteur Industriel, a Chinese newspaper. Knowing -his lesson well, he asked and obtained permission to reply, and after -having prostrated himself nine times, he said: -</p> -<p> -"Sire, your object is, by increased facility of transit, to reduce the -price of articles of consumption, and bring them within reach of the -people; and to effect that, you begin by taking away from them all the -employment to which the destruction of the canal had given rise. Sire, in -political economy, nominal cheapness-" <i>The Emperor</i>: "I believe you -are repeating by rote." <i>Kouang</i>: "True, Sire; and it will be better -to read what I have to say." So, producing the <i>Esprit Public</i>, he -read as follows: "In political economy, the nominal cheapness of articles -of consumption is only a secondary question. The problem is to establish -an equilibrium between the price of labour and that of the means of -subsistence. The abundance of labour constitutes the wealth of nations; -and the best economic system is that which supplies the people with the -greatest amount of employment. The question is not whether it is better to -pay four or eight cash for a cup of tea, or five or ten tales for a shirt. -These are puerilities unworthy of a thinking mind. Nobody disputes your -proposition. The question is whether it is better to pay dearer for a -commodity you want to buy, and have, through the abundance of employment -and the higher price of labour, the means of acquiring it; or whether, it -is better to limit the sources of employment, and with them the mass of -the national production—to transport, by improved means of transit, -the objects of consumption, cheaper, it is true, but taking away at the -same time from classes of our population the means of purchasing these -objects even at their reduced price." -</p> -<p> -Seeing the Emperor still unconvinced, Kouang added, "Sire, deign to give -me your attention. I have still another quotation from the <i>Moniteur -Industriel</i> to bring under your notice." -</p> -<p> -But the Emperor said: -</p> -<p> -"I don't require your Chinese journals to enable me to find out that to -create <i>obstacles</i> is to divert and misapply labour. But that is not -my mission. Go and clear out the canal; and we shall reform the -Customhouse afterwards." -</p> -<p> -And Kouang went away tearing his beard, and appealing to his God, "O Fo! -take pity on thy people; for we have now got an Emperor of the English -school, and I see clearly that in a short time we shall be in want of -everything, for we shall no longer require to do anything." -</p> -<p> -<br /><br /> -</p> -<hr /> -<p> -<a name="link2H_4_0035" id="link2H_4_0035"> </a> -</p> -<div style="height: 4em;"> -<br /><br /><br /><br /> -</div> -<h2> -VIII. POST HOC, ERGO PROPTER HOC. -</h2> -<p class="pfirst"><span class="dropcap" style="font-size: 4.00em">T</span>his is the greatest and most common fallacy in reasoning. -</p> -<p> -Real sufferings, for example, have manifested themselves in England.* -</p> -<pre xml:space="preserve"> -* This was written in January 1848.—Translator. -</pre> -<p> -These sufferings come in the train of two other phenomena: -</p> -<p> -1st, The reformed tariff; -</p> -<p> -2d, Two bad harvests in succession. -</p> -<p> -To which of these two last circumstances are we to attribute the first? -</p> -<p> -The protectionists exclaim: -</p> -<p> -It is this accursed free-trade which does all the harm. It promised us -wonderful things; we accepted it; and here are our manufactures at a -standstill, and the people suffering: <i>Cum hoc, ergo propter hoc</i>. -</p> -<p> -Free-trade distributes in the most uniform and equitable manner the fruits -which Providence accords to human labour. If we are deprived of part of -these fruits by natural causes, such as a succession of bad seasons, -free-trade does not fail to distribute in the same manner what remains. -Men are, no doubt, not so well provided with what they want; but are we to -impute this to free-trade, or to the bad harvests? -</p> -<p> -Liberty acts on the same principle as insurances. When an accident, like a -fire, happens, insurance spreads over a great number of men, and a great -number of years, losses which, in the absence of insurance, would have -fallen all at once upon one individual. But will any one undertake to -affirm that fire has become a greater evil since the introduction of -insurance? -</p> -<p> -In 1842, 1843, and 1844, the reduction of taxes began in England. At the -same time the harvests were very abundant; and we are led to conclude that -these two circumstances concurred in producing the unparalleled prosperity -which England enjoyed during that period. -</p> -<p> -In 1845, the harvest was bad; and in 1846, worse still. -</p> -<p> -Provisions rose in price; and the people were forced to expend their -resources on first necessaries, and to limit their consumption of other -commodities. Clothing was less in demand, manufactories had less work, and -wages tended to fall. -</p> -<p> -Fortunately, in that same year, the barriers of restriction were still -more effectually removed, and an enormous quantity of provisions reached -the English market. Had this not been so, it is nearly certain that a -formidable revolution would have taken place. -</p> -<p> -And yet free-trade is blamed for disasters which it tended to prevent, and -in part, at least, to repair! -</p> -<p> -A poor leper lived in solitude. Whatever he happened to touch, no one else -would touch. Obliged to pine in solitude, he led a miserable existence. An -eminent physician cured him, and now our poor hermit was admitted to all -the benefits of <i>free-trade, and had full liberty to effect exchanges</i>. -What brilliant prospects were opened to him! He delighted in calculating -the advantages which, through his restored intercourse with his -fellow-men, he was able to derive from his own vigorous exertions. He -happened to break both his arms, and was landed in poverty and misery. The -journalists who were witnesses of that misery said, "See to what this -liberty of making exchanges has reduced him! Verily, he was less to be -pitied when he lived alone." "What!" said the physician, "do you make no -allowance for his broken arms? Has that accident nothing to do with his -present unhappy state? His misfortune arises from his having lost the use -of his hands, and not from his having been cured of his leprosy. He would -have been a fitter subject for your compassion had he been lame, and -leprous into the bargain." -</p> -<p> -<i>Post hoc, ergo propter hoc</i>. Beware of that sophism. -</p> -<p> -<br /><br /> -</p> -<hr /> -<p> -<a name="link2H_4_0036" id="link2H_4_0036"> </a> -</p> -<div style="height: 4em;"> -<br /><br /><br /><br /> -</div> -<h2> -IX. THE PREMIUM THEFT. -</h2> -<p class="pfirst"><span class="dropcap" style="font-size: 4.00em">T</span>his little book of Sophisms is found to be too theoretical, scientific, -and metaphysical. Be it so. Let us try the effect of a more trivial and -hackneyed, or, if you will, a ruder style. Convinced that the public is -duped in this matter of protection, I have endeavoured to prove it. But if -outcry is preferred to argument, let us vociferate, -</p> -<pre xml:space="preserve"> -"King Midas has a snout, and asses' ears."* - -* "<i>Auriculas asini Mida rex habet</i>."—Persius, sat. i. The -line as given in the text is from Dryden's translation.— -Translator. -</pre> -<p> -A burst of plain speaking has more effect frequently than the most -polished circumlocution. You remember Oronte, and the difficulty which the -<i>Misanthrope</i> had in convincing him of his folly.* -</p> -<p> -Alceste. On s'expose à jouer un mauvais personnage. -</p> -<p> -Oronte. Est-ce que vous voulez me declarer par là que j'ai tort de -vouloir.... -</p> -<p> -Alceste. Je ne dis pas cela. -</p> -<p> -Mais.... -</p> -<p> -Oronte. Est-ce que j'ecris mal? -</p> -<p> -Alceste. Je ne dis pas cela. -</p> -<p> -Mais enfin.... -</p> -<p> -Oronte. Mais ne puis-je savoir ce que dans mon sonnet?... -</p> -<p> -Alceste. Franchement, il est bon à mettre au Cabinet. -</p> -<p> -To speak plainly, Good Public! <i>you are robbed</i>. This is speaking -bluntly, but the thing is very evident. (<i>C'est cru, mais c'est clair</i>). -</p> -<p> -The words <i>theft, to steal, robbery</i>, may appear ugly words to many -people. I ask such people, as Harpagon asks Elise,** "Is it the word or -the thing which frightens you?" -</p> -<pre xml:space="preserve"> -* See Molière's play of The Misanthrope.—Translator. - -** See Molière's play of Oevare.—Translator. -</pre> -<p> -"Whoever has possessed himself fraudulently of a thing which does not -belong to him is guilty of theft." (C. Pen., art. 379.) -</p> -<p> -To steal: To take by stealth or by force. (<i>Dictionnaire de l'Academie</i>.) -</p> -<p> -Thief: He who exacts more than is due to him. (75.) -</p> -<p> -Now, does the monopolist, who, by a law of his own making, obliges me to -pay him 20 francs for what I could get elsewhere for 15, not take from me -fraudulently 5 francs which belonged to me? -</p> -<p> -Does he not take them by stealth or by force? -</p> -<p> -Does he not exact more than is due to him? -</p> -<p> -He takes, purloins, exacts, it may be said; but not by stealth or by -force, which are the characteristics of theft. -</p> -<p> -When our bulletins de contributions have included in them 5 francs for the -premium which the monopolist takes, exacts, or abstracts, what can be more -stealthy for the unsuspecting? And for those who are not dupes, and who do -suspect, what savours more of force, seeing that on the first refusal the -tax-gather's bailiff is at the door? -</p> -<p> -But let monopolists take courage. Premium thefts, tariff thefts, if they -violate equity as much as theft à l'Americaine, do not violate the law; on -the contrary, they are perpetrated according to law; and if they are worse -than common thefts, they do not come under the cognizance of <i>la -correctionnelle</i>. -</p> -<p> -Besides, right or wrong, we are all robbed or robbers in this business. -The author of this volume might very well cry "Stop thief!" when he buys; -and with equal reason he might have that cry addressed to him when he -sells;* and if he is in a situation different from that of many of his -countrymen, the difference consists in this, that he knows that he loses -more than he gains by the game, and they don't know it. If they knew it, -the game would soon be given up. -</p> -<pre xml:space="preserve"> -* Possessing some landed property, on which he lives, he -belongs to the protected class. This circumstance should -disarm criticism. It shows that if he uses hard words, they -are directed against the thing itself, and not against men's -intentions or motives. -</pre> -<p> -Nor do I boast of being the first to give the thing its right name. Adam -Smith said, sixty years ago, that "when manufacturers hold meetings, we -may be sure a plot is hatching against the pockets of the public." Can we -be surprised at this, when the public winks at it? -</p> -<p> -Well, then, suppose a meeting of manufacturers deliberating formally, -under the title of <i>conseils generaux</i>. What takes place, and what is -resolved upon? -</p> -<p> -Here is an abridged report of one of their meetings:— -</p> -<p> -"Shipowner: Our merchant shipping is at the lowest ebb. (Dissent) That is -not to be wondered at. I cannot construct ships without iron. I can buy it -in the market of the world at 10 francs; but by law the French ironmaster -forces me to pay him 15 francs, which takes 5 francs out of my pocket. I -demand liberty to purchase iron wherever I see proper. -</p> -<p> -"Ironmaster: In the market of the world I find freights at 20 francs. By -law I am obliged to pay the French shipowner 30; he takes 10 francs out of -my pocket. He robs me, and I rob him; all quite right. -</p> -<p> -"Statesman: The shipowner has arrived at a hasty conclusion. Let us -cultivate union as regards that which constitutes our strength. If we give -up a single point of the theory of protection, the whole theory falls to -the ground. -</p> -<p> -"Shipowner: For us shipowners protection has been a failure. I repeat that -the merchant marine is at its lowest ebb. -</p> -<p> -"Shipmaster: Well, let us raise the <i>surtaxe</i>, and let the shipowner -who now exacts 30 francs from the public for his freight, charge 40. -</p> -<p> -"A Minister: The government will make all the use they can of the -beautiful mechanism of the <i>surtaxe</i>; but I fear that will not be -sufficient. -</p> -<p> -"A Government Functionary: You are all very easily frightened. Does the -tariff alone protect you? and do you lay taxation out of account? If the -consumer is kind and benevolent, the taxpayer is not less so. Let us heap -taxes upon him, and the shipowner will be satisfied. I propose a premium -of five francs to be levied from the public taxpayers, to be handed over -to the shipbuilder for each ton of iron he shall employ. -</p> -<p> -"Confused voices: Agreed! agreed! An agriculturist: Three francs premium -upon the hectolitre of corn for me! A manufacturer: Two francs premium on -the yard of cloth for me! etc., etc. -</p> -<p> -"The President: This then is what we have agreed upon. Our session has -instituted a system of <i>premiums</i>, and it will be to our eternal -honour. What branch of industry can possibly henceforth be a loser, since -we have two means, and both so very simple, of converting our losses into -gains—the tariff and the premium? The sitting is adjourned." -</p> -<p> -I really think some supernatural vision must have foreshadowed to me in a -dream the near approach of the premium (who knows but I may have first -suggested the idea to M. Dupin?) when six months ago I wrote these words:— -</p> -<p> -"It appears evident to me that protection, without changing its nature or -the effects which it produces, might take the form of a direct tax, levied -by the state, and distributed in premiums of indemnification among -privileged branches of industry." -</p> -<p> -And after comparing a protective duty to a premium, I added, "I confess -candidly my preference for the last system. It seems to me juster, more -economical, and more fair. Juster, because if society desires to make -presents to some of its members, all ought to bear the expense; more -economical, because it would save a great deal in the cost of collection, -and do away with many of the trammels with which trade is hampered; more -fair, because the public would see clearly the nature of the operation, -and act accordingly."* -</p> -<pre xml:space="preserve"> -* <i>Sophismes Economiques</i>, first series, ch. v. <i>ante</i>. -</pre> -<p> -Since the occasion presents itself to us so opportunely, let us study this -system of <i>plunder by premium</i>; for all we say of it applies equally -to the system of plunder by tariff; and as the latter is a little better -concealed, the direct may help us to detect and expose the indirect system -of cheating. The mind will thus be led from what is simple to what is more -complicated. -</p> -<p> -But it may be asked, Is there not a species of theft which is more simple -still? Undoubtedly; there is <i>highway robbery</i>, which wants only to -be legalized, and made a monopoly of, or, in the language of the present -day, <i>organized</i>. -</p> -<p> -I have been reading what follows in a book of travels:— -</p> -<p> -"When we reached the kingdom of A., all branches of industry declared -themselves in a state of suffering. Agriculture groaned, manufactures -complained, trade murmured, the shipping interest grumbled, and the -government were at a loss what to do. First of all, the idea was to lay a -pretty smart tax on all the malcontents, and afterwards to divide the -proceeds among them after retaining its own quota; this would have been on -the principle of the Spanish lottery. There are a thousand of you, and the -State takes a piastre from each; then by sleight of hand, it conveys away -250 piastres, and divides the remaining 750 in larger and smaller -proportions among the ticket-holders. The gallant Hidalgo who gets -three-fourths of a piastre, forgetting that he had contributed a whole -piastre, cannot conceal his delight, and rushes off to spend his fifteen -reals at the alehouse. This is very much the same thing as we see taking -place in France. But the government had overrated the stupidity of the -population when it endeavoured to make them accept such a species of -protection, and at length it lighted upon the following expedient. -</p> -<p> -"The country was covered with a network of highroads. The government had -these roads accurately measured; and then it announced to the -agriculturist, 'All that you can steal from travellers between these two -points is yours; let that serve as a <i>premium</i> for your protection -and encouragement.' Afterwards it assigned to each manufacturer, to each -shipowner, a certain portion of road, to be made available for their -profit, according to this formula:— -</p> -<pre xml:space="preserve"> -Dono tibi et concedo Virtutem et puissantiam Yolandi, -Pillandi, -Derobandi, -Filoutandi, -Et escroqtîïindi, -Impunè per totam istam Viam." -</pre> -<p> -Now it has come to pass that the natives of the kingdom of A. have become -so habituated to this system, that they take into account only what they -are enabled to steal, not what is stolen from them, being so determined to -regard pillage only from the standpoint of the thief, that they look upon -the sum total of individual thefts as a national gain, and refuse to -abandon a system of protection, without which they say no branch of -industry could support itself. -</p> -<p> -You demur to this. It is not possible, you exclaim, that a whole people -should be led to ascribe a redundancy of wealth to mutual robbery. -</p> -<p> -And why not? We see that this conviction pervades France, and that we are -constantly organizing and improving the system of <i>reciprocal robbery</i> -under the respectable names of premiums and protective tariffs. -</p> -<p> -We must not, however, be guilty of exaggeration. As regards the mode of -levying, and other collateral circumstances, the system adopted in the -kingdom of A. may be worse than ours; but we must at the same time admit -that, as regards the principle and its necessary consequences, there is -not an atom of difference between these two species of theft; which are -both organized by law for the purpose of supplementing the profits of -particular branches of industry. -</p> -<p> -Remark also, that if <i>highway robbery</i> presents some inconveniences -in its actual perpetration, it has likewise some advantages which we do -not find in <i>robbery by tariff</i>. -</p> -<p> -For example, it is possible to make an equitable division among all the -producers. It is not so in the case of customs duties. The latter are -incapable of protecting certain classes of society, such as artisans, -shopkeepers, men of letters, lawyers, soldiers, labourers, etc. -</p> -<p> -It is true that the robbery by premium assumes an infinite number of -shapes, and in this respect is not inferior to highway robbery; but, on -the other hand, it leads frequently to results so whimsical and awkward -that the natives of the kingdom of A. may well laugh at us. -</p> -<p> -What the victim of a highway robbery loses, the thief gains, and the -articles stolen remain in the country. But under the system of robbery by -premium, what the tax exacts from the Frenchman is conferred frequently on -the Chinese, on the Hottentots, on the Caffres, etc., and here is the way -in which this takes place: -</p> -<p> -A piece of cloth, we shall suppose, is worth 100 francs at Bordeaux. It -cannot be sold below that price without a loss. It is impossible to sell -it above that price because the competition of merchants prevents the -price rising. In these circumstances, if a Frenchman desires to have the -cloth, he must pay 100 francs, or want it. But if it is an Englishman who -wants the cloth, the government steps in, and says to the merchant, "Sell -your cloth, and we will get you 20 francs from the taxpayers." The -merchant who could not get more than 100 francs for his cloth, sells it to -the Englishman for 80. This sum, added to the 20 francs produced by the -premium theft, makes all square. This is exactly the same case as if the -taxpayers had given 20 francs to the Englishmen, upon condition of his -buying French cloth at 20 francs discount, at 20 francs below the cost of -production, at 20 francs below what it has cost ourselves. The robbery by -premium, then, has this peculiarity, that the people robbed are resident -in the country which tolerates it, while the people who profit by the -robbery are scattered over the world. -</p> -<p> -Verily, it is marvellous that people should persist in maintaining that <i>all -which an individual steals from the masses is a general gain</i>. -Perpetual motion, the philosopher's stone, the quadrature of the circle, -are antiquated problems; but the theory of <i>progress by plunder</i> is -still held in honour. <i>A priori</i>, we should have thought that, of all -imaginable puerilities, it was the least likely to survive. -</p> -<p> -Some people will say, You are partisans, then, of the <i>laissez passer?</i>—economists -of the school of Smith and Say? You do not desire the organization of -labour. Yes, gentlemen, organize labour as much as you choose, but have -the goodness not to organize theft. -</p> -<p> -Another, and a more numerous, set keep repeating, premiums, tariffs, all -that has been exaggerated. We should use them without abusing them. A -judicious liberty, combined with a moderate protection, that is what -discreet and practical men desire. Let us steer clear of fixed principles -and inflexible rules. -</p> -<p> -This is precisely what the traveller tells us takes place in the kingdom -of A. "Highway robbery," say the sages, "is neither good nor bad in -itself; that depends upon circumstances. All we are concerned with is to -weigh things, and see our functionaries well paid for the work of -weighing. It may be that we have given too great latitude to pillage; -perhaps we have not given enough. Let us examine and balance the accounts -of each man employed in the work of pillage. To those who do not earn -enough, let us assign a larger portion of the road. To those who gain too -much, we must limit the days or months of pillage." -</p> -<p> -Those who talk in this way gain a great reputation for moderation, -prudence, and good sense. They never aspire to the highest offices in the -state. -</p> -<p> -Those who say, Repress all injustice, whether on a greater or a smaller -scale, suffer no dishonesty, to however small an extent, are marked down -for <i>ideologues</i>, idle dreamers, who keep repeating over and over -again the same thing. The people, moreover, find their arguments too -clear, and why should they be expected to believe what is so easily -understood? -</p> -<p> -<br /><br /> -</p> -<hr /> -<p> -<a name="link2H_4_0037" id="link2H_4_0037"> </a> -</p> -<div style="height: 4em;"> -<br /><br /><br /><br /> -</div> -<h2> -X. THE TAXGATHERER. -</h2> -<h3> -Jacques Bonhomme, a Vinedresser. -</h3> -<p> -M. Lasouche, Taxgatherer. -</p> -<p> -L.: You have secured twenty tuns of wine? -</p> -<p> -J.: Yes; by dint of my own skill and labour. -</p> -<p> -L.: Have the goodness to deliver up to me six of the best. -</p> -<p> -J.: Six tuns out of twenty! Good Heaven! you are going to ruin me. And, -please, Sir, for what purpose do you intend them? -</p> -<p> -L.: The first will be handed over to the creditors of the State. When -people have debts, the least thing they can do is to pay interest upon -them. -</p> -<p> -J.: And what becomes of the capital? -</p> -<p> -L.: That is too long a story to tell you at present. One part used to be -converted into cartridges, which emitted the most beautiful smoke in the -world. Another went to pay the men who had got crippled in foreign wars. -Then, when this expenditure brought invasion upon us, our polite friend, -the enemy, was unwilling to take leave of us without carrying away some of -our money as a <i>soutenir</i>, and this money had to be borrowed. -</p> -<p> -J.: And what benefit do I derive from this now? -</p> -<p> -L.: The satisfaction of saying— -</p> -<pre xml:space="preserve"> -Que je suis fier d'être Français -Quand je regarde la colonne! -</pre> -<p> -J.: And the humiliation of leaving to my heirs an estate burdened with a -perpetual rent-charge. Still, it is necessary to pay one's debts, whatever -foolish use is made of the proceeds. So much for the disposal of one tun; -but what about the five others? -</p> -<p> -L.: One goes to support the public service, the civil list, the judges who -protect your property when your neighbour wishes wrongfully to appropriate -it, the gendarmes who protect you from robbers when you are asleep, the -cantonnier who maintains the highways, the cure who baptizes your -children, the schoolmaster who educates them, and, lastly, your humble -servant, who cannot be expected to work exactly for nothing. -</p> -<p> -J.: All right; service for service is quite fair, and I have nothing to -say against it. I should like quite as well, no doubt, to deal directly -with the rector and the schoolmaster on my own account; but I don't stand -upon that. This accounts for the second tun—but we have still other -four to account for. -</p> -<p> -L.: Would you consider two tuns as more than your fair contribution to the -expense of the army and navy? -</p> -<p> -J.: Alas! that is a small affair, compared with what the two services have -cost me already, for they have deprived me of two sons whom I dearly -loved. -</p> -<p> -L.: It is necessary to maintain the balance of power. -</p> -<p> -J.: And would that balance not be quite as well maintained if the European -powers were to reduce their forces by one-half or three -fourths? We -should preserve our children and our money. All that is requisite is to -come to a common understanding. -</p> -<p> -L.: Yes; but they don't understand one another. -</p> -<p> -J.: It is that which fills me with astonishment, for they suffer from it -in common. -</p> -<p> -L.: It is partly your own doing, Jacques Bonhomme. -</p> -<p> -J.: You are joking, Mr Taxgatherer. Have I any voice in the matter? -</p> -<p> -L.: Whom did you vote for as deputy? -</p> -<p> -J.: A brave general officer, who will soon be a marshal, if God spares -him. -</p> -<p> -L.: And upon what does the gallant general live? -</p> -<p> -J.: Upon my six tuns, I should think. -</p> -<p> -L.: What would happen to him if he voted a reduction of the army, and of -your contingent? -</p> -<p> -J.: Instead of being made a marshal, he would be forced to retire. -</p> -<p> -L.: Do you understand now that you have yourself.... -</p> -<p> -J.: Let us pass on to the fifth tun, if you please. -</p> -<p> -L.: That goes to Algeria. -</p> -<p> -J.: To Algeria! And yet they tell us that all the Mussulmans are -wine-haters, barbarians as they are! I have often inquired whether it is -their ignorance of claret which has made them infidels, or their -infidelity which has made them ignorant of claret. And then, what service -do they render me in return for this nectar which has cost me so much -toil? -</p> -<p> -L.: None at all; nor is the wine destined for the Mussulman, but for good -Christians who spend their lives in Barbary. -</p> -<p> -J.: And what service do they render me? -</p> -<p> -L.: They make <i>razzias</i>, and suffer from them in their turn; they -kill and are killed; they are seized with dysentery and sent to the -hospital; they make harbours and roads, build villages, and people them -with Maltese, Italians, Spaniards, and Swiss, who live upon your wine; for -another supply of which, I can tell you, I will soon come back to you. -</p> -<p> -J.: Good gracious! that is too much. I shall give you a flat refusal A -vinedresser who could be guilty of such folly would be sent to Bicetre. To -make roads over Mount Atlas—good Heavens! when I can scarcely leave -my house for want of roads! To form harbours in Barbary, when the Garonne -is silted up! To carry off my children whom I love, and send them to -torment the Kabyles! To make me pay for houses, seed, and cattle, to be -handed over to Greeks and Maltese, when we have so many poor people to -provide for at home! -</p> -<p> -L.: The poor! Just so; they rid the country of the <i>trop plein</i>, and -prevent a redundant population. -</p> -<p> -J.: And we are to send after them to Algeria the capital on which they -could live at home! -</p> -<p> -L.: But then you are laying the foundations of a great empire, you carry -civilization into Africa, thus crowning your country with immortal glory. -</p> -<p> -J.: You are a poet, Mr Taxgatherer. I am a plain vinedresser, and I refuse -your demand. -</p> -<p> -L.: But think, that in the course of some thousands of years, your present -advances will be recouped and repaid a hundredfold to your descendants. -The men who direct the enterprise assure us that it will be so. -</p> -<p> -J.: In the meantime, in order to defray the expense, they ask me first of -all for one cask of wine, then for two, then for three, and now I am taxed -by the tun! I persist in my refusal. -</p> -<p> -L.: Your refusal comes too late. Your <i>representative</i> has stipulated -for the whole quantity I demand. -</p> -<p> -J.: Too true. Cursed weakness on my part! Surely, in making him my proxy, -I was guilty of a piece of folly; for what is there in common between a -general officer and a poor vinedresser? -</p> -<p> -L.: Oh, yes; there is something in common, namely, the wine, which he has -voted to himself in your name. -</p> -<p> -J.: You may well laugh at me, Mr Taxgatherer, for I richly deserve it. But -be reasonable. Leave me at least the sixth tun. You have already secured -payment of the interest of the debt, and provided for the civil list and -the public service, besides perpetuating the war in Africa. What more -would you have? -</p> -<p> -L.: It is needless to higgle with me. Communicate your views to Monsieur -le General, your representative. For the present, he has voted away your -vintage. -</p> -<p> -J.: Confound the fellow! But tell me what you intend to make of this last -cask, the best of my whole stock? Stay, taste this wine. How ripe, mellow, -and full-bodied it is! -</p> -<p> -L.: Excellent! delicious! It will suit Mons. D., the cloth-manufacturer, -admirably. -</p> -<p> -J.: Mons. D., the cloth-manufacturer? What do you mean? -</p> -<p> -L.: That he will reap the benefit. -</p> -<p> -J.: How? What? I'll be hanged if I understand you! -</p> -<p> -L.: Don't you know that Mons. D. has set on foot a grand undertaking, -which will prove most useful to the country, but which, when everything is -taken into account, causes each year a considerable pecuniary loss? -</p> -<p> -J.: I am sorry to hear it, but what can I do? -</p> -<p> -L.: The Chamber has come to the conclusion that, if this state of things -continues, Mons. D. will be under the necessity of either working more -profitably, or of shutting up his manufacturing establishment altogether. -</p> -<p> -J.: But what have these losing speculations of Mons. D. to do with my -wine? -</p> -<p> -L.: The Chamber has found out that, by making over to Mons. D. some wine -taken from your cellar, some corn taken from your neighbour's granaries, -some money kept off the workmen's wages, the losses of that enterprising -patriot may be converted into profits. -</p> -<p> -J.: The recipe is as infallible as it is ingenious. But, zounds! it is -awfully iniquitous. Mons. D., forsooth, is to make up his losses by laying -hold of my wine? -</p> -<p> -L.: Not exactly of the wine, but of its price. This is what we denominate -<i>premiums of encouragement</i>, or bounties. Don't you see the great -service you are rendering to the country? -</p> -<p> -J.: You mean to Mons. D.? -</p> -<p> -L.: To the country. Mons. D. assures us that his manufacture prospers in -consequence of this arrangement, and in this way he considers the country -is enriched. He said so the other day in the Chamber, of which he is a -member. -</p> -<p> -J.: This is a wretched quibble! A speculator enters into a losing trade, -and dissipates his capital; and then he extorts from me and from my -neighbours wine and corn of sufficient value, not only to repair his -losses, but afford him a profit, and this is represented as a gain to the -country at large. -</p> -<p> -L.: Your representative having come to this conclusion, you have nothing -more to do but to deliver up to me the six tuns of wine which I demand, -and sell the remaining fourteen tuns to the best advantage. -</p> -<p> -J.: That is my business. -</p> -<p> -L.: It will be unfortunate if you do not realize a large price -</p> -<p> -J.: I will think of it. -</p> -<p> -L.: The higher price will enable you to procure more of other things. -</p> -<p> -J.: I am aware of that, Sir. -</p> -<p> -L.: In the first place, if you purchase iron to renew your ploughs and -your spades, the law decrees that you must pay the ironmaster double what -the commodity is worth. -</p> -<p> -J.: Yes, this is very consolatory. -</p> -<p> -L.: Then you have need of coal, of butchers' meat, of cloth, of oil, of -wool, of sugar; and for each of these commodities the law makes you pay -double. -</p> -<p> -J.: It is horrible, frightful, abominable! -</p> -<p> -L.: Why should you indulge in complaints? You yourself, through your -representative... -</p> -<p> -J.: Say nothing more of my representative. I am singularly represented, it -is true. But they will not impose upon me a second time. I shall be -represented by a good and honest peasant. -</p> -<p> -L.: Bah! you will re-elect the gallant General. -</p> -<p> -J.: Shall I re-elect him, to divide my wine among Africans and -manufacturers? -</p> -<p> -L.: I tell you, you will re-elect him. -</p> -<p> -J,: This is too much. I am free to re-elect him or not, as I choose. -</p> -<p> -L.: But you will so choose. -</p> -<p> -J.: Let him come forward again, and he will find whom he has to deal with. -</p> -<p> -L.: Well, we shall see. Farewell. I carry away your six tuns of wine, to -be distributed as your friend, the General, has determined. -</p> -<p> -<br /><br /> -</p> -<hr /> -<p> -<a name="link2H_4_0038" id="link2H_4_0038"> </a> -</p> -<div style="height: 4em;"> -<br /><br /><br /><br /> -</div> -<h2> -XI. THE UTOPIAN FREE-TRADER. -</h2> -<p class="pfirst"><span class="dropcap" style="font-size: 4.00em">I</span>f I were but one of His Majesty's ministers!... -</p> -<p> -"Well, what would you do?" -</p> -<p> -"I should begin by—by—faith, by being very much at a loss. For -it is clear I could only be a minister in consequence of having the -majority in my favour; I could only have the majority in my favour by -securing the popular suffrage; and I could attain that end, honestly at -least, only by governing in accordance with public opinion. If I should -attempt to carry out my own opinions, I should no longer have the -majority; and if I lost the favour of the majority, I should be no longer -one of His Majesty's ministers." -</p> -<p> -"But suppose yourself already a minister, and that you experience no -opposition from the majority, what would you do?" -</p> -<p> -"I should inquire on what side <i>justice</i> lay." -</p> -<p> -"And then?" -</p> -<p> -"I should inquire on what side <i>utility</i> lay." -</p> -<p> -"And then?" -</p> -<p> -"I should inquire whether justice and utility were in harmony, or ran -counter to one another." -</p> -<p> -"And if you found they were not in harmony?" -</p> -<pre xml:space="preserve"> -"Je dirais au roi Philippe: -Reprenez votre portefeuille. -La rime n'est pas riche et le style en est vieux; -Mais ne voyez-vous pas que cela vaut bien mieux, -Que ces transactions dont le bon sens murmure, -Et que l'honnêtete parle là toute pure." -</pre> -<p> -"But if you found that the just and the useful were one and the same -thing?" -</p> -<p> -"Then I should go straight forward." -</p> -<p> -"True; but to realize utility by means of justice, a third thing is -needed." -</p> -<p> -"What?" -</p> -<p> -"Possibility." -</p> -<p> -"You granted me that." -</p> -<p> -"When?" -</p> -<p> -"Just now." -</p> -<p> -"How?" -</p> -<p> -"In assuming that I had the majority on my side." -</p> -<p> -"A most dangerous concession, I fear; for it implies that the majority see -clearly what is just, see clearly what is useful, and see clearly that -both are in perfect harmony." -</p> -<p> -"And if they see clearly all this, good results will work themselves out, -so to speak, of their own accord." -</p> -<p> -"You always bring me back to this, that no reform is possible apart from -the progress of general intelligence." -</p> -<p> -"Assuming this progress, every needed reform will infallibly follow." -</p> -<p> -"True; but this presupposed progress is a work of time. Suppose it -accomplished, what would you do? I am anxious to see you actually and -practically at work." -</p> -<p> -"I should begin by reducing the rate of postage to a penny." -</p> -<p> -"I have heard you speak of a halfpenny."* -</p> -<pre xml:space="preserve"> -* See chap. xii. of <i>Sophismes</i>, second series, <i>post</i>. -</pre> -<p> -"Yes, but as I have other reforms in view, I should proceed prudently, in -the first instance, to avoid any risk of a deficit." -</p> -<p> -"Fine prudence, to be sure! You have already landed yourself in a deficit -of 30 millions of francs." -</p> -<p> -"Then I should reduce the salt-tax to 10 francs." -</p> -<p> -"Good. Then you land yourself in a deficit of other thirty millions. You -have doubtless invented a new tax?" -</p> -<p> -"Heaven forbid! And besides, I do not flatter myself with possessing an -inventive genius." -</p> -<p> -"It will be very necessary, however.... Ah! I see. What was I thinking of? -You intend simply to reduce the expenditure. I did not think of that." -</p> -<p> -"You are not singular. I shall come to that; but for the present, that is -not the resource on which I depend." -</p> -<p> -"What! you are to diminish the revenue without reducing the expenditure, -and withal avoid a deficit!" -</p> -<p> -"Yes; by diminishing other taxes at the same time." -</p> -<p> -(Here the interlocutor, raising the forefinger of the right hand to his -forehead, tossed his head, as if beating about for ideas.) -</p> -<p> -"By my faith! a most ingenious process. I pay over 100 francs to the -Treasury; you relieve me to the extent of 5 francs upon salt, and 5 francs -upon postages; and in order that the Treasury may still receive 100 -francs, you relieve me to the extent of 10 francs on some other tax." -</p> -<p> -"Exactly; I see you understand what I mean." -</p> -<p> -"The thing seems so strange that I am not quite sure that I even heard you -distinctly." -</p> -<p> -"I repeat, I balance one <i>degrèvement</i> by another." -</p> -<p> -"Well, I happen to have a few minutes to spare, and I should like much to -hear you explain this paradox." -</p> -<p> -"Here is the whole mystery. I know a tax which costs the taxpayer 20 -francs, and of which not one farthing ever reaches the Treasury. I relieve -you of one-half, and I see that the other half finds its way to the <i>Hôtel -des Finances</i>." -</p> -<p> -"Truly you are an unrivalled financier. And what tax, pray, do I pay which -does not reach the Treasury?" -</p> -<p> -"How much does this coat cost you?" -</p> -<p> -"100 francs." -</p> -<p> -"And if you procured the cloth from Verviers, how much would it cost you?" -</p> -<p> -"80 francs." -</p> -<p> -"Why, then, did you not order it from Verviers?" -</p> -<p> -"Because that is forbidden." -</p> -<p> -"And why is it forbidden?" -</p> -<p> -"In order that the coat may cost 100 instead of 80 francs." -</p> -<p> -"This prohibition, then, costs you 20 francs." -</p> -<p> -"Undoubtedly." -</p> -<p> -"And where do these 20 francs go to?" -</p> -<p> -"Where should they go to, but into the pocket of the cloth-manufacturer?" -</p> -<p> -"Well, then, give me 10 francs for the Treasury, I will abrogate the -prohibition, and you will still be a gainer of 10 francs." -</p> -<p> -"Oh! I begin to follow you. The account with the Treasury will then stand -thus: The revenue loses 5 francs upon salt, and 5 upon postages, and gains -10 francs upon cloth. The one balances the other." -</p> -<p> -"And your own account stands thus: You gain 5 francs upon salt, 5 francs -upon postages, and 10 francs upon cloth." -</p> -<p> -"Total, 20 francs. I like your plan; but what comes of the poor -cloth-manufacturer?" -</p> -<p> -"Oh! I have not lost sight of him. I manage to give him compensation -likewise by means of <i>degrèvements</i> which are profitable to the -revenue; and what I have done for you as regards cloth, I do for him as -regards wool, coals, machinery, etc., so that he is enabled to reduce his -price without being a loser." -</p> -<p> -"But are you sure that the one will balance the other?" -</p> -<p> -"The balance will be in his favour. The 20 francs which I enable you to -gain upon cloth, will be augmented by the amount I enable you to save upon -corn, meat, fuel, etc. This will amount to a large sum; and a similar -saving will be realized by each of your 35 millions of fellow-countrymen. -In this way, you will find the means of consuming all the cloth produced -at Verviers and Elbeuf. The nation will be better clothed; that is all." -</p> -<p> -"I shall think over it; for all this, I confess, confuses my head -somewhat." -</p> -<p> -"After all, as regards clothing, the main consideration is to be clothed. -Your limbs are your own, and not the property of the manufacturer. To -protect them from the cold is your business and not his! If the law takes -his part against you, the law is unjust; and we have been reasoning -hitherto on the hypothesis that what is unjust is injurious." -</p> -<p> -"Perhaps I make too free with you; but I beg you to complete the -explanation of your financial plan." -</p> -<p> -"I shall have a new law of Customs." -</p> -<p> -"In two volumes folio?" -</p> -<p> -"No, in two articles." -</p> -<p> -"For once, then, we may dispense with repeating the famous axiom, 'No one -is supposed to be ignorant of the law'—<i>Nul n'est cerne ignorer la -loi</i>; which is a fiction. Let us see, then, your proposed tariff." -</p> -<p> -"Here it is: -</p> -<p> -"'Art. 1st.—All imported merchandise shall pay a duty of 5 per cent. -<i>ad valorem</i>.'" -</p> -<p> -"Even raw materials?" -</p> -<p> -"Except those which are destitute of value." -</p> -<p> -"But they are all possessed of value, less or more." -</p> -<p> -"In that case they must pay duty, less or more." -</p> -<p> -"How do you suppose that our manufacturers can compete with foreign -manufacturers who have their raw materials free?" -</p> -<p> -"The expenditure of the State being given, if we shut up this source of -revenue, we must open another. That will not do away with the relative -inferiority of our manufactures, and we shall have an additional staff of -officials to create and to pay for." -</p> -<p> -"True. I reason as if the problem were to do away with taxation, and not -to substitute one tax for another. I shall think over it. What is your -second article?" -</p> -<p> -"'Art. 2d.—All merchandise exported shall pay a duty of 5 per cent, -<i>ad valorem</i>.'" -</p> -<p> -"Good gracious! Monsieur l'Utopiste. You are going to get yourself pelted, -and, if necessary, I myself will cast the first stone." -</p> -<p> -"We have taken for granted that the majority are enlightened." -</p> -<p> -"Enlightened! Can you maintain that export duties will not be onerous?" -</p> -<p> -"All taxes are onerous; but this will be less so than others." -</p> -<p> -"The carnival justifies many eccentricities. Please to render plausible, -if that be possible, this new paradox." -</p> -<p> -"How much do you pay for this wine?" -</p> -<p> -"One franc the litre." -</p> -<p> -"How much would you have paid for it outside the barrier?" -</p> -<p> -"Half a franc." -</p> -<p> -"What is the reason of this difference?" -</p> -<p> -"Ask the octroi, which has imposed a tax of half a franc upon it." -</p> -<p> -"And who established the octroi?" -</p> -<p> -"The Commune of Paris, to enable them to pave and light the streets." -</p> -<p> -"It resolves itself, then, into an import duty. But if the neighbouring -communes had erected the octroi for their profit, what would have been the -consequence?" -</p> -<p> -"I should not the less have paid one franc for wine worth half a franc, -and the other half franc would have gone to pave and light Montmartre and -the Batignoles." -</p> -<p> -"So that, in effect, it is the consumer who pays the tax." -</p> -<p> -"That is beyond all doubt." -</p> -<p> -"Then, in imposing an export duty, you make the foreigner contribute to -your expenditure." -</p> -<p> -"Pardon me, that is <i>unjust</i>." -</p> -<p> -"Why? Before any commodity can be produced in a country, we must -presuppose as existing in that country education, security, roads, which -are all things that cost money. Why then should not the foreigner bear the -charges necessary to the production of the commodity of which ultimately -he is the consumer?" -</p> -<p> -"That is contrary to received ideas." -</p> -<p> -"Not in the least. The last buyer must bear the whole cost of production, -direct and indirect." -</p> -<p> -"It is in vain that you argue on this subject. It is self-evident that -such a measure would paralyze trade, and shut all markets against us." -</p> -<p> -"This is a mistake. If you paid this tax over and above all others, you -might be right. But if the 100 millions levied by this means relieved the -taxpayer to a corresponding extent of other burdens, you would reappear in -the foreign market with all your advantages, and even with greater -advantages, if this tax shall have given rise to less complication and -expense." -</p> -<p> -"I shall think over it. And now that we have put salt, postages, and -customs duties on a new footing, does this end your projected reform?" -</p> -<p> -"On the contrary, we are only beginning." -</p> -<p> -"Pray give me some account of your other utopian schemes." -</p> -<p> -"We have already given up 60 millions of francs on salt and postages. The -Customhouse affords compensation, but it gives also something far more -precious." -</p> -<p> -"And what is that, if you please?" -</p> -<p> -"International relations founded on justice, and a probability of peace -nearly equal to a certainty. I disband the army." -</p> -<p> -"The whole army?" -</p> -<p> -"Excepting the special arms, which will be recruited voluntarily like all -other professions. You thus see the conscription abolished." -</p> -<p> -"Be pleased, Sir, to use the word recruitment." -</p> -<p> -"Ah! I had forgotten; how easy it is in some countries to perpetuate and -hand down the most unpopular things by changing their names!" -</p> -<p> -"Thus, <i>droits reunis</i> have become <i>contributions indirectes</i>." -</p> -<p> -"And <i>gendarmes</i> have taken the name of <i>gardes municipaux</i>." -</p> -<p> -"In short, you would disarm the country on the faith of a utopian theory." -</p> -<p> -"I said that I should disband the army—not that I would disarm the -country. On the contrary, I intend to give it invincible force." -</p> -<p> -"And how can you give consistency to this mass of contradictions?" -</p> -<p> -"I should call upon all citizens to take part in the service." -</p> -<p> -"It would be well worth while to dispense with the services of some of -them, in order to enrol all." -</p> -<p> -"You surely have not made me a minister in order to leave things as they -are. On my accession to power, I should say, like Richelieu, 'State maxims -are changed.' And my first maxim, the one I should employ as the basis of -my administration, would be this: Every citizen must prepare for two -things—to provide for his own subsistence, and to defend his -country." -</p> -<p> -"It appears to me, at first sight, that there is some show of common sense -in what you say." -</p> -<p> -"Consequently, I should base the law of national defence on these two -enactments: -</p> -<p> -"'Art. 1st.—Every able-bodied citizen shall remain <i>sous les -drapeaux</i> for four years—namely, from 21 to 25—for the -purpose of receiving military instruction.'" -</p> -<p> -"A fine economy, truly! You disband four hundred thousand soldiers to -create ten millions." -</p> -<p> -"Listen to my second article: -</p> -<p> -"'Art. 2d.—Unless it is proved that at 21 years of age he knows -perfectly the platoon drill.'" -</p> -<p> -"Nor do I stop here. It is certain that in order to get quit of four -years' service, there would be a terrible emulation among our youth to -learn the <i>par le flanc droit and the charge en douze temps</i>. The -idea is whimsical." -</p> -<p> -"It is better than that. For without bringing families to grief, without -encroaching on equality, would it not secure to the country, in a simple -and inexpensive manner, 10 millions of defenders capable of setting at -defiance all the standing armies of the world?" -</p> -<p> -"Really, if I were not on my guard, I should end with taking a serious -interest in your conceits." -</p> -<p> -<i>Utopian free-trader getting excited</i>. "Thank Heaven! here is my -Budget relieved of 200 millions. I suppress the octroi. I remodel indirect -contributions. I..." -</p> -<p> -"Oh! Monsieur l'Utopiste!" -</p> -<p> -<i>Utopian free-trader getting more and more excited</i>. "I should -proclaim freedom of worship, freedom of teaching, and new resources. I -would buy up the railways, pay off the public debtr and starve out -stockjobbers." -</p> -<p> -"Monsieur l'Utopiste!" -</p> -<p> -"Set free from a multiplicity of cares, I should concentrate all the -powers of government in the repression of fraud, and in the administration -of prompt and cheap justice; I.... -</p> -<p> -"Monsieur l'Utopiste, you undertake too many things; the nation will not -support you!" -</p> -<p> -"You have granted me a majority." -</p> -<p> -"I withdraw it." -</p> -<p> -"Be it so. Then I am no longer a minister, and my projects will continue -to be what they were—<i>Utopias</i>." -</p> -<p> -<br /><br /> -</p> -<hr /> -<p> -<a name="link2H_4_0039" id="link2H_4_0039"> </a> -</p> -<div style="height: 4em;"> -<br /><br /><br /><br /> -</div> -<h2> -XII. THE SALT-TAX, RATES OF POSTAGE, AND CUSTOMHOUSE DUTIES. -</h2> -<p class="pfirst"><span class="dropcap" style="font-size: 4.00em">W</span>e expected some time ago to see our representative machinery produce an -article quite new, the manufacture of which had not as yet been attempted—namely, -<i>the relief of the taxpayer</i>. -</p> -<p> -All was expectation. The experiment was interesting, as well as new. The -motion of the machine disturbed nobody. In this respect, its performance -was admirable, no matter at what time, in what place, or under what -circumstances it was set agoing. -</p> -<p> -But as regarded those reforms which were to simplify, equalize, and -lighten the public burdens, no one has yet been able to find out what has -been accomplished. -</p> -<p> -It was said: You shall soon see; wait a little; this popular result -involves the labours of four sessions. The year 1842 gave us railways; -1846 is to give us the reduction of the salt-tax and of the rates of -postage; in 1850 we are to have a reformation of the tariff and of -indirect taxation. The fourth session is to be the jubilee of the -taxpayer. -</p> -<p> -Men were full of hope, for everything seemed to favour the experiment. The -<i>Moniteur</i> had announced that the revenue would go on increasing -every quarter, and what better use could be made of these unlooked-for -returns than to give the villager a little more salt to his <i>eau tiede</i>, -and an additional letter now and then from the battle-field, where his son -was risking his life? -</p> -<p> -But what has happened? Like the two preparations of sugar which are said -to hinder each other from crystallizing, or the Kilkenny cats, which -fought so desperately that nothing remained of them but their tails, the -two promised reforms have swallowed up each other. Nothing remains of them -but the tails; that is to say, we have <i>projets de lois, exposes des -motifs</i>, reports, statistical returns, and schedules, in which we have -the comfort of seeing our sufferings philanthropically appreciated and -homeopathically reckoned up. But as to the reforms themselves, they have -not crystallized. Nothing has come out of the crucible, and the experiment -has been a failure. -</p> -<p> -The chemists will by-and-by come before the jury and explain the causes of -the breakdown. -</p> -<p> -One will say, "I proposed a postal reform; but the Chamber wished first of -all to rid us of the salt-tax, and I gave it up." -</p> -<p> -Another will say, "I voted for doing away with the salt-tax, but the -Minister had proposed a postal reform, and my vote went for nothing." -</p> -<p> -And the jury, finding these reasons satisfactory, will begin the -experiment of new on the same data, and remit the work to the same -chemists. -</p> -<p> -This proves that it would be well for us, notwithstanding the sources from -which it is derived, to adopt the practice introduced half a century ago -on the other side of the Channel, of prosecuting only one reform at a -time. It is slow, it is wearisome; but it leads to some result. -</p> -<p> -Here we have a dozen reforms on the anvil at the same time. They hustle -one another, like the ghosts at the Gate of Oblivion, where no one enters. -</p> -<pre xml:space="preserve"> -"Ohimè! che lasso Î -Una a la volta, per carità." -</pre> -<p> -Here is what Jacques Bonhomme said, in a dialogue with John Bull, and it -is worth being reported:— -</p> -<p> -Jacques Bonhomme, John Bull. -</p> -<p> -Jacques Bonhomme: Oh! who will deliver me from this hurricane of reforms? -My head is in a whirl. A new one seems to be invented every day: -university reform, financial reform, sanitary reform, parliamentary -reform, electoral reform, commercial reform, social reform, and, last of -all, comes postal reform! -</p> -<p> -John Bull: As regards the last, it is so easy and so useful, as we have -found by experience, that I venture to give you some advice upon the -subject. -</p> -<p> -Jacques: We are told that postal reform has turned out ill in England, and -that the Exchequer has lost half a million. -</p> -<p> -John: And has benefited the public by ten times that sum. -</p> -<p> -Jacques: No doubt of that. -</p> -<p> -John: We have every sign by which the public satisfaction can be -testified. The nation, following the lead of Sir Robert Peel and Lord John -Russell, have given Rowland Hill, in true British fashion, substantial -marks of the public gratitude. Even the poorer classes testify their -satisfaction by sealing their letters with wafers bearing this -inscription: "Public gratitude for postal reform." The leaders of the -Anti-Corn-Law League have proclaimed aloud in their place in Parliament -that without cheap postage thirty years would have been required to -accomplish their great undertaking, which had for object the removal of -duties on the food of the poor. The officers of the Board of Trade have -declared it unfortunate that the English coin does not admit of a still -greater reduction! What more proofs would you have? -</p> -<p> -Jacques: But the Treasury? -</p> -<p> -John: Do not the Treasury and the public sail in the same boat? -</p> -<p> -Jacques: Not quite. And then, is it quite clear that our postal system has -need to be reformed? -</p> -<p> -John: That is the question. Let us see how matters now stand. What is done -with the letters that are put into the post-office? -</p> -<p> -Jacques: The routine is very simple. The postmaster opens the letter-box -at a certain hour, and takes out of it, say, a hundred letters. -</p> -<p> -John: And then? -</p> -<p> -Jacques: Then he inspects them one by one. With a geographical table -before him, and a letter-weigher in his hand, he assigns each letter to -its proper category, according to weight and distance. There are only -eleven postal zones or districts, and as many degrees of weight. -</p> -<p> -John: That constitutes simply 121 combinations for each letter. -</p> -<p> -Jacques: Yes; and we must double that number, because the letter may, or -may not, belong to the <i>service rural</i>. -</p> -<p> -John: There are, then, 24,200 things to be inquired into with reference to -every hundred letters. And how does the postmaster then proceed? -</p> -<p> -Jacques: He marks the weight on one corner of the letter, and the postage -in the middle of the address, by a hieroglyphic agreed upon at -headquarters. -</p> -<p> -John: And then? -</p> -<p> -Jacques: He stamps the letters, and arranges them in ten parcels -corresponding with the other post-offices with which he is in -communication. He adds up the total postages of the ten parcels. -</p> -<p> -John: And then? -</p> -<p> -Jacques: Then he enters the ten sums in a register, with counterfoils. -</p> -<p> -John: And then? -</p> -<p> -Jacques: Then he writes a letter to each of his ten correspondent -postmasters, telling them with what sums he debits them. -</p> -<p> -John: And if the letters are prepaid? -</p> -<p> -Jacques: Then, I grant you, the service becomes somewhat complicated. He -must in that case receive the letter, weigh it, and consign it to its -proper category as before, receive payment and give change, select the -appropriate stamp among thirty others, mark on the letter its number, -weight, and postage; transcribe the full address, first in one register, -then in a second, then in a third, then on a detached slip; wrap up the -letter in the slip; send the whole, well secured by a string, to the -correspondent postmaster; and enter each of these details in a dozen -columns, selected from fifty other columns, which indicate the letter-bag -in which prepaid letters are put. -</p> -<p> -John: And all this for forty centimes (4d.)! -</p> -<p> -Jacques: Yes, on an average. -</p> -<p> -John: I see now that the despatch of letters is simple enough. Let us see -now what takes place on their arrival. -</p> -<p> -Jacques: The postmaster opens the post-bag. -</p> -<p> -John: And then? -</p> -<p> -Jacques: He reads the ten invoices of his correspondents. -</p> -<p> -John: And after that? -</p> -<p> -Jacques: He compares the totals of the invoices with the totals brought -out by each of the ten parcels of letters. -</p> -<p> -John: And after that? -</p> -<p> -Jacques: He brings the whole to a grand total to find out with what sum, -<i>en bloc</i>, he is to debit each letter-carrier. -</p> -<p> -John: And after that? -</p> -<p> -Jacques: After that, with a table of distances and letter-weigher in hand, -he verifies or rectifies the postage of each letter. -</p> -<p> -John: And after that? -</p> -<p> -Jacques: He enters in register after register, and in column after column, -the greater or less results he has found. -</p> -<p> -John: And after that? -</p> -<p> -Jacques: He puts himself in communication with the ten postmasters, his -correspondents, to advise them of errors of 10 or 20 centimes (a penny or -twopence). -</p> -<p> -John: And then? -</p> -<p> -Jacques: He collects and arranges all the letters he has received, to hand -them to the postman. -</p> -<p> -John: And after that? -</p> -<p> -Jacques: He states the total postages that each postman is charged with. -</p> -<p> -John: And after that? -</p> -<p> -Jacques: The postman verifies, or discusses, the signification of the -hieroglyphics. The postman finally advances the amount, and sets out. -</p> -<p> -John: Go on. -</p> -<p> -Jacques: The postman goes to the party to whom a letter is addressed, and -knocks at the door. A servant opens. There are six letters for that -address. The postages are added up, separately at first, then altogether. -They amount to 2 francs 70 centimes (2s. 3d.). -</p> -<p> -John: Go on. -</p> -<p> -Jacques: The servant goes in search of his master. The latter proceeds to -verify the hieroglyphics. He mistakes the threes for twos and the nines -for fours. He has doubts about the weights and distances. In short, he has -to ask the postman to walk upstairs, and on the way he tries to find out -the signatures of the letters, thinking it may be prudent to refuse some -of them. -</p> -<p> -John: Go on. -</p> -<p> -Jacques: The postman when he has got upstairs pleads the cause of the -post-office. They argue, they examine, they weigh, they calculate -distances—at length the party agrees to receive five of the letters, -and refuses one. -</p> -<p> -John: Go on. -</p> -<p> -Jacques: What remains is to pay the postage. The servant is sent to the -grocer for change. After a delay of twenty minutes he returns, and the -postman is at length set free, and rushes from door to door, to go through -the same ceremony at each. -</p> -<p> -John: Go on. -</p> -<p> -Jacques: He returns to the post-office. He counts and recounts with the -postmaster. He returns the letters refused, and gets repayment of his -advances for these. He reports the objections of the parties with -reference to weight and distance. -</p> -<p> -John: Go on. -</p> -<p> -Jacques: The postmaster has to refer to the registers, letter-bags, and -special slips, in order to make up an account of the letters which have -been refused. -</p> -<p> -John: Go on, if you please. -</p> -<p> -Jacques: I am thankful I am not a postmaster. We now come to accounts in -dozens and scores at the end of the month; to contrivances invented not -only to establish, but to check and control a minute responsibility, -involving a total of 50 millions of francs, made up of postages amounting -on an average to 43 centimes each (less than 4d.), and of 116 millions of -letters, each of which may belong to one or other of 242 categories. -</p> -<p> -John: A very complicated simplicity truly! The man who has resolved this -problem must have a hundred times more genius than your Mons. Piron or our -Rowland Hill. -</p> -<p> -Jacques: Well, you seem to laugh at our system. Would you explain yours to -me? -</p> -<p> -John: In England, the government causes to be sold all over the country, -wherever it is judged useful, stamps, envelopes, and covers at a penny -apiece. -</p> -<p> -Jacques: And after that? -</p> -<p> -John: You write your letter, fold it, put it in the envelope, and throw it -into the post-office. -</p> -<p> -Jacques: And after that? -</p> -<p> -John: "After that"—why, that is the whole affair. We have nothing to -do with distances, bulletins, registers, control, or accounting; we have -no money to give or to receive, and no concern with hieroglyphics, -discussions, interpretations, etc., etc. -</p> -<p> -Jacques: Truly this is very simple. But is it not too much so? An infant -might understand it. But such reforms as you describe stifle the genius of -great administrators. For my own part, I stick to the French mode of going -to work. And then your <i>uniform rate</i> has the greatest of all faults. -It is unjust. -</p> -<p> -John: How so? -</p> -<p> -Jacques: Because it is unjust to charge as much for a letter addressed to -the immediate neighbourhood, as for one which you carry three hundred -miles. -</p> -<p> -John: At all events you will allow that the injustice goes no further than -to the extent of a penny. -</p> -<p> -Jacques: No matter—it is still injustice. -</p> -<p> -John: Besides, the injustice, which at the outside cannot extend beyond a -penny in any particular case, disappears when you take into account the -entire correspondence of any individual citizen who sends his letters -sometimes to a great distance and sometimes to places in the immediate -vicinity. -</p> -<p> -Jacques: I adhere to my opinion. The injustice is lessened—infinitely -lessened, if you will; it is inappreciable, infinitesimal, homoeopathic; -but it exists. -</p> -<p> -John: Does your government make you pay dearer for an ounce of tobacco -which you buy in the Rue de Clichy than for the same quantity retailed on -the Quai d'Orsay? -</p> -<p> -Jacques: What connexion is there between the two subjects of comparison? -</p> -<p> -John: In the one case as in the other, the cost of transport must be taken -into account. Mathematically, it would be just that each pinch of snuff -should be dearer in the Rue de Clichy than on the Quai d'Orsay by the -millionth part of a farthing. -</p> -<p> -Jacques: True; I don't dispute that it may be so. -</p> -<p> -John: Let me add, that your postal system is just only in appearance. Two -houses stand side by side, but one of them happens to be within, and the -other just outside, the zone or postal district. The one pays a penny more -than the other, just equal to the entire postage in England. You see, -then, that with you injustice is committed on a much greater scale than -with us. -</p> -<p> -Jacques: That is so. My objection does not amount to much; but the loss of -revenue still remains to be taken into account. -</p> -<p> -Here I ceased to listen to the two interlocutors. It turned out, however, -that Jacques Bonhomme was entirely converted; for some days afterwards, -the Report of M. Vuitry having made its appearance, Jacques wrote the -following letter to that honourable legislator:— -</p> -<p> -"J. Bonhomme to M. de Vuitry, Deputy, Reporter of the Commission charged -to examine the <i>projet de loi</i> relative to the Postage of Letters. -</p> -<p> -"Monsieur,—Although I am not ignorant of the extreme discredit into -which one falls by making oneself the advocate of an absolute theory, I -think it my duty not to abandon the cause of a uniform rate of postage, -reduced to simple remuneration for the service actually rendered. -</p> -<p> -"My addressing myself to you will no doubt be regarded as a good joke. On -the one side appears a heated brain, a closet-reformer, who talks of -overturning an entire system all at once and without any gradual -transition; a dreamer, who has never, perhaps, cast his eye on that mass -of laws, ordinances, tables, schedules, and statistical details which -accompany your report,—in a word, a theorist. On the other appears a -grave, prudent, moderate-minded legislator, who has weighed, compared, and -shown due respect for the various interests involved, who has rejected all -systems, or, which comes to the same thing, has constructed a system of -his own, borrowed from all the others. The issue of such a struggle cannot -be doubtful. -</p> -<p> -"Nevertheless, as long as the question is pending, every one has a right -to state his opinions. I know that mine are sufficiently decided to expose -me to ridicule. All I can expect from the reader of this letter is not to -throw ridicule away (if, indeed, there be room for ridicule), before, in -place of after, having heard my reasons. -</p> -<p> -"For I, too, can appeal to experience. A great people has made the -experiment. What has been the result? We cannot deny that that people is -knowing in such matters, and that its opinion is entitled to weight. -</p> -<p> -"Very well, there is not a man in England whose voice is not in favour of -postal reform. Witness the subscription which has been opened for a -testimonial to Mr Rowland Hill. Witness the manner in which John Bull -testifies his gratitude. Witness the oft-repeated declaration of the -Anti-Corn-Law League: -</p> -<p> -'Without the penny postage we should never have had developed that public -opinion which has overturned the system of protection." All this is -confirmed by what we read in a work emanating from an official source:— -</p> -<p> -"' The rates of postage should be regulated, not with a view to revenue, -but for the sole purpose of covering the expense.' -</p> -<p> -"To which Mr Macgregor adds:— -</p> -<p> -"'It is true that the rate having come down to our smallest coin, we -cannot lower it further, although it does yield some revenue. But this -source of revenue, which will go on constantly increasing, must be -employed to improve the service, and to develop our system of mail -steamers all over the world.' -</p> -<p> -"This brings me to examine the leading idea of the commission, which is, -on the other hand, that the rate of postage should be a source of revenue -to government. -</p> -<p> -"This idea runs through your entire report, and I allow that, under the -influence of this prejudice, you could arrive at nothing great or -comprehensive, and you are fortunate if, in trying to reconcile the two -systems, you have not fallen into the errors and drawbacks of both. -</p> -<p> -"The first question we have to consider is this: Is the correspondence -which passes between individual citizens a proper subject of taxation? -</p> -<p> -"I shall not fall back on abstract principles, or remind you that the very -essence of society being the communication of ideas, the object of every -government, should be to facilitate and not impede this communication. -</p> -<p> -"Let us look to actual facts. -</p> -<p> -"The total length of our highways and departmental and country roads -extends to a million of kilomètres (625,000 miles). Supposing that each -has cost 100,000 francs (£4000), this makes a capital of 100 milliards -(£4,000,000,000) expended by the State to facilitate the transport of -passengers and goods. -</p> -<p> -"Now, put the question, if one of your honourable colleagues asked leave -of the Chamber to bring in a bill thus conceived: -</p> -<p> -"'From and after 1st January next, the Government will levy upon all -travellers a tax sufficient not only to cover the expense of maintaining -the highways, but to bring back to the Exchequer four or five times the -amount of that expense.... -</p> -<p> -"Would you not feel such a proposal to be anti-social and monstrous? -</p> -<p> -"How is it that this consideration of profits, nay, of simple -remuneration, never presents itself to our minds when the question regards -the circulation of commodities, and yet appears so natural when the -question regards the circulation of ideas? -</p> -<p> -"Perhaps it is the result of habit. If we had a postal system to create, -it would most assuredly appear monstrous to establish it on a principle of -revenue. -</p> -<p> -"And yet remark that oppression is more glaring in this case than in the -other. -</p> -<p> -"When Government has opened a new road it forces no one to make use of it -(It would do so undoubtedly if the use of the road were taxed.) But while -the Post-office regulations continue to be enforced, no one can send a -letter through any other channel, were it to his own mother. -</p> -<p> -"The rate of postage, then, in principle, ought to be remunerative, and, -for the same reason, uniform. -</p> -<p> -"If we set out with this idea, what marvellous beauty, facility, and -simplicity does not the reform I am advocating present! -</p> -<p> -"Here is the whole thing nearly put into the form of a law. -</p> -<p> -"'Article 1. From and after 1st January next there will be exposed to -sale, in every place where the Government judges it expedient, stamped -envelopes and covers, at the price of a halfpenny or a penny. -</p> -<p> -"'2. Every letter put into one of these envelopes, and not exceeding the -weight of half an ounce, every newspaper or print put into one of these -covers, and not exceeding the weight of... will be transmitted, and -delivered without cost at its address. -</p> -<p> -"'3. All Post-office accounting is entirely suppressed. -</p> -<p> -"'4. All pains and penalties with reference to the conveyance of letters -are abolished.' -</p> -<p> -"That is very simple, I admit—much too simple; and I anticipate a -host of objections. -</p> -<p> -"That the system I propose may be attended with drawbacks is not the -question; but whether yours is not attended with more. -</p> -<p> -"In sober earnest, can the two (except as regards revenue) be put in -comparison for a moment? -</p> -<p> -"Examine both. Compare them as regards facility, convenience, despatch, -simplicity, order, economy, justice, equality, multiplication of -transactions, public satisfaction, moral and intellectual development, -civilizing tendency; and tell me honestly if it is possible to hesitate a -moment. -</p> -<p> -"I shall not stop to enlarge on each of these considerations—I give -you the headings of twelve chapters, which I leave blank, persuaded that -no one can fill them up better than yourself. -</p> -<p> -"But since there is one objection—namely, revenue—I must say a -word on that head. -</p> -<p> -"You have constructed a table in order to show that even at twopence the -revenue would suffer a loss of £880,000. -</p> -<p> -"At a penny, the loss Would be £1,120,000, and at a halfpenny, of -£1,320,000; hypotheses so frightful that you do not even formulate them in -detail. -</p> -<p> -"But allow me to say that the figures in your report dance about with a -little too much freedom. In all your tables, in all your calculations, you -have the tacit reservation of <i>coteris paribus</i>. You assume that the -cost will be the same under a simple as under a complicated system of -administration—the same number of letters with the present average -postage of 4 1/2d. as with the uniform rate of twopence. You confine -yourself to this rule of three: if 87 millions of letters at 4d. yield so -much, then at 2d. the same number will yield so much; admitting, -nevertheless, certain distinctions when they militate against our proposed -reform. -</p> -<p> -"In order to estimate the real sacrifice of revenue, we must, first of -all, calculate the economy in the service which will be effected; then in -what proportion the amount of correspondence will be augmented. We take -this last datum solely into account, because we cannot suppose that the -saving of cost which will be realized will not be met by an increased -personnel rendered necessary by a more extended service. -</p> -<p> -"Undoubtedly, it is impossible to fix the exact amount of increase in the -circulation of letters which the reduction of postage would cause, but in -such matters a reasonable analogy has always been admitted. -</p> -<p> -"You yourself admit that in England a reduction of seven-eighths in the -rate has caused an increase of correspondence to the extent of 360 per -cent. -</p> -<p> -"Here, the lowering to 5 centimes (a halfpenny) of the rate which is at -present at an average of something less than 4 1/2d., would constitute -likewise a reduction of seven-eighths. We may therefore be allowed to -expect the same result—that is to say, 417 millions of letters, in -place of 116 millions. -</p> -<p> -"But let us count on 300 millions. -</p> -<p> -"Is there any exaggeration in assuming that with a rate of postage one -half less, we shall reach an average of 8 letters to each inhabitant when -in England they have reached 13. -</p> -<p> -Now 300 millions of letters, at 5 centimes, give, 15 -</p> -<p> -100 millions of journals and prints, at 5 centimes, give 5 -</p> -<p> -The present expense (which may diminish) is. -</p> -<p> -31 Deducting for mail steamers,....5 -</p> -<p> -There remains for despatches, travellers, and money parcels,....26 -</p> -<p> -Net product,......2 -</p> -<p> -At present the net product is.....19 -</p> -<p> -"Now I ask whether the Government, which makes a positive sacrifice of 800 -millions (£32,000,000) per annum in order to facilitate the gratuitous -transport of passengers, should not make a negative sacrifice of 17 -millions, in order not to make a gain upon the transmission and -circulation of ideas? -</p> -<p> -"But the Treasury, I am aware, has its own habits, and with whatever -complacence it sees its receipts increase, it feels proportional -disappointment in seeing them diminished by a single farthing. It seems to -be provided with those admirable valves which in the human frame allow the -blood to flow in one direction, but prevent its return. Be it so. The -Treasury is perhaps a little too old for us to quicken its pace. We have -no hope, therefore, that it will give in to us. But what will be said if -I, Jacques Bonhomme, show it a way which is simple, easy, convenient, and -essentially practical, of doing a great service to the country without its -costing a single farthing? -</p> -<p> -"The Post-office yields a gross return to the Treasury of.....50 millions -</p> -<p> -Total yield of these three services, 280 millions. -</p> -<p> -"Now, bring down postages to the uniform rate of 5 centimes (a halfpenny). -</p> -<p> -"Lower the salt-tax to 10 francs (8s.) the hundredweight, as the Chamber -has already voted. -</p> -<p> -"Give me power to modify the customs tariff in such a way that I shall be -peremptorily prohibited from increasing any duty, but that I may lower -duties at pleasure. -</p> -<p> -"And I, Jacques Bonhomme, guarantee you a revenue, not of 280 millions, -but of 300 millions. Two hundred French bankers will be my sureties, and -all I ask for my reward is as much as these three taxes will produce over -and above 300 millions. -</p> -<p> -"Is it necessary for me to enumerate the advantages of my proposal? -</p> -<p> -"1. The people will receive all the advantage resulting from cheapness in -the price of an article of the first necessity—salt. -</p> -<p> -"2. Fathers will be able to write to their sons, and mothers to their -daughters. Nor will men's affections and sentiments, and the endearments -of love and friendship, be stemmed and driven back into their hearts, as -at present, by the hand of the tax-gatherer. -</p> -<p> -"3. To carry a letter from one friend to another will no longer be -inscribed in our code as a crime. -</p> -<p> -"4. Trade will revive with liberty, and our merchant shipping will recover -from its humiliation. -</p> -<p> -"5. The Treasury will gain at first twenty millions, afterwards it will -gain all that shall accrue to the revenue from other sources through the -saving realized by each citizen on salt, postages, and other things, the -duties on which have been lowered. -</p> -<p> -"If my proposal is rejected, what am I to conclude? Provided the bankers I -represent offer sufficient security, under what pretext can my proposal be -refused acceptance? It is impossible to invoke the equilibrium of budgets. -It would indeed be upset, but upset in such a way that the receipts should -exceed the expenses. This is no affair of theory, of system, of -statistics, of probability, of conjecture; it is an offer, an offer like -that of a company which solicits the concession of a line of railway. The -Treasury tells me what it derives from postages, salt-tax, and customs. I -offer to give it more. The objection, then, cannot come from the Treasury. -I offer to reduce the tariff of salt, postages, and customs; I engage not -to raise it; the objection, then, cannot come from the taxpayers. From -whom does it come, then? From monopolists? It remains to be seen whether -their voice shall be permitted in France to drown the voice of the -Government and the people. To assure us of this, I beg you to transmit my -proposal to the Council of Ministers. Jacques Bonhomme. -</p> -<p> -"P.S.—Here is the text of my offer:— -</p> -<p> -"I, Jacques Bonhomme, representing a company of bankers and capitalists, -ready to give all guarantees and deposit whatever security may be -necessary. -</p> -<p> -"Having learnt that the Government derives only 280 millions of francs -from customs duties, postages, and salt-tax, by means of the duties at -present fixed; -</p> -<p> -"I offer to give the Government 300 millions from the gross produce of -these three sources of revenue; -</p> -<p> -"And this while reducing the salt-tax from 30fr. to l0fr.; -</p> -<p> -"Reducing the rate of postage from 42 1/2 centimes, at an average, to a -uniform rate of from 5 to 10 centimes, -</p> -<p> -"On the single condition that I am permitted not to raise (which will be -formally prohibited), but to lower as much as I please the duties of -customs. Jacques Bonhomme." -</p> -<p> -"You are a fool," said I to Jacques Bonhomme, when he read me his letter. -"You can do nothing with moderation. The other day you cried out against -the hurricane of reforms, and here I find you demanding three, making one -of them the condition of the other two. You will ruin yourself." -</p> -<p> -"Be quiet," said he, "I have made all my calculations; I only wish they -may be accepted. But they will not be accepted." Upon this we parted, our -heads full, his of figures, mine of reflections which I forbear to inflict -upon the reader. -</p> -<p> -<br /><br /> -</p> -<hr /> -<p> -<a name="link2H_4_0040" id="link2H_4_0040"> </a> -</p> -<div style="height: 4em;"> -<br /><br /><br /><br /> -</div> -<h2> -XIII. PROTECTION; OR, THE THREE CITY MAGISTRATES. Demonstration in Four -</h2> -<p> -Tableaux. -</p> -<p> -Scene I.—House of Master Peter.—Window looking out on a fine -park.—Three gentlemen seated near a good fire. -</p> -<p> -Peter: Bravo! Nothing like a good fire after a good dinner. It does feel -so comfortable. But, alas! how many honest folks, like the Boi d'Yvetot, -</p> -<pre xml:space="preserve"> -"Soufflent, faute de bois, -Dans leurs doigts." -</pre> -<p> -Miserable creatures! A charitable thought has just come into my head. You -see these fine trees; I am about to fell them, and distribute the timber -among the poor. -</p> -<p> -Paul and John: What! gratis? -</p> -<p> -Peter: Not exactly. My good works would soon have an end were I to -dissipate my fortune. I estimate my park as worth £1000. By cutting down -the trees I shall pocket a good sum. -</p> -<p> -Paul: Wrong. Your wood as it stands is worth more than that of the -neighbouring forests, for it renders you services which they cannot -render. When cut down it will be only good for firewood, like any other, -and will not bring a penny more the load. -</p> -<p> -Peter: Oh! oh! Mr Theorist, you forget that I am a practical man. My -reputation as a speculator is sufficiently well established, I believe, to -prevent me from being taken for a noodle. Do you imagine I am going to -amuse myself by selling my timber at the price of float-wood? -</p> -<p> -Paul: It would seem so. -</p> -<p> -Peter: Simpleton! And what if I can hinder float-wood from being brought -into Paris? -</p> -<p> -Paul: That alters the case. But how can you manage it? -</p> -<p> -Peter: Here is the whole secret. You know that float-wood, on entering the -city, pays 5d. the load. To-morrow, I induce the commune to raise the duty -to £4, £8, £12,—in short, sufficiently high to prevent the entry of -a single log. Now, do you follow me? If the good people are not to die of -cold, they have no alternative but to come to my woodyard. They will bid -against each other for my wood, and I will sell it for a high price; and -this act of charity, successfully carried out, will put me in a situation -to do other acts of charity. -</p> -<p> -Paul: A fine invention, truly! It suggests to me another of the same kind. -</p> -<p> -John: And what is that? Is philanthropy to be again brought into play? -</p> -<p> -Paul: How do you like this Normandy butter? -</p> -<p> -John: Excellent. -</p> -<p> -Paul: Hitherto I have thought it passable. But do you not find that it -takes you by the throat? I could make better butter in Paris. I shall have -four or five hundred cows, and distribute milk, butter, and cheese among -the poor. -</p> -<p> -Peter and John: What! in charity? -</p> -<p> -Paul: Bah! let us put charity always in the foreground. It is so fine a -figure that its very mask is a good passport. I shall give my butter to -the people, and they will give me their money. Is that what is called -selling? -</p> -<p> -John: No; not according to the Bourgeois Gentilhomme. But, call it what -you please, you will ruin yourself. How can Paris ever compete with -Normandy in dairy produce? -</p> -<p> -Paul: I shall be able to save the cost of carriage. -</p> -<p> -John: Be it so. Still, while paying that cost, the Normans can beat the -Parisians. -</p> -<p> -Paul: To give a man something at a lower price—is that what you call -beating him? -</p> -<p> -John: It is the usual phrase; and you will always find yourself beaten. -</p> -<p> -Paul: Yes; as Don Quixote was beaten. The blows will fall upon Sancho. -John, my friend, you forget the octroi. -</p> -<p> -John: The octroi! What has that to do with your butter? -</p> -<p> -Paul: To-morrow, I shall demand <i>protection</i>, and induce the commune -to prohibit butter being brought into Paris from Normandy and Brittany. -The people must then either dispense with it, or purchase mine, and at my -own price, too. -</p> -<p> -John: Upon my honour, gentlemen, your philanthropy has quite made a -convert of me. -</p> -<pre xml:space="preserve"> -"On apprend à hurler, dit l'autre, avec les loups." -</pre> -<p> -My mind is made up. I shall not be thought unworthy of my colleagues. -Peter, this sparkling fire has inflamed your soul. Paul, this butter has -lubricated the springs of your intelligence. I, too, feel stimulated by -this piece of powdered pork; and tomorrow I shall vote, and cause to be -voted, the exclusion of swine, dead and alive. That done, I shall -construct superb sheds in the heart of Paris, -</p> -<pre xml:space="preserve"> -"Pour l'animal immonde aux Hebreux defendu." -</pre> -<p> -I shall become a pig-driver and pork-butcher. Let us see how the good -people of Paris can avoid coming to provide themselves at my shop. -</p> -<p> -Peter: Softly, my good friends; if you enhance the price of butter and -salt meat to such an extent, you cut down beforehand the profit I expect -from my wood. -</p> -<p> -Paul: And my speculation will be no longer so wondrously profitable, if I -am overcharged for my firewood and bacon. -</p> -<p> -John: And I, what shall I gain by overcharging you for my sausages, if you -overcharge me for my faggots and bread and butter? -</p> -<p> -Peter: Very well, don't let us quarrel Let us rather put our heads -together and make reciprocal concessions. Moreover, it is not good to -consult one's self-interest exclusively—we must exercise humanity, -and see that the people do not want fuel. -</p> -<p> -Paul: Very right; and it is proper that the people should have butter to -their bread. -</p> -<p> -John: Undoubtedly; and a bit of bacon for the pot. -</p> -<p> -All: Three cheers for charity; three cheers for philanthropy; and -to-morrow we take the octroi by assault. -</p> -<p> -Peter: Ah! I forgot. One word more; it is essential. My good friends, in -this age of egotism the world is distrustful, and the purest intentions -are often misunderstood. Paul, you take the part of pleading for the wood; -John will do the same for the butter; and I shall devote myself to the -home-bred pig. It is necessary to prevent malignant suspicions. -</p> -<p> -Paul and John (leaving): Upon my word, that is a clever fellow. -</p> -<p> -Scene II.—Council Chamber. -</p> -<p> -Paul: <i>Mes chers collègues</i>, Every day there are brought to Paris -great masses of firewood, which drain away large sums of money. At this -rate, we shall all be ruined in three years, and what will become of the -poorer classes? (Cheers) We must prohibit foreign timber. I don't speak -for myself, for all the wood I possess would not make a tooth-pick. In -what I mean to say, then, I am entirely free from any personal interest or -bias. (Hear, hear) But here is my friend Peter, who possesses a park, and -he will guarantee an adequate supply of fuel to our fellow-citizens, who -will no longer be dependent on the charcoal-burners of the Yonne. Have you -ever turned your attention to the risk which we run of dying of cold, if -the proprietors of forests abroad should take it into their heads to send -no more firewood to Paris? Let us put a prohibition, then, on bringing in -wood. By this means we shall put a stop to the draining away of our money, -create an independent interest charged with supplying the city with -firewood, and open up to workmen a new source of employment and -remuneration. (Cheers) -</p> -<p> -John: I support the proposal of my honourable friend, the preceding -speaker, which is at once so philanthropic, and, as he himself has -explained, so entirely disinterested. It is indeed high time that we -should put an end to this insolent <i>laissez passer</i>, which has -brought immoderate competition into our markets, and to such an extent -that there is no province which possesses any special facility for -providing us with a product, be it what it may, which does not immediately -inundate us, undersell us, and bring ruin on the Parisian workman. It is -the duty of Government to equalize the conditions of production by duties -wisely adapted to each case, so as not to allow to enter from without -anything which is not dearer than in Paris, and so relieve us from an -unequal struggle. How, for example, can we possibly produce milk and -butter in Paris, with Brittany and Normandy at our door? Remember, -gentlemen, that the agriculturists of Brittany have cheaper land, a more -abundant supply of hay, and manual labour on more advantageous terms. -</p> -<p> -Does not common sense tell us that we must equalize the conditions by a -protective octroi tariff? I demand that the duty on milk and butter should -be raised by 1000 per cent., and still higher if necessary. The workman's -breakfast will cost a little more, but see to what extent his wages will -be raised! We shall see rising around us cow-houses, dairies, and barrel -chums, and the foundations laid of new sources of industry. Not that I -have any interest in this proposition. I am not a cowfeeder, nor have I -any wish to be so. The sole motive which actuates me is a wish to be -useful to the working classes. (Applause.) -</p> -<p> -Peter: I am delighted to see in this assembly statesmen so pure, so -enlightened, and so devoted to the best interests of the people. (Cheers) -I admire their disinterestedness, and I cannot do better than imitate the -noble example which has been set me. I give their motions my support, and -I shall only add another, for prohibiting the entry into Paris of the pigs -of Poitou. I have no desire, I assure you, to become a pig-driver or a -pork-butcher. In that case I should have made it a matter of conscience to -be silent. But is it not shameful, gentlemen, that we should be the -tributaries of the peasants of Poitou, who have the audacity to come into -our own market and take possession of a branch of industry which we -ourselves have no means of carrying on? and who, after having inundated us -with their hams and sausages, take perhaps nothing from us in return? At -all events, who will tell us that the balance of trade is not in their -favour, and that we are not obliged to pay them a tribute in hard cash? Is -it not evident that if the industry of Poitou were transplanted to Paris, -it would open up a steady demand for Parisian labour? And then, gentlemen, -is it not very possible, as M. Lestiboudois has so well remarked, that we -may be buying the salt pork of Poitou, not with our incomes, but with our -capital? Where will that land us? Let us not suffer, then, that rivals who -are at once avaricious, greedy, and perfidious, should come here to -undersell us, and put it out of our power to provide ourselves with the -same commodities. Gentlemen, Paris has reposed in you her confidence; it -is for you to justify that confidence. The people are without employment; -it is for you to create employment for them; and if salt pork shall cost -them a somewhat higher price, we have, at least, the consciousness of -having sacrificed our own interests to those of the masses, as every good -magistrate ought to do. (Loud and long-continued cheers.) -</p> -<p> -A Voice: I have heard much talk of the poor; but under pretext of -affording them employment, you begin by depriving them of what is more -valuable than employment itself, namely, butter, firewood, and meat. -</p> -<p> -Peter, Paul, and John: Vote, vote! Down with Utopian dreamers, theorists, -generalizers! Vote, vote! (<i>The three motions are carried.</i>) -</p> -<p> -Scene III.—Twenty years afterwards. -</p> -<p> -Son: Father, make up your mind; we must leave Paris. Nobody can any longer -live there—no work, and everything dear. -</p> -<p> -Father: You don't know, my son, how much it costs one to leave the place -where he was born. -</p> -<p> -Son: The worst thing of all is to perish from want. -</p> -<p> -Father: Go you, then, and search for a more hospitable country. For -myself, I will not leave the place where are the graves of your mother, -and of your brothers and sisters. I long to obtain with them that repose -which has been denied me in this city of desolation. -</p> -<p> -Son: Courage, father; we shall find employment somewhere else—in -Poitou, or Normandy, or Brittany. It is said that all the manufactures of -Paris are being removed by degrees to these distant provinces. -</p> -<p> -Father: And naturally so. Not being able to sell firewood and provisions, -the people of these provinces have ceased to produce them beyond what -their own wants call for. The time and capital at their disposal are -devoted to making for themselves those articles with which we were in use -to furnish them. -</p> -<p> -Son: Just as at Paris they have given up the manufacture of elegant dress -and furniture, and betaken themselves to the planting of trees, and the -rearing of pigs and cows. Although still young, I have lived to see vast -warehouses, sumptuous quarters of the city, and quays once teeming with -life and animation on the banks of the Seine, turned into meadows and -copses. -</p> -<p> -Father: While towns are spread over the provinces, Paris is turned into -green fields. What a deplorable revolution! And this terrible calamity has -been brought upon us by three magistrates, backed by public ignorance. -</p> -<p> -Son: Pray relate to me the history of this change. -</p> -<p> -Father: It is short and simple. Under pretext of planting in Paris three -new branches of industry, and by this means giving employment to the -working classes, these men got the commune to prohibit the entry into -Paris of firewood, butter, and meat. They claimed for themselves the right -of providing for their fellow-citizens. These commodities rose at first to -exorbitant prices. No one earned enough to procure them, and the limited -number of those who could procure them spent all their income on them, and -had no longer the means of buying anything else. A check was thus given to -all other branches of industry and production, and all the more quickly -that the provinces no longer afforded a market. Poverty, death, and -emigration then began to depopulate Paris. -</p> -<p> -Son: And when is this to stop? -</p> -<p> -Father: When Paris has become a forest and a prairie. -</p> -<p> -Son: The three magistrates must have made a large fortune? -</p> -<p> -Father: At first they realized enormous profits, but at length they fell -into the common poverty. -</p> -<p> -Son: How did that happen? -</p> -<p> -Father: Look at that ruin. That was a magnificent man-sion-house -surrounded with a beautiful park. If Paris had continued to progress, -Master Peter would have realized more interest than his entire capital now -amounts to. -</p> -<p> -Son: How can that be, seeing he has got rid of competition? -</p> -<p> -Father: Competition in selling has disappeared, but competition in buying -has disappeared also, and will continue every day to disappear more and -more until Paris becomes a bare field, and until the copses of Master -Peter have no more value than the copses of an equal extent of land in the -Forest of Bondy. It is thus that monopoly, like every other system of -injustice, carries in itself its own punishment. -</p> -<p> -Son: That appears to me not very clear, but the decadence of Paris is an -incontestable fact. Is there no means, then, of counteracting this -singular measure that Peter and his colleagues got adopted twenty years -ago? -</p> -<p> -Father: I am going to tell you a secret. I remain in Paris on purpose. I -shall call in the people to my assistance. It rests with them to replace -the octroi on its ancient basis, and get quit of that fatal principle -which was engrafted on it, and which still vegetates there like a -parasitical fungus. -</p> -<p> -Son: You must succeed in this at once. -</p> -<p> -Father: On the contrary, the work will be difficult and laborious. Peter, -Paul, and John understand one another marvellously. They will do anything -rather than allow firewood, butter, and butchers' meat to enter Paris. -They have on their side the people, who see clearly the employment which -these three protected branches of industry afford. They know well to what -extent the cowfeeders and wood-merchants give employment to labour; but -they have by no means the same exact idea of the labour which would be -developed in the open air of liberty. -</p> -<p> -Son: If that is all, you will soon enlighten them. -</p> -<p> -Father: At your age, my son, no doubts arise. If I write, the people will -not read; for, to support their miserable existence, they have not much -time at their disposal. If I speak, the magistrates will shut my mouth. -The people, therefore, will long remain under their fatal mistake. -Political parties, whose hopes are founded on popular passions, will set -themselves, not to dissipate their prejudices, but to make merchandise of -them. I shall have to combat at one and the same time the great men of the -day, the people, and their leaders. In truth, I see a frightful storm -ready to burst over the head of the bold man who shall venture to protest -against an iniquity so deeply rooted in this country. -</p> -<p> -Son: You will have truth and justice on your side. -</p> -<p> -Father: And they will have force and calumny on theirs. Were I but young -again! but age and suffering have exhausted my strength. -</p> -<p> -Son: Very well, father; what strength remains to you, devote to the -service of the country. Begin this work of enfranchisement, and leave to -me the care of finishing it. -</p> -<p> -Scene IV.—The Agitation. -</p> -<p> -Jacques Bonhomme: Parisians, let us insist upon a reform of the octroi -duties; let us demand that they be instantly brought down to the former -rate. Let every citizen be free to buy his firewood, butter, and butchers' -meat where he sees fit. -</p> -<p> -The People: Vive, vive la Liberte! -</p> -<p> -Peter: Parisians, don't allow yourselves to be seduced by that word, -liberty. What good can result from liberty to purchase if you want the -means—in other words, if you are out of employment? Can Paris -produce firewood as cheaply as the Forest of Bondy? meat as cheaply as -Poitou? butter as cheaply as Normandy? If you open your gates freely to -these rival products, what will become of the cowfeeders, woodcutters, and -pork-butchers? They cannot dispense with protection. -</p> -<p> -The People: Vive, vive la Protection! -</p> -<p> -Jacques Bonhomme: Protection! but who protects you workmen? Do you not -compete with one another? Let the wood-merchants, then, be subject to -competition in their turn. They ought not to have right by law to raise -the price of firewood, unless the rate of wages is also raised by law. Are -you no longer in love with equality? -</p> -<p> -The People: Vive, vive l'Egalite! -</p> -<p> -Peter: Don't listen to these agitators. We have, it is true, raised the -price of firewood, butchers' meat, and butter; but we have done so for the -express purpose of being enabled to give good wages to the workmen. We are -actuated by motives of charity. -</p> -<p> -The People: Vive, vive la Charite! -</p> -<p> -Jacques Bonhomme. Cause the rate of wages to be raised by the octroi, if -you can, or cease by the same means to raise the prices of commodities. We -Parisians ask for no charity—we demand justice. -</p> -<p> -The People: Vive, vive la Justice! -</p> -<p> -Peter: It is precisely the high price of commodities which will lead, <i>par -ricochet</i>, to a rise of wages. -</p> -<p> -The People: Vive, vive la Cherte! -</p> -<p> -Jacques Bonhomme: If butter is dear, it is not because you pay high wages -to the workmen, it is not even because you make exorbitant profits; it is -solely because Paris is ill-adapted for that branch of industry; it is -because you wish to make in the town what should be made in the country, -and in the country what should be made in the town. The people have not -more employment—only they have employment of a different kind. They -have no higher wages; while they can no longer buy commodities as cheaply -as formerly. -</p> -<p> -The People: Vive, vive le Bon Marche! -</p> -<p> -Peter: This man seduces you with fine words. Let us place the question -before you in all its simplicity. Is it, or is it not, true, that if we -admit firewood, meat, and butter freely or at a lower duty, our markets -will be inundated? Believe me there is no other means of preserving -ourselves from this new species of invasion but to keep the door shut, and -so maintain the prices of commodities by rendering them artificially rare. -</p> -<p> -Some Voices in the Crowd: Vive, vive la Rarete! -</p> -<p> -Jacques Bonhomme: Let us bring the question to the simple test of truth. -You cannot divide among the people of Paris commodities which are not in -Paris. If there be less meat, less firewood, less butter, the share -falling to each will be smaller. Now there must be less if we prohibit -what should be allowed to enter the city. Parisians, abundance for each of -you can be secured only by general abundance. -</p> -<p> -The People: Vive, vive l'Abondance! -</p> -<p> -Peter: It is in vain that this man tries to persuade you that it is your -interest to be subjected to unbridled competition. -</p> -<p> -The People: A bas, à bas la Concurrence! -</p> -<p> -Jacques Bonhomme: It is in vain that this man tries to make you fall in -love with restriction. -</p> -<p> -The People: A bas, à bas la Restriction! -</p> -<p> -Peter: I declare, for my own part, if you deprive the poor cowfeeders and -pig-drivers of their daily bread, I can no longer be answerable for public -order. Workmen, distrust that man. He is the agent of perfidious Normandy, -and derives his inspiration from the provinces. He is a traitor; down with -him! (The people preserve silence.) -</p> -<p> -Jacques Bonhomme: Parisians, what I have told you to-day, -</p> -<p> -I told you twenty years ago, when Peter set himself to work the octroi for -his own profit and to your detriment. I am not, then, the agent of -Normandy. Hang me up, if you will, but that will not make oppression -anything else than oppression. Friends, it is not Jacques or Peter that -you must put an end to, but liberty if you fear it, or restriction if it -does you harm. -</p> -<p> -The People: Hang nobody, and set everybody free. -</p> -<p> -<br /><br /> -</p> -<hr /> -<p> -<a name="link2H_4_0041" id="link2H_4_0041"> </a> -</p> -<div style="height: 4em;"> -<br /><br /><br /><br /> -</div> -<h2> -XIV. SOMETHING ELSE. -</h2> -<p class="pfirst"><span class="dropcap" style="font-size: 4.00em">W</span>hat is restriction?" -</p> -<p> -"It is partial prohibition." -</p> -<p> -"What is prohibition?" -</p> -<p> -"Absolute restriction." -</p> -<p> -"So that what holds true of the one, holds true of the other?" -</p> -<p> -"Yes; the difference is only one of degree. There is between them the same -relation as there is between a circle and the arc of a circle." -</p> -<p> -"Then, if prohibition is bad, restriction cannot be good?" -</p> -<p> -"No more than the arc can be correct if the circle is irregular." -</p> -<p> -"What is the name which is common to restriction and prohibition?" -</p> -<p> -"Protection." -</p> -<p> -"What is the definitive effect of protection?" -</p> -<p> -"To exact from men <i>a greater amount of labour for the same result</i>." -</p> -<p> -"Why are men attached to the system of protection?" -</p> -<p> -"Because as liberty enables us to obtain the same result with less labour, -this apparent diminution of employment frightens them." -</p> -<p> -"Why do you say apparent?" -</p> -<p> -"Because <i>all labour saved can be applied to something else</i>." -</p> -<p> -"To what?" -</p> -<p> -"That I cannot specify, nor is there any need to specify it." -</p> -<p> -"Why?" -</p> -<p> -"Because if the sum of satisfactions which the country at present enjoys -could be obtained with one-tenth less labour, no one can enumerate the new -enjoyments which men would desire to obtain from the labour left -disposable. One man would desire to be better clothed, another better fed, -another better educated, another better amused." -</p> -<p> -"Explain to me the mechanism and the effects of protection." -</p> -<p> -"That is not an easy matter. Before entering on consideration of the more -complicated cases, we must study it in a very simple one." -</p> -<p> -"Take as simple a case as you choose." -</p> -<p> -"You remember how Robinson Crusoe managed to make a plank when he had no -saw." -</p> -<p> -"Yes; he felled a tree, and then, cutting the trunk right and left with -his hatchet, he reduced it to the thickness of a board." -</p> -<p> -"And that cost him much labour?" -</p> -<p> -"Fifteen whole days' work." -</p> -<p> -"And what did he live on during that time?" -</p> -<p> -"He had provisions." -</p> -<p> -"What happened to the hatchet?" -</p> -<p> -"It was blunted by the work." -</p> -<p> -"Yes; but you perhaps do not know this: that at the moment when Robinson -was beginning the work he perceived a plank thrown by the tide upon the -seashore." -</p> -<p> -"Happy accident! he of course ran to appropriate it?" -</p> -<p> -"That was his first impulse; but he stopped short, and began to reason -thus with himself:— -</p> -<p> -"'If I appropriate this plank, it will cost me only the trouble of -carrying it, and the time needed to descend and remount the cliff. -</p> -<p> -"'But if I form a plank with my hatchet, first of all, it will procure me -fifteen days' employment; then my hatchet will get blunt, which will -furnish me with the additional employment of sharpening it; then I shall -consume my stock of provisions, which will be a third source of employment -in replacing them. Now, <i>labour is wealth</i>. It is clear that I should -ruin myself by appropriating the shipwrecked plank. I must protect my <i>personal -labour</i>; and, now that I think of it, I can even increase that labour -by throwing back the other plank into the sea.'" -</p> -<p> -"But this reasoning was absurd." -</p> -<p> -"No doubt. It is nevertheless the reasoning of every nation which protects -itself by prohibition. It throws back the plank which is offered it in -exchange for a small amount of labour in order to exert a greater amount -of labour. It is not in the labour of the Customhouse officials that it -discovers a gain. That gain is represented by the pains which Robinson -takes to render back to the waves the gift which they had offered him. -Consider the nation as a collective being, and you will not find between -its reasoning and that of Robinson an atom of difference." -</p> -<p> -"Did Robinson not see that he could devote the time saved to <i>something -else?</i>" -</p> -<p> -"What else?" -</p> -<p> -"As long as a man has wants to satisfy and time at his disposal, there is -always something to be done. I am not bound to specify the kind of labour -he would in such a case undertake." -</p> -<p> -"I see clearly what labour he could have escaped." -</p> -<p> -"And I maintain that Robinson, with incredible blindness, confounded the -labour with its result, the end with the means, and I am going to prove to -you..." -</p> -<p> -"There is no need. Here we have the system of restriction or prohibition -in its simplest form. If it appear to you absurd when so put, it is -because the two capacities of producer and consumer are in this case mixed -up in the same individual." -</p> -<p> -"Let us pass on, therefore, to a more complicated example." -</p> -<p> -"With all my heart. Some time afterwards, Robinson having met with Friday, -they united their labour in a common work. In the morning they hunted for -six hours, and brought home four baskets of game. In the evening they -worked in the garden for six hours, and obtained four baskets of -vegetables. -</p> -<p> -"One day a canoe touched at the island. A good-looking foreigner landed, -and was admitted to the table of our two recluses. He tasted and commended -very much the produce of the garden, and before taking leave of his -entertainers, spoke as follows:— -</p> -<p> -"'Generous islanders, I inhabit a country where game is much more -plentiful than here, but where horticulture is quite unknown. It would be -an easy matter to bring you every evening four baskets of game, if you -would give me in exchange two baskets of vegetables.' -</p> -<p> -"At these words Robinson and Friday retired to consult, and the argument -that passed is too interesting not to be reported <i>in extenso</i>. -</p> -<p> -"Friday: What do you think of it? -</p> -<p> -"Robinson: If we close with the proposal, we are ruined. -</p> -<p> -"F.: Are you sure of that? Let us consider. -</p> -<p> -"R.: The case is clear. Crushed by competition, our hunting as a branch of -industry is annihilated. -</p> -<p> -"F.: What matters it, if we have the game? -</p> -<p> -"R.: Theory! it will no longer be the product of our labour. -</p> -<p> -"F.: I beg your pardon, sir; for in order to have game we must part with -vegetables. -</p> -<p> -"R.: Then, what shall we gain? -</p> -<p> -"F.:. The four baskets of game cost us six hours' work. The foreigner -gives us them in exchange for two baskets of vegetables, which cost us -only three hours' work. This places three hours at our disposal. -</p> -<p> -"R.: Say, rather, which are substracted from our exertions. In this will -consist our loss. <i>Labour is wealth</i>, and if we lose a fourth part of -our time, we shall be less rich by a fourth. -</p> -<p> -"F.: You are greatly mistaken, my good friend. We shall have as much game, -and the same quantity of vegetables, and three hours at our disposal into -the bargain. This is progress, or there is no such thing in-the world. -</p> -<p> -"R.: You lose yourself in generalities! What should we make of these three -hours? -</p> -<p> -"F.: We would do <i>something else</i>. -</p> -<p> -"R.: Ah! I understand you. You cannot come to particulars. Something else, -something else—this is easily said. -</p> -<p> -"F.: We can fish, we can ornament our cottage, we can read the Bible. -</p> -<p> -"R.: Utopia! Is there any certainty that we should do either the one or -the other? -</p> -<p> -"F.: Very well, if we have no wants to satisfy we can rest. Is repose -nothing? -</p> -<p> -"R.: But while we repose we may die of hunger. -</p> -<p> -"F.: My dear friend, you have got into a vicious circle. I speak of a -repose which will subtract nothing from our supply of game and vegetables. -You always forget that by means of our <i>foreign trade</i> nine hours' -labour will give us the same quantity of provisions that we obtain at -present with twelve. -</p> -<p> -"R: It is very evident, Friday, that you have not been educated in Europe, -and that you have never read the <i>Moniteur Industriel</i>. If you had, -it would have taught you this: that all time saved is sheer loss. The -important thing is not to eat or consume, but to work. All that we -consume, if it is not the direct produce of our labour, goes for nothing. -Do you want to know whether you are rich? Never consider the satisfactions -you enjoy, but the labour you undergo. This is what the <i>Moniteur -Industriel</i> would teach you. For myself, who have no pretensions to be -a theorist, the only thing I look at is the loss of our hunting. -</p> -<p> -"F.: What a strange conglomeration of ideas! but... -</p> -<p> -"R.: I will have no buts. Moreover, there are political reasons for -rejecting the interested offers of the perfidious foreigner. -</p> -<p> -"F.: Political reasons! -</p> -<p> -"R.: Yes, he only makes us these offers because they are advantageous to -him. -</p> -<p> -"F.: So much the better, since they are for our advantage likewise. -</p> -<p> -"R.: Then by this traffic we should place ourselves in a situation of -dependence upon him. -</p> -<p> -"F.: And he would place himself in dependence on us. We should have need -of his game, and he of our vegetables, and we should live on terms of -friendship. -</p> -<p> -"R.: System! Do you want me to shut your mouth? -</p> -<p> -"F.: We shall see about that. I have as yet heard no good reason. -</p> -<p> -"R.: Suppose the foreigner learns to cultivate a garden, and that his -island should prove more fertile than ours. Do you see the consequence? -</p> -<p> -"F.: Yes; our relations with the foreigner would cease. He would send us -no more vegetables, since he could have them at home with less labour. He -would take no more game from us, since we should have nothing to give him -in exchange, and we should then be in precisely the situation that you -wish us in now. -</p> -<p> -"R.: Improvident savage! You don't see that after having annihilated our -hunting by inundating us with game, he would annihilate our gardening by -inundating us with vegetables. -</p> -<p> -"F.: But this would only last till we were in a situation to give him <i>something -else</i>; that is to say, until we found something else which we could -produce with economy of labour for ourselves. -</p> -<p> -"R. Something else, something else! You always come back to that. You are -at sea, my good friend Friday; there is nothing practical in your views." -</p> -<p> -"The debate was long prolonged, and, as often happens, each remained -wedded to his own opinion. But Robinson possessing a great ascendant over -Friday, his opinion prevailed, and when the foreigner arrived to demand a -reply, Robinson said to him— -</p> -<p> -"' Stranger, in order to induce us to accept your proposal, we must be -assured of two things: -</p> -<p> -"' The first is, that your island is no better stocked with game than -ours, for we want to fight only with <i>equal weapons</i>. -</p> -<p> -"' The second is, that you will lose by the bargain. For, as in every -exchange there is necessarily a gaining and a losing party, we should be -dupes, if you were not the loser. What have you got to say?' -</p> -<p> -"' Nothing,' replied the foreigner; and, bursting out a-laugh-ing, he -regained his canoe." -</p> -<p> -"The story would not be amiss, if Robinson were not made to argue so very -absurdly." -</p> -<p> -"He does not argue more absurdly than the committee of the Rue -Hauteville." -</p> -<p> -"Oh! the case is very different. Sometimes you suppose one man, and -sometimes (which comes to the same thing) two men working in company. That -does not tally with the actual state of things. The division of labour and -the intervention of merchants and money change the state of the question -very much." -</p> -<p> -"That may complicate transactions, but does not change their nature." -</p> -<p> -"What! you want to compare modern commerce with a system of barter." -</p> -<p> -"Trade is nothing but a multiplicity of barters. Barter is in its own -nature identical with commerce, just as labour on a small scale is -identical with labour on a great scale, or as the law of gravitation which -moves an atom is identical with that same law of gravitation which moves a -world." -</p> -<p> -"So, according to you, these arguments, which are so untenable in the -mouth of Robinson, are equally untenable when urged by our -protectionists." -</p> -<p> -"Yes; only the error is better concealed under a complication of -circumstances." -</p> -<p> -"Then, pray, let us have an example taken from the present order of -things." -</p> -<p> -"With pleasure. In France, owing to the exigencies of climate and habits, -cloth is a useful thing. Is the essential thing to <i>make it</i>, or to -<i>get it?</i>" -</p> -<p> -"A very sensible question, truly! In order to have it, you must make it." -</p> -<p> -"Not necessarily. To have it, some one must make it, that is certain; but -it is not at all necessary that the same person or the same country which -consumes it should also produce it. You have not made that stuff which -clothes you so well. France does not produce the coffee on which our -citizens breakfast." -</p> -<p> -"But I buy my cloth, and France her coffee." -</p> -<p> -"Exactly so; and with what?" -</p> -<p> -"With money." -</p> -<p> -"But neither you nor France produce the material of money." -</p> -<p> -"We buy it." -</p> -<p> -"With what?" -</p> -<p> -"With our products, which are sent to Peru." -</p> -<p> -"It is then, in fact, your labour which you exchange for cloth, and French -labour which is exchanged for coffee." -</p> -<p> -"Undoubtedly." -</p> -<p> -"It is not absolutely necessary, therefore, to manufacture what you -consume." -</p> -<p> -"No; if we manufacture something else which we give in exchange." -</p> -<p> -"In other words, France has two means of procuring a given quantity of -cloth. The first is to make it; the second is to make something else, and -to exchange this something else with the foreigner for cloth. Of these two -means, which is the best?" -</p> -<p> -"I don't very well know." -</p> -<p> -"Is it not that which, <i>for a determinate amount of labour, obtains the -greater quantity of cloth?</i>" -</p> -<p> -"It seems so." -</p> -<p> -"And which is best for a nation, to have the choice between these two -means, or that the law should prohibit one of them, on the chance of -stumbling on the better of the two?" -</p> -<p> -"It appears to me that it is better for the nation to have the choice, -inasmuch as in such matters it invariably chooses right." -</p> -<p> -"The law, which prohibits the importation of foreign cloth, decides, then, -that if France wishes to have cloth, she must make it in kind, and that -she is prohibited from making the something else with which she could -purchase foreign cloth." -</p> -<p> -"True." -</p> -<p> -"And as the law obliges us to make the cloth, and forbids our making the -something else, precisely because that something else would exact less -labour (but for which reason the law would not interfere with it) the law -virtually decrees that for a determinate amount of labour, France shall -only have one yard of cloth, when for the same amount of labour she might -have two yards, by applying that labour to something else!" "But the -question recurs, 'What else?" -</p> -<p> -"And my question recurs, 'What does it signify?' Having the choice, she -will only make the something else to such an extent as there may be a -demand for it." -</p> -<p> -"That is possible; but I cannot divest myself of the idea that the -foreigner will send us his cloth, and not take from us the something else, -in which case we would be entrapped. At all events, this is the objection -even from your own point of view. You allow that France could make this -something else to exchange for cloth, with a less expenditure of labour -than if she had made the cloth itself?" -</p> -<p> -"Undoubtedly." -</p> -<p> -"There would, then, be a certain amount of her labour rendered inert?" -</p> -<p> -"Yes; but without her being less well provided with clothes, a little -circumstance which makes all the difference. Robinson lost sight of this, -and our protectionists either do not see it, or pretend not to see it. The -shipwrecked plank rendered fifteen days of Robinson's labour inert, in as -far as that labour was applied to making a plank, but it did not deprive -him of it. Discriminate, then, between these two kinds of diminished -labour—the diminution which has for effect privation, and that which -has for its cause satisfaction. These two things are very different, and -if you mix them up, you reason as Robinson did. In the most complicated, -as in the most simple cases, the sophism consists in this: <i>Judging of -the utility of labour by its duration and intensity, and not by its -results</i>; which gives rise to this economic policy: <i>To reduce the -results of labour for the purpose of augmenting its duration and intensity</i>." -* -</p> -<pre xml:space="preserve"> -* See ch. ii. and iii. of <i>Sophimes</i>, first series; and -<i>Harmonies Économiques</i>, ch. vi. -</pre> -<p> -<br /><br /> -</p> -<hr /> -<p> -<a name="link2H_4_0042" id="link2H_4_0042"> </a> -</p> -<div style="height: 4em;"> -<br /><br /><br /><br /> -</div> -<h2> -XV. THE LITTLE ARSENAL OF THE FREE-TRADER. -</h2> -<p class="pfirst"><span class="dropcap" style="font-size: 4.00em">I</span>f any one tells you that there are no absolute principles, no inflexible -rules; that prohibition may be bad and yet that restriction may be good, -</p> -<p> -Reply: "Restriction prohibits all that it hinders from being imported.": -</p> -<p> -If any one says that agriculture is the nursing-mother of the country, -</p> -<p> -Reply: "What nourishes the country is not exactly agriculture, but corn." -</p> -<p> -If any one tells you that the basis of the food of the people is -agriculture, -</p> -<p> -Reply: "The basis of the people's food is corn. This is the reason why a -law which gives us, by agricultural labour, two quarters of corn, when we -could have obtained four quarters without such labour, and by means of -labour applied to manufactures, is a law not for feeding, but for starving -the people." If any one remarks that restriction upon the importation of -foreign corn gives rise to a more extensive culture, and consequently to -increased home production, -</p> -<p> -Reply: "It induces men to sow grain on comparatively barren and ungrateful -soils. To milk a cow and go on milking her, puts a little more into the -pail, for it is difficult to say when you will come to the last drop. But -that drop costs dear." -</p> -<p> -If any one tells you that when bread is dear, the agriculturist, having -become rich, enriches the manufacturer, -</p> -<p> -Reply: "Bread is dear when it is scarce, and then men are poor, or, if you -like it better, they become rich <i>starvelings</i>." -</p> -<p> -If you are further told that when bread gets dearer, wages rise, Reply by -pointing out that, in April 1847, five-sixths of our workmen were -receiving charity, -</p> -<p> -If you are told that the wages of labour should rise with the increased -price of provisions, -</p> -<p> -Reply: "This is as much as to say that in a ship without provisions, -everybody will have as much biscuit as if the vessel were fully -victualled." -</p> -<p> -If you are told that it is necessary to secure a good price to the man who -sells corn, -</p> -<p> -Reply: "That in that case it is also necessary to secure good wages to the -man who buys it." -</p> -<p> -If it is said that the proprietors, who make the laws, have raised the -price of bread, without taking thought about wages, because they know that -when bread rises, wages naturally rise, Reply: "Upon the same principle, -when the workmen come to make the laws, don't blame them if they fix a -high rate of wages without busying themselves about protecting corn, -because they know that when wages rise, provisions naturally rise also." -</p> -<p> -If you are asked what, then, is to be done? -</p> -<p> -Reply: "Be just to everybody." -</p> -<p> -If you are told that it is essential that every great country should -produce iron, -</p> -<p> -Reply: "What is essential is, that every great country should have iron." -</p> -<p> -If you are told that it is indispensable that every great country should -produce cloth, -</p> -<p> -Reply: "The indispensable thing is, that the citizens of every great -country should have cloth." -</p> -<p> -If it be said that labour is wealth, -</p> -<p> -Reply: "This is not true." -</p> -<p> -And, by way of improvement, add: "Phlebotomy is not health, and the proof -of it is that bleeding is resorted to for the purpose of restoring -health." -</p> -<p> -If it is said: "To force men to cultivate rocks, and extract an ounce of -iron from a hundredweight of ore, is to increase their labour and -consequently their wealth," -</p> -<p> -Reply: "To force men to dig wells by prohibiting them from taking water -from the brook, is to increase their <i>useless labour</i>, but not their -wealth." -</p> -<p> -If you are told that the sun gives you his heat and light without -remuneration, -</p> -<p> -Reply: "So much the better for me, for it costs me nothing to see -clearly." -</p> -<p> -And if you are answered that industry in general loses what would have -been paid for artificial light, -</p> -<p> -Rejoin; "No; for having paid nothing to the sun, what he saves me enables -me to buy clothes, furniture, and candles." -</p> -<p> -In the same way, if you are told that these rascally English possess -capital which is dormant, -</p> -<p> -Reply: "So much the better for us; they will not make us pay interest for -it." -</p> -<p> -If it is said: "These perfidious English find coal and iron in the same -pit," -</p> -<p> -Reply: "So much the better for us; they will charge us nothing for -bringing them together." -</p> -<p> -If you are told that the Swiss have rich pasturages, which cost little: -</p> -<p> -Reply: "The advantage is ours, for they will demand a smaller amount of -our labour in return for giving an impetus to our agriculture, and -supplying us with provisions." -</p> -<p> -If they tell you that the lands of the Crimea have no value, and pay no -taxes, -</p> -<p> -Reply: "The profit is ours, who buy corn free from such charges." -</p> -<p> -If they tell you that the serfs of Poland work without wages, -</p> -<p> -Reply: "The misfortune is theirs and the profit is ours, since their -labour does not enter into the price of the corn which their masters sell -us." -</p> -<p> -Finally, if they tell you that other nations have many advantages over us, -</p> -<p> -Reply: "By means of exchange, they are forced to allow us to participate -in these advantages." -</p> -<p> -If they tell you that under free-trade we are about to be inundated with -bread, <i>bouf à la mode</i>, coal, and winter clothing, Reply: "In that -case we shall be neither hungry nor thirsty." -</p> -<p> -If they ask how we are to pay for these things? -</p> -<p> -Reply: "Don't let that disquiet you. If we are inundated, it is a sign we -have the means of paying for the inundation; and if we have not the means -of paying, we shall not be inundated." -</p> -<p> -If any one says: I should approve of free-trade, if the foreigner, in -sending us his products, would take our products in exchange; but he -carries off our money, -</p> -<p> -Reply: "Neither money nor coffee grows in the fields of Beauce, nor are -they turned out by the workshops of Elbeuf. So far as we are concerned, to -pay the foreigner with money is the same thing as paying him with coffee." -</p> -<p> -If they bid you eat butcher's meat, -</p> -<p> -Reply: "Allow it to be imported." -</p> -<p> -If they say to you, in the words of the <i>Presse</i>, "When one has not -the means to buy bread, he is forced to buy beef," Reply: "This is advice -quite as judicious as that given by M. Vautour to his tenant: -</p> -<pre xml:space="preserve"> -"'Quand on n'a pas de quoi payer son terme, -Il faut avoir une maison à soi.'" -</pre> -<p> -If, again, they say to you, in the words of <i>La Presse</i>, "The -government should teach the people how and why they must eat beef," -</p> -<p> -Reply: "The government has only to allow the beef to be imported, and the -most civilized people in the world will know how to use it without being -taught by a master." -</p> -<p> -If they tell you that the government should know everything, and foresee -everything, in order to direct the people, and that the people have simply -to allow themselves to be led, Reply by asking: "Is there a state apart -from the people? is there a human foresight apart from humanity? -Archimedes might repeat every day of his life, 'With a fulcrum and lever I -can move the world;' but he never did move it, for want of a fulcrum and -lever. The lever of the state is the nation; and nothing can be more -foolish than to found so many hopes upon the state, which is simply to -take for granted the existence of collective science and foresight, after -having set out with the assumption of individual imbecility and -improvidence." -</p> -<p> -If any one says, "I ask no favour, but only such a duty on bread and meat -as shall compensate the heavy taxes to which I am subjected; only a small -duty equal to what the taxes add to the cost price of my corn," -</p> -<p> -Reply: "A thousand pardons; but I also pay taxes. If, then, the protection -which you vote in your own favour has the effect of burdening me as a -purchaser of corn with exactly your share of the taxes, your modest demand -amounts to nothing less than establishing this arrangement as formulated -by you: -</p> -<p> -Seeing that the public charges are heavy, I, as a seller of corn, am to -pay nothing, and you my neighbour, as a buyer of corn, are to pay double, -viz., your own share and mine into the bargain.' Mr Corn-merchant, my good -friend, you may have force at your command, but assuredly you have not -reason on your side." -</p> -<p> -If any one says to you, "It is, however, exceedingly hard upon me, who pay -taxes, to have to compete in my own market with the foreigner, who pays -none, -</p> -<p> -Reply: -</p> -<p> -"1st, In the first place, it is not your market, but our market. I who -live upon corn and pay for it, should surely be taken into account. -</p> -<p> -"2d, Few foreigners at the present day are exempt from taxes. -</p> -<p> -"3d, If the taxes you vote yield you in roads, canals, security, etc., -more than they cost you, you are not justified in repelling, at my -expense, the competition of foreigners, who, if they do not pay taxes, -have not the advantages you enjoy in roads, canals, and security. You -might as well say, 'I demand a compensating duty because I have finer -clothes, stronger horses, and better ploughs than the hard-working peasant -of Russia.' -</p> -<p> -"4th, If the tax does not repay you for what it costs, don't vote it. -</p> -<p> -"5th, In short, after having voted the tax, do you wish to get free from -it? Try to frame a law which will throw it on the foreigner. But your -tariff makes your share of it fall upon me, who have already my own burden -to bear." -</p> -<p> -If any one says, "For the Russians free-trade is necessary to enable them -to exchange their products with advantage," (Opinion de M. Thiers dans les -Bureaux, April 1847), -</p> -<p> -Reply: "Liberty is necessary everywhere, and for the same reason." -</p> -<p> -If you are told, "Each country has its wants, and we must be guided by -that in what we do." (M. Thiers), -</p> -<p> -Reply: "Each country acts thus of its own accord, if you don't throw -obstacles in the way." -</p> -<p> -If they tell you, "We have no sheet-iron, and we must allow it to be -imported," (M. Thiers), -</p> -<p> -Reply: "Many thanks." -</p> -<p> -If you are told, "We have no freights for our merchant shipping. The want -of return cargoes prevents our shipping from competing with foreigners," -(M. Thiers), -</p> -<p> -Reply: "When a country wishes to have everything produced at home, there -can be no freights either for exports or imports. It is just as absurd to -desire to have a mercantile marine under a system of prohibition, as it -would be to have carts when there is nothing to carry." -</p> -<p> -If you are told that assuming protection to be unjust, everything has been -arranged on that footing; capital has been embarked; rights have been -acquired; and the system cannot be changed without suffering to -individuals and classes, -</p> -<p> -Reply: "All injustice is profitable to somebody (except, perhaps, -restriction, which in the long run benefits no one). To argue from the -derangement which the cessation of injustice may occasion to the man who -profits by it, is as much as to say that a system of injustice, for no -other reason than that it has had a temporary existence, ought to exist -for ever." -</p> -<p> -<br /><br /> -</p> -<hr /> -<p> -<a name="link2H_4_0043" id="link2H_4_0043"> </a> -</p> -<div style="height: 4em;"> -<br /><br /><br /><br /> -</div> -<h2> -XVI. THE RIGHT HAND AND THE LEFT. -</h2> -<h3> -Report Addressed to the King. -</h3> -<p> -Sire, -</p> -<p class="pfirst"><span class="dropcap" style="font-size: 4.00em">W</span>hen we observe these free-trade advocates boldly-disseminating their -doctrines, and maintaining that the right of buying and selling is implied -in the right of property (as has been urged by M. Billault in the true -style of a special pleader), we may be permitted to feel serious alarm as -to the fate of our national labour; for what would Frenchmen make of their -heads and their hands were they left to their own resources? -</p> -<p> -The administration which you have honoured with your confidence has turned -its attention to this grave state of things, and has sought in its wisdom -to discover a species of <i>protection</i> which may be substituted for -that which appears to be getting out of repute. They propose a <i>law to -prohibit your faithful SUBJECTS FROM USING THEIR RIGHT HANDS</i>. -</p> -<p> -Sire, we beseech you not to do us the injustice of supposing that we have -adopted lightly and without due deliberation a measure which at first -sight may appear somewhat whimsical. A profound study of the system of -protection has taught us this syllogism, upon which the whole doctrine -reposes: -</p> -<p> -The more men work, the richer they become; -</p> -<p> -The more difficulties there are to be overcome, the more work; -</p> -<p> -Ergo, the more difficulties there are to be overcome, the richer they -become. -</p> -<p> -In fact, what is protection, if it is not an ingenious application of this -reasoning—reasoning so close and conclusive as to balk the subtlety -of M. Billault himself? -</p> -<p> -Let us personify the country, and regard it as a collective being with -thirty millions of mouths, and, as a natural consequence, with sixty -millions of hands. Here is a man who makes a French clock, which he can -exchange in Belgium for ten hundredweights of iron. But we tell him to -make the iron himself. He replies, "I cannot, it would occupy too much of -my time; I should produce only five hundredweights of iron during the time -I am occupied in making a clock." Utopian dreamer, we reply, that is the -very reason why we forbid you to make the clock, and order you to make the -iron. Don't you see we are providing employment for you? -</p> -<p> -Sire, it cannot have escaped your sagacity that this is exactly the same -thing in effect as if we were to say to the country, "Work with your left -hand, and not with the right." -</p> -<p> -To create obstacles in order to furnish labour with an opportunity of -developing itself, was the principle of the old system of restriction, and -it is the principle likewise of the new system which is now being -inaugurated. Sire, to regulate industry in this way is not to innovate, -but to persevere. -</p> -<p> -As regards the efficiency of the measure, it is incontestable. It is -difficult, much more difficult than one would suppose, to do with the left -hand what we have been accustomed to do with the right. You will be -convinced of this, Sire, if you will condescend to make trial of our -system in a process which must be familiar to you; as, for example, in -shuffling a pack of cards. For this reason, we flatter ourselves that we -are opening to labour an unlimited career. -</p> -<p> -When workmen in all departments of industry are thus confined to the use -of the left hand, we may figure to ourselves, Sire, the immense number of -people that will be wanted to supply the present consumption, assuming it -to continue invariable, as we always do when we compare two different -systems of production with one another. So prodigious a demand for manual -labour cannot fail to induce a great rise of wages, and pauperism will -disappear as if by enchantment. -</p> -<p> -Sire, your paternal heart will rejoice to think that this new law of ours -will extend its benefits to that interesting part of the community whose -destinies engage all your solicitude. What is the present destiny of women -in France? The bolder and more hardy sex drives them insensibly out of -every department of industry. -</p> -<p> -Formerly, they had the resource of the lottery offices. These offices have -been shut up by a pitiless philanthropy, and on what pretext? "To save the -money of the poor." Alas! the poor man never obtained for a piece of money -enjoyments as sweet and innocent as those afforded by the mysterious urn -of fortune. Deprived of all the enjoyments of life, when he, fortnight -after fortnight, put a day's wages on the <i>quaterne</i>, how many -delicious hours did he afford his family! Hope was always present at his -fireside. The garret was peopled with illusions. The wife hoped to rival -her neighbours in her style of living; the son saw himself the drum-major -of a regiment; and the daughter fancied herself led to the altar by her -betrothed. -</p> -<pre xml:space="preserve"> -"C'est quelque chose encor que de faire un beau rêve!" -</pre> -<p> -The lottery was the poetry of the poor, and we have lost it. -</p> -<p> -The lottery gone, what means have we of providing for our <i>protegees?</i> -Tobacco-shops and the post-office. -</p> -<p> -Tobacco, all right; its use progresses, thanks to the <i>distinguees</i> -habits, which august examples have skilfully introduced among our -fashionable youth. -</p> -<p> -The post-office!... We shall say nothing of it, as we mean to make it the -subject of a special report. -</p> -<p> -Except, then, the sale of tobacco, what employment remains for your female -subjects? Embroidery, network, and sewing,—melancholy resources, -which the barbarous science of mechanics goes on limiting more and more. -</p> -<p> -But the moment your new law comes into operation, the moment right hands -are amputated or tied up, the face of everything will be changed. Twenty -times, thirty times, a greater number of embroiderers, polishers, -laundresses, seamstresses, milliners, shirtmakers, will not be sufficient -to supply the wants of the kingdom, always assuming, as before, the -consumption to be the same. -</p> -<p> -This assumption may very likely be disputed by some cold theorists, for -dress and everything else will then be dearer. The same thing may be said -of the iron which we extract from our own mines, compared with the iron we -could obtain in exchange for our wines. This argument, therefore, does not -tell more against gaucherie than against protection, for this very -dearness is the effect and the sign of an excess of work and exertion, -which is precisely the basis upon which, in both cases, we contend that -the prosperity of the working classes is founded. -</p> -<p> -Yes, we shall be favoured soon with a touching picture of the prosperity -of the millinery business. What movement! What activity! What life! Every -dress will occupy a hundred fingers, instead of ten. No young woman will -be idle, and we have no need, Sire, to indicate to your perspicacity the -moral consequences of this great revolution. Not only will there be more -young women employed, but each of them will earn more, for they will be -unable to supply the demand; and if competition shall again show itself, -it will not be among the seamstresses who make the dresses, but among the -fine ladies who wear them. -</p> -<p> -You must see then, Sire, that our proposal is not only in strict -conformity with the economic traditions of the government, but is in -itself essentially moral and popular. -</p> -<p> -To appreciate its effects, let us suppose the law passed and in operation,—let -us transport ourselves in imagination into the future,—and assume -the new system to have been in operation for twenty years. Idleness is -banished from the country; ease and concord, contentment and morality, -have, with employment, been introduced into every family—no more -poverty, no more vice. The left hand being very visible in all work, -employment will be abundant, and the remuneration adequate. Everything is -arranged on this footing, and the workshops in consequence are full. If, -in such circumstances, Sire, Utopian dreamers were all at once to agitate -for the right hand being again set free, would they not throw the whole -country into alarm? Would such a pretended reform not overturn the whole -existing state of things? Then our system must be good, since it could not -be put an end to without universal suffering. -</p> -<p> -And yet we confess we have the melancholy presentiment (so great is human -perversity) that some day there will be formed an association for -right-hand freedom. -</p> -<p> -We think that already we hear the free Dexterities, assembled in the Salle -Montesquieu, holding this language:— -</p> -<p> -"Good people, you think yourselves richer because the use of one of your -hands has been denied you; you take account only of the additional -employment which that brings you. But consider also the high prices which -result from it, and the forced diminution of consumption. That measure has -not made capital more abundant, and capital is the fund from which wages -are paid. The streams which flow from that great reservoir are directed -towards other channels; but their volume is not enlarged; and the ultimate -effect, as far as the nation at large is concerned, is the loss of all -that wealth which millions of right hands could produce, compared with -what is now produced by an equal number of left hands. At the risk of some -inevitable derangements, then, let us form an association, and enforce our -right to work with both hands." -</p> -<p> -Fortunately, Sire, an association has been formed in defence of left-hand -labour, and the Sinistristes will have no difficulty in demolishing all -these generalities, suppositions, abstractions, reveries, and utopias. -They have only to exhume the Moniteur Industriel for 1846, and they will -find ready-made arguments against freedom Of trade, which refute so -admirably all that has been urged in favour of right-hand liberty that it -is only necessary to substitute the one word for the other. -</p> -<p> -"The Parisian free-trade league has no doubt of securing the concurrence -of the workmen. But the workmen are no longer men who can be led by the -nose. They have their eyes open, and they know political economy better -than our professors. Free trade, they say, will deprive us of employment, -and labour is our wealth. With employment, with abundant employment, the -price of commodities never places them beyond our reach. Without -employment, were bread at a halfpenny a pound, the workman would die of -hunger. Now your doctrines, instead of increasing the present amount of -employment, would diminish it, that is to say, would reduce us to poverty. -</p> -<p> -"When there are too many commodities in the market, their price falls, no -doubt. But as wages always fall when commodities are cheap, the result is -that, instead of being in a situation to purchase more, we are no longer -able to buy anything. It is when commodities are cheap that the workman is -worst off." -</p> -<p> -It will not be amiss for the Sinistristes to intermingle some menaces with -their theories. Here is a model for them:—"What! you desire to -substitute right-hand for left-hand labour, and thus force down, or -perhaps annihilate wages, the sole resource of the great bulk of the -nation! -</p> -<p> -"And, at a time when a deficient harvest is imposing painful privations on -the workman, you wish to disquiet him as to his future, and render him -more accessible to bad advice, and more ready to abandon that wise line of -conduct which has hitherto distinguished him." -</p> -<p> -After such conclusive reasoning as this, we entertain a confident hope, -Sire, that if the battle is once begun, the left hand will come off -victorious. -</p> -<p> -Perhaps an association may be formed for the purpose of inquiring whether -the right hand and the left are not both wrong, and whether a third hand -cannot be found to conciliate everybody. -</p> -<p> -After having depicted the Dexteristes as seduced by the apparent -liberality of a principle, the soundness of which experience has not yet -verified and the Sinistristes as maintaining the position they have -gained, they go on to say:— -</p> -<p> -"We deny that there is any third position which it is possible to take up -in the midst of the battle! Is it not evident that the workmen have to -defend themselves at one and the same time against those who desire to -change nothing in the present situation, because they find their account -in it, and against those who dream of an economic revolution of which they -have calculated neither the direction nor the extent?" -</p> -<p> -We cannot, however, conceal from your Majesty that our project has a -vulnerable side; for it may be said that twenty years hence left hands -will be as skilful as right hands are at present, and that then you could -no longer trust to gaucherie for an increase of national employment. -</p> -<p> -To that we reply, that according to the most learned physicians the left -side of the body has a natural feebleness, which is quite reassuring as -regards the labour of the future. -</p> -<p> -Should your Majesty consent to pass the measure now proposed, a great -principle will be established: All wealth proceeds from the intensity of -labour. It will be easy for us to extend and vary the applications of this -principle. We may decree, for example, that it shall no longer be -permissible to work but with the foot; for this is no more impossible (as -we have seen) than to extract iron from the mud of the Seine. You see -then, Sire, that the means of increasing national labour can never fail. -And after all has been tried, we have still the practically ex-haustless -resource of amputation. -</p> -<p> -To conclude, Sire, if this report were not intended for publicity, we -should take the liberty of soliciting your attention to the great -influence which measures of this kind are calculated to confer on men in -power. But that is a matter which we must reserve for a private audience. -</p> -<p> -<br /><br /> -</p> -<hr /> -<p> -<a name="link2H_4_0044" id="link2H_4_0044"> </a> -</p> -<div style="height: 4em;"> -<br /><br /><br /><br /> -</div> -<h2> -XVII. DOMINATION BY LABOUR. -</h2> -<p class="pfirst"><span class="dropcap" style="font-size: 4.00em">I</span>n the same way that in time of war we attain the mastery by superiority -in arms, do we not, in time of peace, arrive at domination by superiority -in labour?" -</p> -<p> -This is a question of the highest interest at a time when no doubt seems -to be entertained that in the field of industry, as in the field of -battle, the stronger crushes the weaker. -</p> -<p> -To arrive at this conclusion, we must have discovered between the labour -which is applied to commodities and the violence exercised upon men, a -melancholy and discouraging analogy; for why should these two kinds of -operations be thought identical in their effects, if they are essentially -different in their own nature? -</p> -<p> -And if it be true that in industry, as in war, predominance is the -necessary result of superiority, what have we to do with progress or with -social economy, seeing that we inhabit a world where everything has been -so arranged by Providence that one and the same effect—namely, -oppression—proceeds necessarily from two opposite principles? -</p> -<p> -With reference to England's new policy of commercial freedom, many persons -make this objection, which has, I am convinced, taken possession of the -most candid minds among us: "Is England doing anything else than pursuing -the same end by different means. Does she not always aspire at universal -supremacy? Assured of her superiority in capital and labour, does she not -invite free competition in order to stifle Continental industry, and so -put herself in a situation to reign as a sovereign, having conquered the -privilege of feeding and clothing the population she has ruined?" -</p> -<p> -It would not be difficult to demonstrate that these alarms are chimerical; -that our alleged inferiority is much exaggerated; that our great branches -of industry not only maintain their ground, but are actually developed -under the action of external competition, and that the infallible effect -of such competition is to bring about an increase of general consumption, -capable of absorbing both home and foreign products. -</p> -<p> -At present, I desire to make a direct answer to the objection, leaving it -all the advantage of the ground chosen by the objectors. Keeping out of -view for the present the special case of England and France, I shall -inquire in a general way whether, when, by its superiority in one branch -of industry, a nation comes to outrival and put down a similar branch of -industry existing among another people, the former has advanced one step -towards domination, or the latter towards dependence; in' other words, -whether both nations do not gain by the operation, and whether it is not -the nation which is outrivalled that gains the most. -</p> -<p> -If we saw in a product nothing more than an opportunity of bestowing -labour, the alarms of the protectionists would undoubtedly be -well-founded. Were we to consider iron, for example, only in its relations -with ironmasters, we might be led to fear that the competition of a -country where it is the gratuitous gift of nature would extinguish the -furnaces of another country where both ore and fuel are scarce. -</p> -<p> -But is this a complete view of the subject? Has iron relations only with -those who make it? Has it no relations with those who use it? Is its sole -and ultimate destination to be produced? And if it is useful, not on -account of the labour to which it gives employment, but on account of the -qualities it possesses, of the numerous purposes to which its durability -and malleability adapt it, does it not follow that the foreigner cannot -reduce its price, even so far as to render its production at home -unprofitable, without doing us more good in this last respect, than harm -in the other? -</p> -<p> -Pray consider how many things there are which foreigners, by reason of the -natural advantages by which they are surrounded, prevent our producing -directly, and with reference to which we are placed in reality in the -hypothetical position we have been examining with reference to iron. We -produce at home neither tea, coffee, gold, nor silver. Is our industry <i>en -masse</i> diminished in consequence? No; only in order to create the -counter-value of these imported commodities, in order to acquire them by -means of exchange, we detach from our national labour a portion less great -than would be required to produce these things ourselves. More labour thus -remains to be devoted to the procuring of other enjoyments. We are so much -the richer and so much the stronger. All that external competition can do, -even in cases where it puts an end absolutely to a determinate branch of -industry, is to economize labour, and increase our productive power. Is -this, in the case of the foreigner, the road to domination! -</p> -<p> -If we should find in France a gold mine, it does not follow that it would -be for our interest to work it. Nay, it is certain that the enterprise -would be neglected if each ounce of gold absorbed more of our labour than -an ounce of gold purchased abroad with cloth. In this case we should do -better to find our mines in our workshops. And what is true of gold is -true of iron. -</p> -<p> -The illusion proceeds from our failure to see one thing, which is, that -foreign superiority never puts a stop to national industry, except under a -determinate form, and under that form only renders it superfluous by -placing at our disposal the result of the very labour thus superseded. If -men lived in diving-bells under water, and had to provide themselves with -air by means of a pump, this would be a great source of employment. To -throw obstacles in the way of such employment, as long as men were left in -this condition would be to inflict upon them a frightful injury. But if -the labour ceases because the necessity for its exertion no longer exists, -because men are placed in a medium where air is introduced into their -lungs without effort, then the loss of that labour is not to be regretted, -except in the eyes of men who obstinately persist in seeing in labour -nothing but labour in the abstract. -</p> -<p> -It is exactly this kind of labour which machinery, commercial freedom, -progress of every kind, gradually supersedes; not useful labour, but -labour become superfluous, without object, and without result. On the -contrary, protection sets that sort of useless labour to work; it places -us again under water, to bring the air-pump into play; it forces us to -apply for gold to the inaccessible national mine, rather than to the -national workshops. All the effect is expressed by the words, depredation -of forces. -</p> -<p> -It will be understood that I am speaking here of general effects, not of -the temporary inconvenience which is always caused by the transition from -a bad system to a good one. A momentary derangement accompanies -necessarily all progress. This may be a reason for making the transition -gently and gradually. It is no reason for putting a stop systematically to -all progress, still less for misunderstanding it. -</p> -<p> -Industry is often represented as a struggle. That is not a true -representation of it, or only true when we confine ourselves to the -consideration of each branch of industry in its effects upon similar -branches, regarding them both in thought apart from the interests of the -rest of mankind. But there is always something else to be considered, -namely, the effects upon consumption, and upon general prosperity. -</p> -<p> -It is an error to apply to trade, as is but too often done, phrases which -are applicable to war. -</p> -<p> -In war the stronger overcomes the weaker. -</p> -<p> -In industry the stronger imparts force to the weaker. This entirely does -away with the analogy. -</p> -<p> -Let the English be as powerful and skilful as they are represented, let -them be possessed of as large an amount of capital, and have as great a -command of the two great agents of production, iron and fuel, as they are -supposed to have; all this simply means cheapness. And who gains by the -cheapness of products? The man who buys them. -</p> -<p> -It is not in their power to annihilate any part whatever of our national -labour. All they can do is to render it superfluous in the production of -what is acquired by exchange, to furnish us with air without the aid of -the pump, to enlarge in this way our disposable forces, and so render -their alleged domination as much more impossible as their superiority -becomes more incontestable. -</p> -<p> -Thus, by a rigorous and consoling demonstration, we arrive at this -conclusion, that labour and violence, which are so opposite in their -nature, are not less so in their effects. -</p> -<p> -All we are called upon to do is to distinguish between labour annihilated, -and labour economized. -</p> -<p> -To have less iron because we work less, and to have less iron although we -work less, are things not only different, but opposed to each other. The -protectionists confound them; we do not. That is all. -</p> -<p> -We may be very certain of one thing, that if the English employ a large -amount of activity, labour, capital, intelligence, and natural forces, it -is not done for show. It is done in order to procure a multitude of -enjoyments in exchange for their products. They most certainly expect to -receive at least as much as they give. <i>What they produce at home is -destined to pay for what they purchase abroad</i>. If they inundate us -with their products, it is because they expect to be inundated with ours -in return. That being so, the best means of having much for ourselves is -to be free to choose between these two modes of acquisition, immediate -production, and mediate production. British Machiavelism cannot force us -to make a wrong choice. -</p> -<p> -Let us give up, then, the puerility of applying to industrial competition -phrases applicable to war,—a way of speaking which is only specious -when applied to competition between two rival trades. The moment we come -to take into account the effect produced on the general prosperity, the -analogy disappears. -</p> -<p> -In a battle, every one who is killed diminishes by so much the strength of -the army. In industry, a workshop is shut up only when what it produced is -obtained by the public from another source and in greater abundance. -Figure a state of things where for one man killed on the spot two should -rise up full of life and vigour. Were such a state of things possible, war -would no longer merit its name. -</p> -<p> -This, however, is the distinctive character of what is so absurdly called -industrial war. -</p> -<p> -Let the Belgians and the English lower the price of their iron ever so -much; let them, if they will, send it to us for nothing; this might -extinguish some of our blast-furnaces; but immediately, and as a necessary -consequence of this very cheapness, there would rise up a thousand other -branches of industry more profitable than the one which had been -superseded. -</p> -<p> -We arrive, then, at the conclusion that domination by labour is -impossible, and a contradiction in terms, seeing that all superiority -which manifests itself among a people means cheapness, and tends only to -impart force to all other nations. Let us banish, then, from political -economy all terms borrowed from the military vocabulary: to fight with -equal weapons, to conquer, to crush, to stifle, to be beaten, invasion, -tribute, etc. What do such phrases mean? Squeeze them, and you obtain -nothing... Yes, you do obtain something; for from such words proceed -absurd errors, and fatal and pestilent prejudices. Such phrases tend to -arrest the fusion of nations, are inimical to their peaceful, universal, -and indissoluble alliance, and retard the progress of the human race. -</p> -<h3> -THE END. -</h3> -<div style="height: 6em;"> -<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> -</div> - - - - - - - -<pre> - - - - - -End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of Economic Sophisms, by Frederic Bastiat - -*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK ECONOMIC SOPHISMS *** - -***** This file should be named 44145-h.htm or 44145-h.zip ***** -This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: -http://www.gutenberg.org/4/4/1/4/44145/ - -Produced by David Widger - -Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions -will be renamed. - -Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no -one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation -(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without -permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, -set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to -copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to -protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark. Project -Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you -charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission. If you -do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the -rules is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose -such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and -research. They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do -practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks. Redistribution is -subject to the trademark license, especially commercial -redistribution. - - - -*** START: FULL LICENSE *** - -THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE -PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK - -To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free -distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work -(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project -Gutenberg-tm License available with this file or online at -www.gutenberg.org/license. - - -Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works - -1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to -and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property -(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all -the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy -all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession. -If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the -terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or -entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8. - -1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be -used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who -agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few -things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See -paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement -and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic -works. See paragraph 1.E below. - -1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation" -or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the -collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an -individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are -located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from -copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative -works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg -are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project -Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by -freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of -this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with -the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by -keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project -Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others. - -1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern -what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in -a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check -the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement -before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or -creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project -Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning -the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United -States. - -1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: - -1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate -access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently -whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the -phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project -Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, -copied or distributed: - -This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with -almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or -re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included -with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org - -1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived -from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is -posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied -and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees -or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work -with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the -work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 -through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the -Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or -1.E.9. - -1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted -with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution -must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional -terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked -to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the -permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work. - -1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm -License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this -work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. - -1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this -electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without -prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with -active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project -Gutenberg-tm License. - -1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, -compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any -word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or -distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than -"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version -posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org), -you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a -copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon -request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other -form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm -License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. - -1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, -performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works -unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing -access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided -that - -- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from -the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method -you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is -owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he -has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the -Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments -must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you -prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax -returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and -sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the -address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to -the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation." - -- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies -you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he -does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm -License. You must require such a user to return or -destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium -and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of -Project Gutenberg-tm works. - -- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any -money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the -electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days -of receipt of the work. - -- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free -distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. - -1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set -forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from -both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael -Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the -Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. - -1.F. - -1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable -effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread -public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm -collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic -works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain -"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or -corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual -property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a -computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by -your equipment. - -1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right -of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project -Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all -liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal -fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT -LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE -PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE -TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE -LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR -INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH -DAMAGE. - -1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a -defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can -receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a -written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you -received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with -your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with -the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a -refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity -providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to -receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy -is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further -opportunities to fix the problem. - -1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth -in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO OTHER -WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO -WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. - -1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied -warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. -If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the -law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be -interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by -the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any -provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions. - -1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the -trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone -providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance -with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, -promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works, -harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, -that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do -or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm -work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any -Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause. - - -Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm - -Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of -electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers -including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists -because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from -people in all walks of life. - -Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the -assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's -goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will -remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure -and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations. -To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation -and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 -and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org - - -Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive -Foundation - -The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit -501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the -state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal -Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification -number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg -Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent -permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. - -The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S. -Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered -throughout numerous locations. Its business office is located at 809 -North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email -contact links and up to date contact information can be found at the -Foundation's web site and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact - -For additional contact information: -Dr. Gregory B. Newby -Chief Executive and Director -gbnewby@pglaf.org - -Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg -Literary Archive Foundation - -Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide -spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of -increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be -freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest -array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations -($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt -status with the IRS. - -The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating -charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United -States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a -considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up -with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations -where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To -SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any -particular state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate - -While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we -have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition -against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who -approach us with offers to donate. - -International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make -any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from -outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. - -Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation -methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other -ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. -To donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate - - -Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic -works. - -Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm -concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared -with anyone. For forty years, he produced and distributed Project -Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support. - -Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed -editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S. -unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily -keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition. - -Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility: - -www.gutenberg.org - -This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, -including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to -subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. - - - -</pre> - -</body> -</html> diff --git a/old/44145.txt b/old/44145.txt deleted file mode 100644 index bdbea8d..0000000 --- a/old/44145.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,10389 +0,0 @@ -The Project Gutenberg EBook of Economic Sophisms, by Frederic Bastiat - -This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with -almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or -re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included -with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org - - -Title: Economic Sophisms - -Author: Frederic Bastiat - -Translator: Patrick James Stirling - -Release Date: November 10, 2013 [EBook #44145] - -Language: English - -Character set encoding: ASCII - -*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK ECONOMIC SOPHISMS *** - - - - -Produced by David Widger - - - - - - -ECONOMIC SOPHISMS - -By Frederic Bastiat - -Translated From the Fifth Edition of the French, by Patrick James -Stirling, LLD., F.R.S.E. - -Author Of "The Philosophy Of Trade," Etc. - -Edinburgh: Oliver And Boyd, Tweeddale Court. - - -1873 - - - - -TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE. - -Bastiat's two great works on Political Economy--the Sophismes -Economiques, and the Harmonies Economiques--may be regarded as -counterparts of each other. He himself so regarded them: "the one," he -says, "pulls down, the other builds up." His object in the Sophismes was -to refute the fallacies of the Protectionist school, then predominant -in France, and so to clear the way for the establishment of what he -maintained to be the true system of economic science, which he desired -to found on a new and peculiar theory of value, afterwards fully -developed by him in the _Harmonies_. Whatever difference of opinion -may exist among economists as to the soundness of this theory, all must -admire the irresistible logic of the _Sophismes_, and "the sallies -of wit and humour," which, as Mr Cobden has said, make that work as -"amusing as a novel." - -The system of Bastiat having thus a _destructive_ as well as a -_constructive_ object, a _negative_ as well as a _positive_ design, it -is perhaps only doing justice to his great reputation as an economist to -put the English reader in a position to judge of that system as a -whole. Hence the present translation of the _Sophismes_ is intended as a -companion volume to the translation of the _Harmonies._ - -It is unnecessary for me to say more here by way of preface, the gifted -author having himself explained the design of the work in a short but -lucid introduction. - -P.J.S. - - - - -ECONOMIC SOPHISMS. FIRST SERIES. - - - - -INTRODUCTION. - -My design in this little volume is to refute some of the arguments which -are urged against the Freedom of Trade. - -I do not propose to engage in a contest with the protectionists; but -rather to instil a principle into the minds of those who hesitate -because they sincerely doubt. - -I am not one of those who say that Protection is founded on men's -interests. I am of opinion rather that it is founded on errors, or, if -you will, upon _incomplete truths_. Too many people fear liberty, to -permit us to conclude that their apprehensions are not sincerely felt. - -It is perhaps aiming too high, but my wish is, I confess, that this -little work should become, as it were, the _Manual_ of those whose -business it is to pronounce between the two principles. Where men have -not been long accustomed and familiarized to the doctrine of liberty, -the sophisms of protection, in one shape or another, are constantly -coming back upon them. In order to disabuse them of such errors when -they recur, a long process of analysis becomes necessary; and every -one has not the time required for such a process--legislators less than -others. This is my reason for endeavouring to present the analysis and -its results cut and dry. - -But it may be asked, Are the benefits of liberty so hidden as to be -discovered only by Economists by profession? - - * The first series of the Sophismes Economiques appeared in - the end of 1845; the second series in 1848.--Editor. - -We must confess that our adversaries have a marked advantage over us in -the discussion. In very few words they can announce a half-truth; and -in order to demonstrate that it is _incomplete_, we are obliged to have -recourse to long and dry dissertations. - -This arises from the nature of things. Protection concentrates on one -point the good which it produces, while the evils which it inflicts are -spread over the masses. The one is visible to the naked eye; the other -only to the eye of the mind. In the case of liberty, it is just the -reverse. - -In the treatment of almost all economic questions, we find it to be so. - -You say, Here is a machine which has turned thirty workmen into the -street. - -Or, Here is a spendthrift who encourages every branch of industry. - -Or, The conquest of Algeria has doubled the trade of Marseilles. - -Or, The budget secures subsistence for a hundred thousand families. - -You are understood at once and by all. Your propositions are in -themselves clear, simple, and true. What are your deductions from them? - -Machinery is an evil. - -Luxury, conquests, and heavy taxation, are productive of good. - -And your theory has all the more success that you are in a situation to -support it by a reference to undoubted facts. - -On our side, we must decline to confine our attention to the cause, and -its direct and immediate effect. We know that this very effect in its -turn becomes a cause. To judge correctly of a measure, then, we must -trace it through the whole chain of results to its definitive effect. In -other words, we are forced to _reason_ upon it. - -But then clamour gets up: You are theorists, metaphysicians, idealists, -utopian dreamers, _doctrinaires_; and all the prejudices of the popular -mind are roused against us. - -What, under such circumstances, are we to do? We can only invoke the -patience and good sense of the reader, and set our deductions, if we -can, in a light so clear, that truth and error must show themselves -plainly, openly, and without disguise,--and that the victory, once -gained, may remain on the side of restriction, or on that of freedom. - -And here I must set down an essential observation. - -Some extracts from this little volume have already appeared in the -_Journal des Economistes_. - -In a critique, in other respects very favourable, from the pen of M. -le Vicomte de Romanet, he supposes that I demand the suppression of -customs. He is mistaken. I demand the suppression of the protectionist -_regime_. We don't refuse taxes to the Government, but we desire, if -possible, to dissuade the governed from taxing one another. Napoleon -said that "the customhouse should not be made an instrument of revenue, -but a means of protecting industry." We maintain the contrary, and we -contend that the customhouse ought not to become in the hands of the -working classes an instrument of reciprocal rapine, but that it may be -used as an instrument of revenue as legitimately as any other. So far -are we--or, to speak only for myself, so far am I--from demanding the -suppression of customs, that I see in that branch of revenue our future -anchor of safety. I believe our resources are capable of yielding to the -Treasury immense returns; and to speak plainly, I must add, that, seeing -how slow is the spread of sound economic doctrines, and so rapid -the increase of our budgets, I am disposed to count more upon the -necessities of the Treasury than on the force of enlightened opinion for -furthering the cause of commercial reform. - -You ask me, then, What is your conclusion? and I reply, that here there -is no need to arrive at a conclusion. I combat sophisms; that is all. - -But you rejoin, that it is not enough to pull down--it is also necessary -to build up. True; but to destroy an error, is to build up the truth -which stands opposed to it. - -After all, I have no repugnance to declare what my wishes are. I desire -to see public opinion led to sanction a law of customs conceived nearly -in these terms:-- - -Articles of primary necessity to pay a duty, ad valorem, of 5 per cent. - -Articles of convenience, 10 per cent. - -Articles of luxury, 15 to 20 per cent. - -These distinctions, I am aware, belong to an order of ideas which are -quite foreign to Political Economy strictly so called, and I am far from -thinking them as just and useful as they are commonly supposed to be. -But this subject does not fall within the compass of my present design. - - - - -I. ABUNDANCE, SCARCITY. - -Which is best for man, and for society, abundance or scarcity? - -What! you exclaim, can that be a question? Has any one ever asserted, or -is it possible to maintain, that scarcity is at the foundation of human -wellbeing? - -Yes, this has been asserted, and is maintained every day; and I hesitate -not to affirm that the _theory of scarcity_ is much the most popular. -It is the life of conversation, of the journals, of books, and of -the tribune; and strange as it may seem, it is certain that Political -Economy will have fulfilled its practical mission when it has -established beyond question, and widely disseminated, this very -simple proposition: "The wealth of men consists in the abundance of -commodities." - -Do we not hear it said every day, "The foreigner is about to inundate us -with his products?" Then we fear abundance. - -Did not M. Saint Cricq exclaim, "Production is excessive?" Then he feared -abundance. - -Do workmen break machines? Then they fear excess of production, or -abundance. - -Has not M. Bugeaud pronounced these words, "Let bread be dear, and -agriculturists will get rich?" Now, bread cannot be dear but because it -is scarce. Therefore M. Bugeaud extols scarcity. - -Does not M. d'Argout urge as an argument against sugar-growing the -very productiveness of that industry? Does he not say, "Beetroot has no -future, and its culture cannot be extended, because a few acres devoted -to its culture in each department would supply the whole consumption of -France?" Then, in his eyes, good lies in sterility, in dearth, and evil -in fertility and abundance. - -The _Presse_, the _Commerce_, and the greater part of the daily papers, -have one or more articles every morning to demonstrate to the Chambers -and the Government, that it is sound policy to raise legislatively the -price of all things by means of tariffs. And do the Chambers and the -Government not obey the injunction? Now tariffs can raise prices only -by diminishing the _supply_ of commodities in the market! Then the -journals, the Chambers, and the Minister, put in practice the theory of -scarcity, and I am justified in saying that this theory is by far the -most popular. - -How does it happen that in the eyes of workmen, of publicists, and -statesmen, abundance should appear a thing to be dreaded, and scarcity -advantageous? I propose to trace this illusion to its source. - -We remark that a man grows richer in proportion to the return yielded by -his exertions, that is to say, in proportion as he sells his commodity -at a _higher price_. He sells at a higher price in proportion to the -rarity, to the scarcity, of the article he produces. We conclude from -this, that, as far as he is concerned at least, scarcity enriches him. -Applying successively the same reasoning to all other producers, we -construct the _theory of scarcity_. We next proceed to apply this -theory, and, in order to favour producers generally, we raise prices -artificially, and cause a scarcity of all commodities, by prohibition, -by restriction, by the suppression of machinery, and other analogous -means. - -The same thing holds of abundance. We observe that when a product is -plentiful, it sells at a lower price, and the producer gains less. If -all producers are in the same situation, they are all poor. Therefore -it is abundance that ruins society And as theories are soon reduced -to practice, we see the law struggling against the abundance of -commodities. - -This sophism in its more general form may make little impression, but -applied to a particular order of facts, to a certain branch of industry, -to a given class, of producers, it is extremely specious; and this -is easily explained. It forms a syllogism which is not _false_, -but _incomplete_. Now, what is _true_ in a syllogism is always and -necessarily present to the mind. But _incompleteness_ is a negative -quality, an absent _datum_, which it is very possible, and indeed very -easy, to leave out of account. - -Man produces in order to consume. He is at once producer and consumer. -The reasoning which I have just explained considers him only in the -first of these points of view. Had the second been taken into account, -it would have led to an opposite conclusion. In effect, may it not be -said:-- - -The consumer is richer in proportion as he _purchases_ all things -cheaper; and he purchases things cheaper in proportion to their -abundance; therefore it is abundance which enriches him. This reasoning, -extended to all consumers, leads to the _theory of plenty_. - -It is the notion of _exchange_ imperfectly understood which leads to -these illusions. If we consider our personal interest, we recognise -distinctly that it is double. As _sellers_ we have an interest in -dearness, and consequently in scarcity; as _buyers_, in cheapness, or -what amounts to the same thing, in the abundance of commodities. We -cannot, then, found our reasoning on one or other of these interests -before inquiring which of the two coincides and is identified with the -general and permanent interest of mankind at large. - -If man were a solitary animal, if he laboured exclusively for himself, -if he consumed directly the fruit of his labour--in a word, _if he did -not exchange_--the theory of scarcity would never have appeared in -the world. It is too evident that, in that case, abundance would be -advantageous, from whatever quarter it came, whether from the result -of his industry, from ingenious tools, from powerful machinery of his -invention, or whether due to the fertility of the soil, the liberality -of nature, or even to a mysterious _invasion_ of products brought by the -waves and left by them upon the shore. No solitary man would ever -have thought that in order to encourage his labour and render it more -productive, it was necessary to break in pieces the instruments which -saved it, to neutralize the fertility of the soil, or give back to the -sea the good things it had brought to his door. He would perceive at -once that labour is not an end, but a means; and that it would be absurd -to reject the result for fear of doing injury to the means by which that -result was accomplished. He would perceive that if he devotes two -hours a day to providing for his wants, any circumstance (machinery, -fertility, gratuitous gift, no matter what) which saves him an hour -of that labour, the result remaining the same, puts that hour at his -disposal, and that he can devote it to increasing his enjoyments; -in short, he would see that _to save labour_ is nothing else than -_progress_. - -But _exchange_ disturbs our view of a truth so simple. In the social -state, and with the separation of employments to which it leads, -the production and consumption of a commodity are not mixed up and -confounded in the same individual. Each man comes to see in his labour -no longer a means but an end. In relation to each commodity, exchange -creates two interests, that of the producer and that of the consumer; -and these two interests are always directly opposed to each other. - -It is essential to analyze them, and examine their nature. - -Take the case of any producer whatever, what is his immediate interest? -It consists of two things: 1st, that the fewest possible number of -persons should devote themselves to his branch of industry; 2dly, that -the greatest possible number of' persons should be in quest of the -article he produces. Political economy explains it more succinctly in -these terms, Supply very limited, demand very extended; or in other -words still, Competition limited, demand unlimited. - -What is the immediate interest of the consumer? That the supply of the -product in question should be extended, and the demand restrained. - -Seeing, then, that these two interests are in opposition to each other, -one of them must necessarily coincide with social interests in general, -and the other be antagonistic to them. - -But which of them should legislation favour, as identical with the -public good--if, indeed, it should favour either? - -To discover this, we must inquire what would happen if the secret wishes -of men were granted. - -In as far as we are producers, it must be allowed that the desire of -every one of us is anti-social. Are we vine-dressers? It would give us -no great regret if hail should shower down on all the vines in the world -except our own: _this is the theory of scarcity_. Are we iron-masters? -Our wish is, that there should be no other iron in the market but our -own, however much the public may be in want of it; and for no other -reason than that this want, keenly felt and imperfectly satisfied, shall -ensure us a higher price: this _is still the theory of scarcity_. Are -we farmers? We say with M. Bugeaud, Let bread be dear, that is to say, -scarce, and agriculturists will thrive: always the same theory, _the -theory of scarcity_. - -Are we physicians? We cannot avoid seeing that certain physical -ameliorations, improving the sanitary state of the country, the -development of certain moral virtues, such as moderation and temperance, -the progress of knowledge tending to enable each man to take better -care of his own health, the discovery of certain simple remedies of easy -application, would be so many blows to our professional success. In as -far as we are physicians, then, our secret wishes would be anti-social. -I do not say that physicians form these secret wishes. On the contrary, -I believe they would hail with joy the discovery of a universal panacea; -but they would not do this as physicians, but as men, and as Christians. -By a noble abnegation of self', the physician places himself in the -consumer's point of view. But as exercising a profession, from which he -derives his own and his family's subsistence, his desires, or, if you -will, his interests, are anti-social. - -Are we manufacturers of cotton stuffs? We desire to sell them at the -price most profitable to ourselves. We should consent willingly to an -interdict being laid on all rival manufactures; and if we could venture -to give this wish public expression, or hope to realize it with some -chance of success, we should attain our end, to some extent, by indirect -means; for example, by excluding foreign fabrics, in order to diminish -the _supply_, and thus produce, forcibly and to our profit, a _scarcity_ -of clothing. - -In the same way, we might pass in review all other branches of industry, -and we should always find that the producers, as such, have anti-social -views. "The shopkeeper," says Montaigne, "thrives only by the -irregularities of youth; the farmer by the high price of corn, the -architect by the destruction of houses, the officers of justice by -lawsuits and quarrels. Ministers of religion derive their distinction -and employment from our vices and our death. No physician rejoices in -the health of his friends, nor soldiers in the peace of their country; -and so of the rest." - -Hence it follows that if the secret wishes of each producer were -realized, the world would retrograde rapidly towards barbarism. The sail -would supersede steam, the oar would supersede the sail, and general -traffic would be carried on by the carrier's waggon; the latter would be -superseded by the mule, and the mule by the pedlar. Wool would exclude -cotton, cotton in its turn would exclude wool, and so on until the -dearth of all things had caused man himself to disappear from the face -of the earth. - -Suppose for a moment that the legislative power and the public force -were placed at the disposal of Mimeral's committee, and that each member -of that association had the privilege of bringing in and sanctioning a -favourite law, is it difficult to divine to what sort of industrial code -the public would be subjected? - -If we now proceed to consider the immediate interest of the consumer, we -shall find that it is in perfect harmony with the general interest, with -all that the welfare of society calls for. When the purchaser goes -to market, he desires to find it well stocked. Let the seasons be -propitious for all harvests; let inventions more and more marvellous -bring within reach a greater and greater number of products and -enjoyments; let time and labour be saved; let distances be effaced by -the perfection and rapidity of transit; let the spirit of justice and -of peace allow of a diminished weight of taxation; let barriers of every -kind be removed;--in all this the interest of the consumer runs parallel -with the public interest. The consumer may push his secret wishes to a -chimerical and absurd length, without these wishes becoming antagonistic -to the public welfare. He may desire that food and shelter, the hearth -and the roof, instruction and morality, security and peace, power and -health, should be obtained without exertion, and without measure, like -the dust of the highways, the water of the brook, the air which we -breathe; and yet the realization of his desires would not be at variance -with the good of society. - -It may be said that if these wishes were granted, the work of the -producer would become more and more limited, and would end with -being stopped for want of aliment. But why? Because, on this extreme -supposition, all imaginable wants and desires would be fully satisfied. -Man, like Omnipotence, would create all things by a simple act of -volition. Well, on this hypotheses, what reason should we have to regret -the stoppage of industrial production? - -I made the supposition, not long ago, of the existence of an assembly -composed of workmen, each member of which, in his capacity of producer, -should have the power of passing a law embodying his _secret wish_, and -I said that the code which would emanate from that assembly would be -monopoly systematized, the theory of scarcity reduced to practice. - -In the same way, a chamber in which each should consult exclusively his -own immediate interest as a consumer, would tend to systematize liberty, -to suppress all restrictive measures, to overthrow all artificial -barriers--in a word, to realize the _theory of plenty_. - -Hence it follows: - -That to consult exclusively the immediate interest of the producer, is -to consult an interest which is anti-social. - -That to take for basis exclusively the immediate interest of the -consumer, would be to take for basis the general interest. - -Let me enlarge on this view of the subject a little, at the risk of -being prolix. - -A radical antagonism exists between seller and buyer.* - -The former desires that the subject of the bargain should be scarce, its -supply limited, and its price high. - -The latter desires that it should be _abundant_, its supply large, and -its price low. - -The laws, which should be at least neutral, take the part of the seller -against the buyer, of the producer against the consumer, of dearness -against cheapness,** of scarcity against abundance. - - * The author has modified somewhat the terms of this - proposition in a posterior work.--See _Harmonies - Economiques_, chapter xi.--Editor. - - ** We have not in French a substantive to express the idea - opposed to that of dearness (cheapness). It is somewhat - remarkable that the popular instinct expresses the idea by - this periphrase, _marche avantageux, bon marche'_. The - protectionists would do well to reform this locution, for it - implies an economic system opposed to theirs. - -They proceed, if not intentionally, at least logically, on this datum: -_a nation is rich when it is in want of everything_. - -For they say, it is the producer that we must favour by securing him a -good market for his product. For this purpose it is necessary to raise -the price, and in order to raise the price we must restrict the supply; -and to restrict the supply is to create scarcity. - -Just let us suppose that at the present moment, when all these laws -are in full force, we make a complete inventory, not in value, but in -weight, measure, volume, quantity, of all the commodities existing in -the country, which are fitted to satisfy the wants and tastes of its -inhabitants--corn, meat, cloth, fuel, colonial products, etc. - -Suppose, again, that next day all the barriers which oppose the -introduction of foreign products are removed. - -Lastly, suppose that in order to test the result of this reform, they -proceed three months afterwards to make a new inventory. - -Is it not true that there will be found in France more corn, cattle, -cloth, linen, iron, coal, sugar, etc., at the date of the second, than -at the date of the first inventory? - -So true is this, that our protective tariffs have no other purpose than -to hinder all these things from reaching us, to restrict the supply, and -prevent depreciation and abundance. - -Now I would ask, Are the people who live under our laws better fed -because there is _less_ bread, meat, and sugar in the country? Are they -better clothed, because there is _less_ cloth and linen? Better warmed, -because there is _less_ coal? Better assisted in their labour, because -there are _fewer_ tools and _less_ iron, copper, and machinery? - -But it may be said, If the foreigner _inundates_ us with his products, -he will carry away our money. - -And what does it matter? Men are not fed on money. They do not clothe -themselves with gold, or warm themselves with silver. What matters it -whether there is more or less money in the country, if there is more -bread on our sideboards, more meat in our larders, more linen in our -wardrobes, more firewood in our cellars. - -Restrictive laws always land us in this dilemma:-- - -Either you admit that they produce scarcity, or you do not. If you admit -it, you avow by the admission that you inflict on the people all the -injury in your power. If you do not admit it, you deny having restricted -the supply and raised prices, and consequently you deny having favoured -the producer. - -What you do is either hurtful or profitless, injurious or ineffectual. -It never can be attended with any useful result. - - - - -II. OBSTACLE, CAUSE. - -The obstacle mistaken for the cause,--scarcity mistaken for -abundance,--this is the same sophism under another aspect; and it is -well to study it in all its phases. - -Man is originally destitute of everything. - -Between this destitution and the satisfaction of his wants, there exist -a multitude of _obstacles_ which labour enables us to surmount. It is -curious to inquire how and why these very obstacles to his material -prosperity have come to be mistaken for the cause of that prosperity. - -I want to travel a hundred miles. But between the starting-point and -the place of my destination, mountains, rivers, marshes, impenetrable -forests, brigands--in a word, _obstacles_--interpose themselves; and to -overcome these obstacles, it is necessary for me to employ many efforts, -or, what comes to the same thing, that others should employ many efforts -for me, the price of which I must pay them. It is clear that I should -have been in a better situation if these obstacles had not existed. - -On his long journey through life, from the cradle to the grave, man -has need to assimilate to himself a prodigious quantity of alimentary -substances, to protect himself against the inclemency of the weather, -to preserve himself from a number of ailments, or cure himself of them. -Hunger, thirst, disease, heat, cold, are so many obstacles strewn along -his path. In a state of isolation he must overcome them all, by hunting, -fishing, tillage, spinning, weaving, building; and it is clear that -it would be better for him that these obstacles were less numerous -and formidable, or, better still, that they did not exist at all. In -society, he does not combat these obstacles personally, but others do -it for him; and in return he employs himself in removing one of those -obstacles which are encountered by his fellow-men. - -It is clear also, considering things in the gross, that it would be -better for men in the aggregate, or for society, that these obstacles -should be as few and feeble as possible. - -But when we come to scrutinize the social phenomena in detail, and men's -sentiments as modified by the introduction of exchange, we soon perceive -how they have come to confound wants with wealth, the obstacle with the -cause. - -The separation of employments, the division of labour, which results -from the faculty of exchanging, causes each man, instead of struggling -on his own account to overcome all the obstacles which surround him, to -combat only _one_ of them; he overcomes that one not for himself but for -his fellow-men, who in turn render him the same service. - -The consequence is that this man, in combating this obstacle which it is -his special business to overcome for the sake of others, sees in it the -immediate source of his own wealth. The greater, the more formidable, -the more keenly felt this obstacle is, the greater will be the -remuneration which his fellow-men will be disposed to accord him; that -is to say, the more ready will they be to remove the obstacles which -stand in his way. - -The physician, for example, does not bake his own bread, or manufacture -his own instruments, or weave or make his own coat. Others do these -things for him, and in return he treats the diseases with which his -patients are afflicted. The more numerous, severe, and frequent these -diseases are, the more others consent, and are obliged, to do for his -personal comfort. Regarding it from this point of view, disease, -that general obstacle to human happiness, becomes a cause of material -prosperity to the individual physician. The same argument applies to -all producers in their several departments. The shipowner derives his -profits from the obstacle called _distance_; the agriculturist from that -called _hunger_; the manufacturer of cloth from that called _cold_; the -schoolmaster lives upon _ignorance_; the lapidary upon _vanity_; the -attorney on _cupidity_; the notary upon possible _bad faith_,--just -as the physician lives upon the diseases of men. It is quite true, -therefore, that each profession has an immediate interest in the -continuation, nay in the extension, of the special obstacle which it is -its business to combat. - -Observing this, theorists make their appearance, and, founding a system -on their individual sentiments, tell us: Want is wealth, labour is -wealth, obstacles to material prosperity are prosperity. To multiply -obstacles is to support industry. - -Then statesmen intervene. They have the disposal of the public force; -and what more natural than to make it available for developing and -multiplying obstacles, since this is developing and multiplying wealth? -They say, for example: If we prevent the importation of iron from places -where it is abundant, we place an obstacle in the way of its being -procured. This obstacle, keenly felt at home, will induce men to pay in -order to be set free from it. A certain number of our fellow-citizens -will devote themselves to combating it, and this obstacle will make -their fortune. The greater the obstacle is--that is, the scarcer, the -more inaccessible, the more difficult to transport, the more distant -from the place where it is to be used, the mineral sought for -becomes--the more hands will be engaged in the various ramifications -of this branch of industry. Exclude, then, foreign iron, create an -obstacle, for you thereby create the labour which is to overcome it. - -The same reasoning leads to the proscription of machinery. - -Here, for instance, are men who are in want of casks for the storage of -their wine. This is an obstacle; and here are other men whose business -it is to remove that obstacle by making the casks that are wanted. It -is fortunate, then, that this obstacle should exist, since it gives -employment to a branch of national industry, and enriches a certain -number of our fellow-citizens. But then we have ingenious machinery -invented for felling the oak, cutting it up into staves, and forming -them into the wine-casks that are wanted. By this means the obstacle is -lessened, and so are the gains of the cooper. Let us maintain both at -their former elevation by a law, and put down the machinery. - -To get at the root of this sophism, it is necessary only to reflect -that human labour is not the _end_, but the _means. It never remains -unemployed_. If one obstacle is removed, it does battle with another; -and society is freed from two obstacles by the same amount of labour -which was formerly, required for the removal of one. If the labour of -the cooper is rendered unnecessary in one department, it will soon take -another direction. But how and from what source will it be remunerated? -From the same source exactly from which it is remunerated at present; -for when a certain amount of labour becomes disposable by the removal of -an obstacle, a corresponding amount of remuneration becomes disposable -also. To maintain that human labour will ever come to want employment, -would be to maintain that the human race will cease to encounter -obstacles. In that case labour would not only be impossible; it would be -superfluous. We should no longer have anything to do, because we should -be omnipotent; and we should only have to pronounce our _fiat_ in order -to ensure the satisfaction of all our desires and the supply of all our -wants.* - - * See post, ch. xiv. of second series of _Sophismes - Economiques_, and ch. iii. and xi. of the _Harmonies - Economiques_. - - - - -III. EFFORT, RESULT. - -We have just seen that between our wants and the satisfaction of -these wants, obstacles are interposed. We succeed in overcoming these -obstacles, or in diminishing their force by the employment of our -faculties. We may say in a general way, that industry is an effort -followed by a result. - -But what constitutes the measure of our prosperity, or of our wealth? -Is it the result of the effort? or is it the effort itself? A relation -always subsists between the effort employed and the result obtained. -Progress consists in the relative enhancement of the second or of the -first term of this relation. - -Both theses have been maintained; and in political economy they have -divided the region of opinion and of thought. - -According to the first system, wealth is the result of labour, -increasing as the relative _proportion of result to effort increases_. -Absolute perfection, of which God is the type, consists in the infinite -distance interposed between the two terms--in this sense, effort is -_nil_, result infinite. - -The second system teaches that it is the effort itself which constitutes -the measure of wealth. To make progress is to increase the relative -proportion _which effort bears to result_. The ideal of this system may -be found in the sterile and eternal efforts of Sisyphus.* - -The first system naturally welcomes everything which tends to diminish -_pains_ and augment _products_; powerful machinery which increases the -forces of man, exchange which allows him to derive greater advantage -from natural agents distributed in various proportions over the face -of the earth, intelligence which discovers, experience which proves, -competition which stimulates, etc. - -Logically, the second invokes everything which has the effect of -increasing pains and diminishing products; privileges, monopolies, -restrictions, prohibitions, suppression of machinery, sterility, etc. - -It is well to remark that the _universal practice_ of mankind always -points to the principle of the first system. We have never seen, -we shall never see, a man who labours in any department, be he -agriculturist, manufacturer, merchant, artificer, soldier, author, or -philosopher, who does not devote all the powers of his mind to work -better, to work with more rapidity, to work more economically--in a -word, to effect _more with less_. - -The opposite doctrine is in favour only with theorists, deputies, -journalists, statesmen, ministers--men, in short, born to make -experiments on the social body. - - * For this reason, and for the sake of conciseness, the - reader will pardon us for designating this system in the - sequel by the name of _sisyphism_. - -At the same time, we may observe, that in what concerns themselves -personally, they act as every one else does, on the principle of -obtaining from labour the greatest possible amount of useful results. - -Perhaps I may be thought to exaggerate, and that there are no true -_sisyphists_. - -If it be argued that in practice they do not press their principle to -its most extreme consequences, I willingly grant it. This is always the -case when one sets out with a false principle. Such a principle soon -leads to results so absurd and so mischievous that we are obliged to -stop short. This is the reason why practical industry never admits -_sisyphism_; punishment would follow error too closely not to expose it. -But in matters of speculation, such as theorists and statesmen deal -in, one may pursue a false principle a long time before discovering -its falsity by the complicated consequences to which men were formerly -strangers; and when at last its falsity is found out, the authors take -refuge in the opposite principle, turn round, contradict themselves, and -seek their justification in a modern maxim of incomparable absurdity: in -political economy, there is no inflexible rule, no absolute principle. - -Let us see, then, if these two opposite principles which I have just -described do not predominate by turns, the one in practical industry, -the other in industrial legislation. - -I have already noticed the saying of M. Bugeaud (that "when bread is -dear, agriculturists become rich"); but in M. Bugeaud are embodied two -separate characters, the agriculturist and the legislator. - -As an agriculturist, M. Bugeaud directs all his efforts to two ends,--to -save labour, and obtain cheap bread. When he prefers a good plough to a -bad one; when he improves his pastures; when, in order to pulverize the -soil, he substitutes as much as possible the action of the atmosphere -for that of the harrow and the hoe; when he calls to his aid all the -processes of which science and experiment have proved the efficacy,--he -has but one object in view, viz., to diminish _the proportion of effort -to result_. We have indeed no other test of the ability of a cultivator, -and the perfection of his processes, than to measure to what extent they -have lessened the one and added to the other. And as all the farmers -in the world act upon this principle, we may assert that the effort of -mankind at large is to obtain, for their own benefit undoubtedly, bread -and all other products cheaper, to lessen the labour needed to procure a -given quantity of what they want. - -This incontestable tendency of mankind once established, should, it -would seem, reveal to the legislator the true principle, and point out -to him in what way he should aid industry (in as far as it falls within -his province to aid it); for it would be absurd to assert that human -laws should run counter to the laws of Providence. - -And yet we have heard M. Bugeaud, as a deputy, exclaim: "I understand -nothing of this theory of cheapness; I should like better to see bread -dearer and labour more abundant." And following out this doctrine, the -deputy of the Dordogne votes legislative measures, the effect of -which is to hamper exchanges, for the very reason that they procure us -indirectly what direct production could not procure us but at greater -expense. - -Now, it is very evident that M. Bugeaud's principle as a deputy is -directly opposed to the principle on which he acts as an agriculturist. -To act consistently, he should vote against all legislative restriction, -or else import into his farming operations the principle which he -proclaims from the tribune. We should then see him sow his corn in his -most sterile fields, for in this way he would succeed in _working much -to obtain little_. We should see him throwing aside the plough, since -hand-culture would satisfy his double wish for dearer bread and more -abundant labour. - -Restriction has for its avowed object, and its acknowledged effect, to -increase labour. - -It has also for its avowed object, and its acknowledged effect, to cause -dearness, which means simply scarcity of products; so that, carried out -to its extreme limits, it is pure _sisyphism_, such as we have defined -it,--_labour infinite, product nil_. - -Baron Charles Dupin, the light of the peerage, it is said, on economic -science, accuses railways of _injuring navigation_; and it is certain -that it is of the nature of a more perfect, to restrict the use of a -less perfect means of conveyance. But railways cannot hurt navigation -except by attracting traffic; and they cannot attract traffic but by -conveying goods and passengers more cheaply; and they cannot convey -them more cheaply but by _diminishing the proportion which the effort -employed bears to the result obtained_, seeing that that is the very -thing which constitutes cheapness. When, then, Baron Dupin deplores this -diminution of the labour employed to effect a given result, it is the -doctrine of _sisyphism_ which he preaches. Logically, since he prefers -the ship to the rail, he should prefer the cart to the ship, the -pack-saddle to the cart, and the pannier to all other known means of -conveyance, for it is the latter which exacts the most labour with the -least result. - -"Labour constitutes the wealth of a people," said M. de Saint-Cricq, -that Minister of Commerce who has imposed so many restrictions upon -trade. We must not suppose that this was an elliptical expression, -meaning, "The results of labour constitute the wealth of a people." No, -this economist distinctly intended to affirm that it is the _intensity_ -of labour which is the measure of wealth, and the proof of it is, that -from consequence to consequence, from one restriction to another, he -induced France (and in this he thought he was doing her good) to expend -double the amount of labour, in order, for example, to provide herself -with an equal quantity of iron. In England, iron was then at eight -francs, while in France it cost sixteen francs. Taking a day's labour at -one franc, it is clear that France could, by means of exchange, procure -a quintal of iron by subtracting eight days' work from the aggregate -national labour. In consequence of the restrictive measures of M. de -Saint-Cricq, France was obliged to expend sixteen days' labour in order -to provide herself with a quintal of iron by direct production. Double -the labour for the same satisfaction, hence double the wealth. Then it -follows that wealth is not measured by the result, but by the intensity -of the labour. Is not this _sisyphism_ in all its purity? - -And in order that there may be no mistake as to his meaning, the -Minister takes care afterwards to explain more fully his ideas; and as -he had just before called the intensity of labour _wealthy_ he goes on -to call the more abundant results of that labour, or the more abundant -supply of things proper to satisfy our wants, _poverty_. "Everywhere," -he says, "machinery has taken the place of manual labour; everywhere -production superabounds; everywhere the equilibrium between the faculty -of producing, and the means of consuming, is destroyed." We see, then, -to what, in M. de Saint-Cricq's estimation, the critical situation -of the country was owing--it was to having produced too much, and her -labour being too intelligent, and too fruitful. We were too well -fed, too well clothed, too well provided with everything; a too rapid -production surpassed all our desires. It was necessary, then, to put a -stop to the evil, and for that purpose, to force us, by restrictions, to -labour more in order to produce less. - -I have referred likewise to the opinions of another Minister of -Commerce, M. d'Argout. They deserve to be dwelt upon for an instant. -Desiring to strike a formidable blow at beet-root culture, he says, -"Undoubtedly, the cultivation of beet-root is useful, _but this utility -is limited_. The developments attributed to it are exaggerated. To be -convinced of this, it is sufficient to observe that this culture will be -necessarily confined within the limits of consumption. Double, triple, -if you will, the present consumption of France, _you will always find -that a very trifling portion of the soil will satisfy the requirements -of that consumption_." (This is surely rather a singular subject of -complaint!) "Do you desire proof of this? How many _hectares_ had we -under beet-root in 1828? 3130, which is equivalent to 1-10, 540th of -our arable land. At the present time, when indigenous sugar supplies -one-third of our consumption, how much land is devoted to that culture? -16,700 _hectares_, or 1-1978th of the arable land, or 45 _centiares_ -in each commune. Suppose indigenous sugar already supplied our whole -consumption, we should have only 48,000 hectares under beet-root, or -1-689th of the arable land."* - -There are two things to be remarked upon in this citation--the facts and -the doctrine. The facts tend to prove that little land, little capital, -and little labour are required to produce a large quantity of sugar, and -that each commune of France would be abundantly provided by devoting to -beet-root cultivation one hectare of its soil. The doctrine consists in -regarding this circumstance as adverse, and in seeing in the very power -and fertility of the new industry, _a limit to its utility_. - - * It is fair to M. d'Argout to say that he put this language - in the mouth of the adversaries of beet-root culture. But he - adopts it formally, and sanctions it besides, by the law - which it was employed to justify. - -I do not mean to constitute myself here the defender of beet-root -culture, or a judge of the strange facts advanced by M. d'Argout; * but -it is worth while to scrutinize the doctrine of a statesman, to whom -France for a long time entrusted the care of her agriculture and of her -commerce. - -I remarked in the outset that a variable relation exists between an -industrial effort and its result; that absolute imperfection consists -in an infinite effort without any result; absolute perfection in -an unlimited result without any effort; and perfectibility in the -progressive diminution of effort compared with the result. - -But M. d'Argout tells us there is death where we think we perceive -life, and that the importance of any branch of industry is in direct -proportion to its powerlessness. What are we to expect, for instance, -from the cultivation of beet-root? Do you not see that 48,000 _hectares_ -of land, with capital and manual labour in proportion, are sufficient -to supply all France with sugar? Then, this is a branch of industry of -limited utility; limited, of course, with reference to the amount -of labour which it demands, the only way in which, according to the -ex-Minister, any branch of industry can be useful. This utility would be -still more limited, if, owing to the fertility of the soil, and the -richness of the beet-root, we could reap from 24,000 hectares, what at -present we only obtain from 48,000. Oh! were only twenty times, a -hundred times, more land, capital, and labour necessary to _yield us the -same result_, so much the better. We might build some hopes on this new -branch of industry, and it would be worthy of state protection, for it -would offer a vast field to our national industry. But to produce much -with little! that is a bad example, and it is time for the law to -interfere. - - * Supposing that 48,000 or 50,000 hectares were sufficient - to supply the present consumption, it would require 150,000 - for triple that consumption, which M. d'Argout admits as - possible. Moreover, if beet-root entered into a six years' - rotation of crops, it would occupy successively 900,000 - hectares, or 1-38th of the arable land. - -But what is true with regard to sugar, cannot be otherwise with regard -to bread. If, then, the _utility_ of any branch of industry is to be -estimated not by the amount of satisfactions it is fitted to procure us -with a determinate amount of labour, but, on the contrary, by the amount -of labour which it exacts in order to yield us a determinate amount of -satisfactions, what we ought evidently to desire is, that each acre of -land should yield less corn, and each grain of com less nourishment; in -other words, that our land should be comparatively barren; for then the -quantity of land, capital, and manual labour that would be required for -the maintenance of our population would be much more considerable; -we could then say that the demand for human labour would be in -direct proportion to this barrenness. The aspirations of MM. Bugeaud, -Saint-Cricq, Dupin, and d'Argout, would then be satisfied; bread would -be dear, labour abundant, and France rich--rich at least in the sense in -which these gentlemen understand the word. - -What we should desire also is, that human intelligence should be -enfeebled or extinguished; for, as long as it survives, it will be -continually endeavouring to augment _the proportion which the end bears -to the means, and which the product bears to the labour_. It is in that -precisely that intelligence consists. - -Thus, it appears that _sisyphism_ has been the doctrine of all the -men who have been intrusted with our industrial destinies. It would be -unfair to reproach them with it. This principle guides Ministers only -because it is predominant in the Chambers; and it predominates in the -Chambers only because it is sent there by the electoral body, and -the electoral body is imbued with it only because public opinion is -saturated with it. - -I think it right to repeat here that I do not accuse men such as MM. -Bugeaud, Dupin, Saint-Cricq, and d'Argout of being absolutely and under -all circumstances _sisyphists_. They are certainly not so in their -private transactions; for in these they always desire to obtain _by -way of exchange_ what would cost them dearer to procure _by direct -production_; but I affirm they are _sisyphists_ when they hinder the -country from doing the same thing.* - - * See on the same subject, _Sophismes Economiques_, second - series, ch. xvi., post, and _Harmonies Economiques_, ch. vi. - - - - -IV. TO EQUALIZE THE CONDITIONS OF PRODUCTION. - -It has been said.....but in case I should be accused of putting sophisms -into the mouths of the protectionists, I shall allow one of their most -vigorous athletes to speak for them. - -"It has been thought that protection in our case should simply represent -the difference which exists between the cost price of a commodity which -we produce and the cost price of the same commodity produced by our -neighbours.... A protective duty calculated on this basis would only -ensure free competition....; free competition exists only when there is -equality in the conditions and in the charges. In the case of a horse -race, we ascertain the weight which each horse has to carry, and -so equalize the conditions; without that there could be no fair -competition. In the case of trade, if one of the sellers can bring his -commodity to market at less cost, he ceases to be a competitor, and -becomes a monopolist.... Do away with this protection which represents -the difference of cost price, and the foreigner invades our markets and -acquires a monopoly."* - -"Every one must wish, for his own sake, as well as for the sake of -others, that the production of the country should be protected against -foreign competition, _whenever the latter can furnish products at a -lower price._"** - - * M. le Vicomte de Romanet. - - ** Matthieu le Dombasle. - -This argument recurs continually in works of the protectionist school. -I propose to examine it carefully, and I solicit earnestly the reader's -patience and attention. I shall consider, first of all, the inequalities -which are attributable to nature, and afterwards those which are -attributable to diversity of taxation. - -In this, as in other cases, we shall find protectionist theorists -viewing their subject from the producer's stand-point, whilst we -advocate the cause of the unfortunate consumers, whose interests they -studiously keep out of sight. They institute a comparison between the -field of industry and the _turf_. But as regards the latter, the race is -at once the _means_ and the _end_. The public feels no interest in the -competition beyond the competition itself. When you start your horses, -your _end_, your object, is to find out which is the swiftest runner, -and I see your reason for equalizing the weights. But if your _end_, -your object, were to secure the arrival of some important and urgent -news at the winning-post, could you, without inconsistency, throw -obstacles in the way of any one who should offer you the best means of -expediting your message? This is what you do in commercial affairs. -You forget the end, the object sought to be attained, which is material -prosperity; you disregard it, you sacrifice it to a veritable _petitio -principii_; in plain language, you are begging the question. - -But since we cannot bring our opponents to our point of view, let us -place ourselves in theirs, and examine the question in its relations -with production. - -I shall endeavour to prove, - -1st, That to level and equalize the conditions of labour, is to attack -exchange in its essence and principle. - -2d, That it is not true that the labour of a country is neutralized by -the competition of more favoured countries. - -3d, That if that were true, protective duties would not equalize the -conditions of production. - -4th, That liberty, freedom of trade, levels these conditions as much as -they can be levelled. - -5th, That the least favoured countries gain most by exchange. - -I. To level and equalize the conditions of labour is not simply to cramp -exchanges in certain branches of trade, it is to attack exchange in its -principle, for its principle rests upon that very diversity, upon those -very inequalities of fertility, aptitude, climate, and temperature, -which you desire to efface. If Guienne sends wine to Brittany, and if -Brittany sends corn to Guienne, it arises from their being placed -under different conditions of production. Is there a different law for -international exchanges? To urge against international exchanges that -inequality of conditions which gives rise to them, and explains them, -is to argue against their very existence. If protectionists had on their -side sufficient logic and power, they would reduce men, like snails, -to a state of absolute isolation. Moreover, there is not one of their -sophisms which, when submitted to the test of rigorous deductions, does -not obviously tend to destruction and annihilation. - -II. It is not true, in point of _fact_, that inequality of conditions -existing between two similar branches of industry entails necessarily -the ruin of that which is least favourably situated. On the turf, if -one horse gains the prize, the other loses it; but when two horses -are employed in useful labour, each produces a beneficial result in -proportion to its powers; and if the more vigorous renders the greater -service, it does not follow that the other renders no service at all. -We cultivate wheat in all the departments of France, although there are -between them enormous differences of fertility; and if there be any -one department which does not cultivate wheat, it is because it is not -profitable to engage in that species of culture in that locality. In the -same way, analogy shows us that under the _regime_ of liberty, in spite -of similar differences, they produce wheat in all the countries of -Europe; and if there be one which abandons the cultivation of that -grain, it is because it is found _more for its interest_ to give another -direction to the employment of its land, labour, and capital And why -should the fertility of one department not paralyze the agriculturist of -a neighbouring department which is less favourably situated? Because -the economic phenomena have a flexibility, an elasticity, _levelling -powers_, so to speak, which appear to have altogether escaped the notice -of the protectionist school. That school accuses us of being given up -to system; but it is the protectionists who are systematic in the last -degree, if the spirit of system consists in bolstering up arguments -which rest upon one fact instead of upon an aggregation of facts. In the -example which we have given, it is the difference in the value of lands -which compensates the difference in their fertility. Your field produces -three times more than mine. Yes, but it has cost you ten times more, and -I can still compete with you. This is the whole mystery. And observe, -that superiority in some respects leads to inferiority in others. It is -just because your land is more fertile that it is dearer; so that it -is not _accidentally_, but _necessarily_, that the equilibrium is -established, or tends to be established; and it cannot be denied that -liberty is the _regime_ which is most favourable to this tendency. - -I have referred to a branch of agricultural industry; I might as well -have referred to industry in a different department. There are tailors -at Quimper, and that does not hinder there being tailors also in Paris, -though the latter pay a higher rent, and live at much greater expense. -But then they have a different set of customers, and that serves not -only to redress the balance, but to make it incline to their side. - -When we speak, then, of equalizing the conditions of labour, we must not -omit to examine whether liberty does not give us what we seek from an -arbitrary system. - -This natural levelling power of the economic phenomena is so important -to the question we are considering, and at the same time so fitted to -inspire us with admiration of the providential wisdom which presides -over the equitable government of society, that I must ask permission to -dwell upon it for a little. - -The protectionist gentlemen tell us: Such or such a people have over -us an advantage in the cheapness of coal, of iron, of machinery, of -capital--we cannot compete with them. - -We shall examine the proposition afterwards under all its aspects. At -present, I confine myself to the inquiry whether, when a superiority and -an inferiority are both present, they do not possess in themselves, the -one an ascending, the other a descending force, which must ultimately -bring them back to a just equilibrium. - -Suppose two countries, A and B. A possesses over B all kinds of -advantages. You infer from this, that every sort of industry will -concentrate itself in A, and that B is powerless. A, you say, sells much -more than it buys; B buys much more than it sells. I might dispute this, -but I respect your hypothesis. - -On this hypothesis, labour is much in demand in A, and will soon rise in -price there. - -Iron, coal, land, food, capital, are much in demand in A, and they will -soon rise in price there. - -Contemporaneously with this, labour, iron, coal, land, food, capital, -are in little request in B, and will soon fall in price there. - -Nor is this all. While A is always selling, and B is always buying, -money passes from B to A. It becomes abundant in A, and scarce in B. - -But abundance of money means that we must have plenty of it to buy -everything else. Then in A, to the _real dearness_ which arises from a -very active demand, there is added a _nominal dearness_, which is due to -a redundancy of the precious metals. - -Scarcity of money means that little is required for each purchase. Then -in B a _nominal cheapness_ comes to be combined with _real cheapness_. - -In these circumstances, industry will have all sorts of -motives--motives, if I may say so, carried to the highest degree of -intensity--to desert A and establish itself in B. - -Or, to come nearer what would actually take place under such -circumstances, we may affirm that sudden displacements being so -repugnant to the nature of industry, such a transfer would not have been -so long delayed, but that from the beginning, under the free _regime_, -it would have gradually and progressively shared and distributed itself -between A and B, according to the laws of supply and demand--that is to -say, according to the laws of justice and utility. - -And when I assert that if it were possible for industry to concentrate -itself upon one point, that very circumstance would set in motion an -irresistible decentralizing force, I indulge in no idle hypothesis. - -Let us listen to what was said by a manufacturer in addressing the -Manchester Chamber of Commerce (I omit the figures by which he supported -his demonstration):-- - -"Formerly we exported stuffs; then that exportation gave place to that -of yams, which are the raw material of stuffs; then to that of machines, -which are the instruments for producing yarn; afterwards to the -exportation of the capital with which we construct our machines; -finally, to that of our workmen and our industrial skill, which are -the source of our capital. All these elements of labour, one after the -other, are set to work wherever they find the most advantageous opening, -wherever the expense of living is cheaper and the necessaries of -life are moat easily procured; and at the present day, in Prussia, in -Austria, in Saxony, in Switzerland, in Italy, we see manufactures on -an immense scale founded and supported by English capital, worked by -English operatives, and directed by English engineers." - -You see very clearly, then, that nature, or rather that Providence, more -wise, more far-seeing than your narrow and rigid theory supposes, -has not ordered this concentration of industry, this monopoly of all -advantages upon which you found your reasoning as upon a fact which is -unalterable and without remedy. Nature has provided, by means as simple -as they are infallible, that there should be dispersion, diffusion, -solidarity, simultaneous progress; all constituting a state of things -which your restrictive laws paralyze as much as they can; for the -tendency of such laws is, by isolating communities, to render the -diversity of condition much more marked, to prevent equalization, hinder -fusion, neutralize countervailing circumstances, and segregate nations, -whether in their superiority or in their inferiority of condition. - -III. In the third place, to contend that by a protective duty you -equalize the conditions of production, is to give currency to an error -by a deceptive form of speech. It is not true that an import duty -equalizes the conditions of production. These remain, after the -imposition of the duty, the same as they were before. At most, all that -such a duty equalizes are _the conditions of sale_. It may be said, -perhaps, that I am playing upon words, but I throw back the accusation. -It is for my opponents to show that _production and sale_ are synonymous -terms; and if they cannot do this, I am warranted in fastening upon them -the reproach, if not of playing on words, at least of mixing them up and -confusing them. - -To illustrate what I mean by an example: I suppose some Parisian -speculators to devote themselves to the production of oranges. They know -that the oranges of Portugal can be sold in Paris for a penny apiece, -whilst they, on account of the frames and hot-houses which the colder -climate would render necessary, could not sell them for less than a -shilling as a remunerative price. They demand that Portuguese oranges -should have a duty of elevenpence imposed upon them. By means of this -duty, they say, the _conditions af production_ will be equalized; -and the Chamber, giving effect, as it always does, to such reasoning, -inserts in the tariff a duty of elevenpence upon every foreign orange. - -Now, I maintain that the _conditions of production_ are in nowise -changed. The law has made no change on the heat of the sun of Lisbon, or -on the frequency and intensity of the frosts of Paris. The ripening of -oranges will continue to go on naturally on the banks of the Tagus, and -artificially on the banks of the Seine--that is to say, much more -human labour will be required in the one country than in the other. The -conditions of sale are what have been equalized. The Portuguese must now -sell us their oranges at a shilling, elevenpence of which goes to pay -the tax. That tax will be paid, it is evident, by the French consumer. -And look at the whimsical result. Upon each Portuguese orange consumed, -the country will lose nothing, for the extra elevenpence charged to the -consumer will be paid into the treasury. This will cause displacement, -but not loss. But upon each French orange consumed there will be a loss -of elevenpence, or nearly so, for the purchaser will certainly lose that -sum, and the seller as certainly will not gain it, seeing that by the -hypothesis he will only have received the cost price. I leave it to the -protectionists to draw the inference. - -IV. If I have dwelt upon this distinction between the conditions -of production and the conditions of sale, a distinction which the -protectionists will no doubt pronounce paradoxical, it is because it -leads me to inflict on them another, and a much stranger, paradox, which -is this: Would you equalize effectually the conditions of production, -leave exchange free. - -Now, really, it will be said, this is too much; you must be making game -of us. Well, then, were it only for curiosity, I entreat the gentlemen -protectionists to follow me on to the conclusion of my argument. It will -not be long. I revert to my former illustration. - -Let us suppose for a moment that the average daily wage which a -Frenchman earns is equal to a shilling, and it follows incontestably -that to produce directly an orange in France, a day's work, or its -equivalent, is required; while to produce the value of a Portuguese -orange, only a twelfth part of that day's labour would be necessary; -which means exactly this, that the sun does at Lisbon what human labour -does at Paris. Now, is it not very evident that if I can produce an -orange, or, what comes to the same thing, the means of purchasing one, -with a twelfth part of a day's labour, I am placed, with respect to this -production, under exactly the same conditions as the Portuguese producer -himself, excepting the carriage, which must be at my expense. It is -certain, then, that liberty equalizes the conditions of production -direct or indirect, as far as they can be equalized, since it leaves -no other difference, but the inevitable one arising from the expense of -transport. - -I add, that liberty equalizes also the conditions of enjoyment, of -satisfaction, of consumption, with which the protectionists never -concern themselves, and which are yet the essential consideration, -consumption being the end and object of all our industrial efforts. In -virtue of free trade, we enjoy the sun of Portugal like the Portuguese -themselves. The inhabitants of Havre and the citizens of London are put -in possession, and on the same conditions, of all the mineral resources -which nature has bestowed on Newcastle. - -V. Gentlemen protectionists, you find me in a paradoxical humour; and I -am disposed to go further still. I say, and I sincerely think, that if -two countries are placed under unequal conditions of production, _it is -that one of the two which is least favoured by nature which has most -to gain by free trade_. To prove this, I must depart a little from the -usual form of such a work as this. I shall do so nevertheless, first of -all, because the entire question lies there, and also because it will -afford me an opportunity of explaining an economic law of the highest -importance, and which, if rightly understood, appears to me to be fitted -to bring back to the science all those sects who, in our day, seek in -the land of chimeras that social harmony which they fail to discover -in nature. I refer to the law of consumption, which it is perhaps to be -regretted that the majority of economists have neglected. - -Consumption is the _end_ and final cause of all the economic phenomena, -and it is in consumption consequently that we must expect to find their -ultimate and definitive solution. - -Nothing, whether favourable or unfavourable, can abide permanently with -the producer. The advantages which nature and society bestow upon him, -the inconveniences he may experience, glide past him, so to speak, and -are absorbed and mixed up with the community in as far as the community -represents consumers. This is an admirable law both in its cause and -in its effects, and he who shall succeed in clearly describing it is -entitled, in my opinion, to say, "I have not passed through life without -paying my tribute to society." Everything which favours the work of -production is welcomed with joy by the producer, for the _immediate -effect_ of it is to put him in a situation to render greater service -to the community, and to exact from it a greater remuneration. Every -circumstance which retards or interrupts production gives pain to -the producer, for the _immediate effect_ of it is to circumscribe his -services, and consequently his remuneration. _Immediate_ good or ill -circumstances--fortunate or unfortunate--necessarily fall upon the -producer, and leave him no choice but to accept the one and eschew the -other. - -In the same way, when a workman succeeds in discovering an improved -process in manufactures, the _immediate_ profit from the improvement -results to him. This was necessary, in order to give his labour an -intelligent direction; and it is just, because it is fair that an effort -crowned with success should carry its recompense along with it. - -But I maintain that these good or bad effects, though in their own -nature permanent, are not permanent as regards the producer. If it had -been so, a principle of progressive, and, therefore, of indefinite, -inequality would have been introduced among men, and this is the reason -why these good or evil effects become very soon absorbed in the general -destinies of the human race. - -How is this brought about? I shall show how it takes place by some -examples. - -Let us go back to the thirteenth century. The men who then devoted -themselves to the art of copying received for the service which they -rendered _a remuneration regulated by the general rate of earnings_.* -Among them there arose one who discovered the means of multiplying -copies of the same work rapidly. He invented printing. - -In the first instance, one man was enriched, and many others were -impoverished. At first sight, marvellous as the invention proves itself -to be, we hesitate to decide whether it is hurtful or useful. It seems -to introduce into the world, as I have said, an indefinite element -of inequality. Guttemberg profits by his invention, and extends his -invention with its profits indefinitely, until he has ruined all the -copyists. As regards the public, in the capacity of consumer, it gains -little; for Guttemberg takes care not to lower the price of his books, -but just enough to undersell his rivals. - -But the intelligence which has introduced harmony into the movements of -the heavenly bodies, has implanted it also in the internal mechanism of -society. We shall see the economic advantages of the invention when it -has ceased to be individual property, and has become for ever the common -patrimony of the masses. - -At length the invention comes to be known. Guttemberg is no longer the -only printer; others imitate him. Their profits' at first are large. -They are thus rewarded for having been the first to imitate the -invention; and it is right that it should be so, for this higher -remuneration was necessary to induce them to concur in the grand -definite result which is approaching. They gain a great deal, but they -gain less than the inventor, for _competition_ now begins its work. -The price of books goes on falling. The profit of imitators goes on -diminishing in proportion as the invention becomes of older date; that -is to say, in proportion as the imitation becomes less meritorious..... - - * The author, here and elsewhere, uses the French word - _profits_; but it is clear from the context that he does not - refer to the returns from capital, in which sense alone the - English economists employ the term _profits_. We have - therefore substituted the words _earnings or wages_.-- - Translator, - -The new branch of industry at length reaches its normal state; in other -words, the remuneration of printers ceases to be exceptionally high, and -comes, like that of the copyist, to be _regulated by the ordinary rate -of earnings_. Here we have production, as such, brought back to the -point from which it started. And yet the invention is not the less an -acquisition; the saving of time, of labour, of effort to produce a given -result, that is, to produce a determinate number of copies, is not the -less realized. But how does it show itself? In the cheapness of books. -And to whose profit? To the profit of the consumer, of society, of the -human race. The printers, who have thenceforth no exceptional merit, -no longer receive exceptional remuneration. As men, as consumers, -they undoubtedly participate in the advantages which the invention -has conferred upon the community. But that is all. As printers, as -producers, they have returned to the ordinary condition of the other -producers of the country. Society pays them for their labour, and not -for the utility of the invention. The latter has become the common and -gratuitous heritage of mankind at large. - -I confess that the wisdom and the beauty of these laws call forth my -admiration and respect. I see in them Saint-Simonianism: - -_To each according to his capacity; to each capacity according to its -works_. I see in them, communism; that is, the tendency of products -to become the _common_ heritage of men; but a Saint-Simonianism, a -communism, regulated by infinite prescience, and not abandoned to the -frailties, the passions, and the arbitrary will of men. - -What I have said of the art of printing, may be affirmed of all the -instruments of labour, from the nail and the hammer to the locomotive -and the electric telegraph. Society becomes possessed of all through -its more abundant consumption, and _it enjoys all gratuitously_, for -the effect of inventions and discoveries is to reduce the price of -commodities; and all that part of the price which has been annihilated, -and which represents the share invention has in production, evidently -renders the product gratuitous to that extent. All that remains to be -paid for is the human labour, the immediate labour, /and it is paid for -without reference to the result of the invention, at least when that -invention has passed through the cycle I have just described--the cycle -which it is designed to pass through. I send for a tradesman to my -house; he comes and brings his saw with him; I pay him two shillings for -his day's work, and he saws me twenty-five boards. Had the saw not been -invented, he would probably not have made out to furnish me with one, -and I should have had to pay him the same wages for his day's work. -The _utility_ produced by the saw is then, as far as I am concerned, a -gratuitous gift of nature, or rather it is a part of that inheritance -which, _in common_ with all my brethren, I have received from my -ancestors. I have two workmen in my field. The one handles the plough, -the other the spade. The result of their labour is very different, -but the day's wages are the same, because the remuneration is not -proportioned to the utility produced, but to the effort, the labour, -which is exacted. - -I entreat the reader's patience, and beg him to believe that I have not -lost sight of free trade. Let him only have the goodness to remember the -conclusion at which I have arrived: _Remuneration is not in proportion -to the utilities which the producer brings to market, but to his -labour_.* - - * It is true that labour does not receive a uniform - remuneration. It may be more or less intense, dangerous, - skilled, etc. Competition settles the usual or current price - in each department--and this is the fluctuating price of - which I speak. - -I have drawn my illustrations as yet from human inventions. Let us now -turn our attention to natural advantages. - -In every branch of production, nature and man concur. But the portion -of utility which nature contributes is always gratuitous. It is only -the portion of utility which human labour contributes which forms the -subject of exchange, and, consequently, of remuneration. The latter -varies, no doubt, very much in proportion to the intensity of the -labour, its skill, its promptitude, its suitableness, the need there -is of it, the temporary absence of rivalry, etc. But it is not the less -true, in principle, that the concurrence of natural laws, which are -common to all, counts for nothing in the price of the product. - -We do not pay for the air we breathe, although it is so _useful_ to us, -that, without it, we could not live two minutes. We do not pay for it, -nevertheless; because nature furnishes it to us without the aid of human -labour. But if, for example, we should desire to separate one of the -gases of which it is composed, to make an experiment, we must make an -exertion; or if we wish another to make that exertion for us, we must -sacrifice for that other an equivalent amount of exertion, although -we may have embodied it in another product. Whence we see that pains, -efforts, and exertions are the real subjects of exchange. It is not, -indeed, the oxygen gas that I pay for, since it is at my disposal -everywhere, but the labour necessary to disengage it, labour which has -been saved me, and which must be recompensed. Will it be said that there -is something else to be paid for, materials, apparatus, etc.? Still, in -paying for these, I pay for labour. The price of the coal employed, for -example, represents the labour necessary to extract it from the mine and -to transport it to the place where it is to be used. - -We do not pay for the light of the sim, because it is a gift of nature. -But we pay for gas, tallow, oil, wax, because there is here human labour -to be remunerated; and it will be remarked that, in this case, the -remuneration is proportioned, not to the utility produced, but to the -labour employed, so much so that it may happen that one of these kinds -of artificial light, though more intense, costs us less, and for this -reason, that the same amount of human labour affords us more of it. - -Were the porter who carries water to my house to be paid in proportion -to the _absolute utility_ of water, my whole fortune would be -insufficient to remunerate him. But I pay him in proportion to the -exertion he makes. If he charges more, others will do the work, or, if -necessary, I will do it myself. Water, in truth, is not the subject of -our bargain, but the labour of carrying it. This view of the matter is -so important, and the conclusions which I am about to deduce from it -throw so much light on the question of the freedom of international -exchanges, that I deem it necessary to elucidate it by other examples. - -The alimentary substance contained in potatoes is not very costly, -because we can obtain a large amount of it with comparatively little -labour. We pay more for wheat, because the production of it costs a -greater amount of human labour. It is evident that if nature did for -the one what it does for the other, the price of both would tend to -equality. It is impossible that the producer of wheat should permanently -gain much more than the producer of potatoes. The law of competition -would prevent it. - -If by a happy miracle the fertility of all arable lands should come to -be augmented, it would not be the agriculturist, but the consumer, who -would reap advantage from that phenomenon for it would resolve itself -into abundance and cheapness. There would be less labour incorporated -in each quarter of corn, and the cultivator could exchange it only for -a smaller amount of labour worked up in some other product. If, on the -other hand, the fertility of the soil came all at once to be diminished, -nature's part in the process of production would be less, that of human -labour would be greater, and the product dearer. I am, then, warranted -in saying that it is in consumption, in the human element, that all the -economic phenomena come ultimately to resolve themselves. The man who -has failed to regard them in this light, to follow them out to their -ultimate effects, without stopping short at _immediate_ results, and -viewing them from the _producer's_ standpoint, can no more be regarded -as an economist than the man who should prescribe a draught, and, -instead of watching its effect on the entire system of the patient, -should inquire only how it affected the mouth and throat, could be -regarded as a physician. - -Tropical regions are very favourably situated for the production of -sugar and of coffee. This means that nature does a great part of the -work, and leaves little for human labour to do. But who reaps the -advantage of this liberality of nature? Not the producing countries, for -competition causes the price barely to remunerate the labour. It is the -human race that reaps the benefit, for the result of nature's liberality -is cheapness, and cheapness benefits everybody. - -Suppose a temperate region where coal and iron-ore are found on the -surface of the ground, where one has only to stoop down to get them. -That, in the first instance, the inhabitants would profit by this happy -circumstance, I allow. But competition would soon intervene, and the -price of coal and iron-ore would go on falling, till the gift of nature -became free to all, and then the human labour employed would be alone -remunerated according to the general rate of earnings. - -Thus the liberality of nature, like improvements in the processes -of production, is, or continually tends to become, under the law of -competition, the common and gratuitous patrimony of consumers, of the -masses, of mankind in general. Then, the countries which do not possess -these advantages have everything to gain by exchanging their products -with those countries which possess them, because the subject of exchange -is _labour_, apart from the consideration of the natural utilities -worked up with that labour; and the countries which have incorporated -in a given amount of their labour the greatest amount of these _natural -utilities_, are evidently the most favoured countries. Their products -which represent the least amount of human labour are the least -profitable; in other words, they _are cheaper_; and if the whole -liberality of nature resolves itself into _cheapness_, it is evidently -not the producing, but the consuming, country which reaps the benefit. - -Hence we see the enormous absurdity of consuming countries which reject -products for the very reason that they are cheap. It is as if they said, -"We want nothing that nature gives us. You ask me for an effort equal to -two, in exchange for a product which I cannot create without an effort -equal to four; you can make that effort, because in your case nature -does half the work. Be it so; I reject your offer, and I shall wait -until your climate, having become more inclement, will force you to -demand from me an effort equal to four, in order that I may treat with -you _on a footing of equality_." - -A is a favoured country. B is a country to which nature has been less -bountiful. I maintain that exchange benefits both, but benefits B -especially; because exchange is not an exchange of _utilities for -utilities_, but _of value for value_. Now A includes _a greater amount -of utility in the same value_, seeing that the utility of a product -includes what nature has put there, as well as what labour has put -there; whilst value includes only what labour has put there. Then B -makes quite an advantageous bargain. In recompensing the producer of A -for his labour only, it receives into the bargain a greater amount of -natural utility than it has given. - -This enables us to lay down the general rule: Exchange is a barter of -_values_; value under the action of competition being made to represent -labour, exchange becomes a barter of equal labour. What nature has -imparted to the products exchanged is on both sides given _gratuitously -and into the bargain_; whence it follows necessarily that exchanges -effected with countries the most favoured by nature are the most -advantageous. - -The theory of which in this chapter I have endeavoured to trace the -outlines would require great developments. I have glanced at it only -in as far as it bears upon my subject of free trade. But perhaps the -attentive reader may have perceived in it the fertile germ which in the -rankness of its maturity will not only smother protection, but, along -with it, _Fourierisrme, Saint-Simonianisme, communisme_, and all those -schools whose object it is to exclude from the government of the world -the law of _competition_. Regarded from the producer's point of view, -competition no doubt frequently clashes with our _immediate_ and -individual interests; but if we change our point of view and extend our -regards to industry in general, to universal prosperity--in a word, to -_consumption_--we shall find that competition in the moral world plays -the same part which equilibrium does in the material world. It lies -at the root of true communism, of true socialism, of that equality of -conditions and of happiness so much desired in our day; and if so -many sincere publicists, and well-meaning reformers seek after the -_arbitrary_, it is for this reason--that they do not understand -liberty.* - - * The theory sketched in this chapter, is the same which, - four years afterwards, was developed in the _Harmonies - Economiques_. Remuneration reserved exclusively for human - labour; the gratuitous nature of natural agents; progressive - conquest of these agents, to the profit of mankind, whose - common property they thus become; elevation of general - wellbeing and tendency to relative equalization of - conditions; we recognise here the essential elements of the - most important of all the works of Bastiat.--Editor. - - - - -V. OUR PRODUCTS ARE BURDENED WITH TAXES. - -We have here again the same sophism. We demand that foreign products -should be taxed to neutralize the effect of the taxes which weigh -upon our national products. The object, then, still is to equalize the -conditions of production. We have only a word to say, and it is this: -that the tax is an artificial obstacle which produces exactly the same -result as a natural obstacle, its effect is to enhance prices. If this -enhancement reach a point which makes it a greater loss to create the -product for ourselves than to procure it from abroad by producing a -counter value, _laissez faire_, let well alone. Of two evils, private -interest will do well to choose the least. I might, then, simply refer -the reader to the preceding demonstration; but the sophism which we have -here to combat recurs so frequently in the lamentations and demands, I -might say in the challenges, of the protectionist school, as to merit a -special discussion. - -If the question relate to one of those exceptional taxes which are -imposed on certain products, I grant readily that it is reasonable to -impose the same duty on the foreign product. For example, it would be -absurd to exempt foreign salt from duty; not that, in an economical -point of view, France would lose anything by doing so, but the reverse. -Let them say what they will, principles are always the same; and France -would gain by the exemption as she must always gain by removing a -natural or artificial obstacle. But in this instance the obstacle -has been interposed for purposes of revenue. These purposes must be -attained; and were foreign salt sold in our market duty free, the -Treasury would lose its hundred millions of francs (four millions -sterling); and must raise that sum from some other source. There would -be an obvious inconsistency in creating an obstacle, and failing in -the object. It might have been better to have had recourse at first -to another tax than that upon French salt. But I admit that there are -certain circumstances in which a tax may be laid on foreign commodities, -provided it is not _protective_, but fiscal. - -But to pretend that a nation, because she is subjected to heavier taxes -than her neighbours, should protect herself by tariffs against the -competition of her rivals, in this is a sophism, and it is this sophism -which I intend to attack. - -I have said more than once that I propose only to explain the theory, -and lay open, as far as possible, the sources of protectionist -errors. Had I intended to raise a controversy, I should have asked the -protectionists why they direct their tariffs chiefly against England -and Belgium, the most heavily taxed countries in the world? Am I not -warranted in regarding their argument only as a pretext? But I am -not one of those who believe that men are prohibitionists from -self-interest, and not from conviction. The doctrine of protection is -too popular not to be sincere. If the majority had faith in liberty, we -should be free. Undoubtedly it is self-interest which makes our tariffs -so heavy; but conviction is at the root of it. "The will," says Pascal, -"is one of the principal organs of belief." But the belief exists -nevertheless, although it has its root in the will, and in the insidious -suggestions of egotism. - -Let us revert to the sophism founded on taxation. - -The State may make a good or a bad use of the taxes which it levies. -When it renders to the public services which are equivalent to the value -it receives, it makes a good use of them. And when it dissipates its -revenues without giving any service in return, it makes a bad use of -them. - -In the first case, to affirm that the taxes place the country which pays -them under conditions of production more unfavourable than those of a -country which is exempt from them, is a sophism. We pay twenty millions -of francs for justice and police; but then we have them, with the -security they afford us, and the time which they save us; and it is very -probable that production is neither more easy nor more active in those -countries, if there are any such, where the people take the business -of justice and police into their own hands. We pay many hundreds -of millions (of francs) for roads, bridges, harbours, and railways. -Granted; but then we have the benefit of these roads, bridges, -harbours, and railways; and whether we make a good or a bad bargain in -constructing them, it cannot be said that they render us inferior to -other nations, who do not indeed support a budget of public works, -but who have no public works. And this explains why, whilst accusing -taxation of being a cause of industrial inferiority, we direct our -tariffs especially against those countries which are the most heavily -taxed. Their taxes, well employed, far from deteriorating, have -ameliorated, _the conditions of production_ in these countries. Thus we -are continually arriving at the conclusion that protectionist sophisms -are not only not true, but are the very reverse of true.* - - * See Harmonies Economiques, ch. xvii. - -If taxes are improductive, suppress them, if you can; but assuredly -the strangest mode of neutralizing their effect is to add individual to -public taxes. Fine compensation truly! You tell us that the State -taxes are too much; and you give that as a reason why we should tax one -another! - -A protective duty is a tax directed against a foreign product; but -we must never forget that it falls back on the home consumer. Now the -consumer is the tax-payer. The agreeable language you address to him is -this: "Because your taxes are heavy, we raise the price of everything -you buy; because the State lays hold of one part of your income, we hand -over another to the monopolist." - -But let us penetrate a little deeper into this sophism, which is in such -repute with our legislators, although the extraordinary thing is that it -is just the very people who maintain unproductive taxes who attribute to -them our industrial inferiority, and in that inferiority find an excuse -for imposing other taxes and restrictions. - -It appears evident to me that the nature and effects of protection would -not be changed, were the State to levy a direct tax and distribute the -money afterwards in premiums and indemnities to the privileged branches -of industry. - -Suppose that while foreign iron cannot be sold in our market below eight -francs, French iron cannot be sold for less than twelve francs. - -On this hypothesis, there are two modes in which the State can secure -the home market to the producer. - -The first mode is to lay a duty of five francs on foreign iron. It is -evident that that duty would exclude it, since it could no longer be -sold under thirteen francs, namely, eight francs for the cost price, and -five francs for the tax, and at that price it would be driven out of the -market by French iron, the price of which we suppose to be only twelve -francs. In this case, the purchaser, the consumer, would be at the whole -cost of the protection. - -Or again, the State might levy a tax of five francs from the public, and -give the proceeds as a premium to the ironmaster. The protective effect -would be the same. Foreign iron would in this case be equally excluded; -for our ironmaster can now sell his iron at seven francs, which, with -the five francs premium, would make up to him the remunerative price of -twelve francs. But with home iron at seven francs the foreigner -could not sell his for eight, which by the supposition is his lowest -remunerative price. - -Between these two modes of going to work, I can see only one difference. -The principle is the same; the effect is the same; but in the one, -certain individuals pay the price of protection; in the other, it is -paid for by the nation at large. - -I frankly avow my predilection for the second mode. It appears to me -more just, more economical, and more honourable; more just, because if -society desires to give largesses to some of its members, all should -contribute; more economical, because it would save much expense in -collecting, and get us rid of many restrictions; more honourable, -because the public would then see clearly the nature of the operation, -and act accordingly. - -But if the protectionist system had taken this form, it would have been -laughable to hear men say, "We pay heavy taxes for the army, for the -navy, for the administration of justice, for public works, for -the university, the public debt, etc.--in all exceeding a milliard -[L40,000,000 sterling]. For this reason, the State should take another -milliard from us, to relieve these poor ironmasters, these poor -shareholders in the coal-mines of Anzin, these unfortunate proprietors -of forests, these useful men who supply us with cod-fish." - -Look at the subject closely, and you will be satisfied that this is the -true meaning and effect of the sophism we are combating. It is all in -vain; you cannot _give money_ to some members of the community but by -taking it from others. If you desire to ruin the tax-payer, you may do -so. But at least do not banter him by saying, "In order to compensate -your losses, I take from you again as much as I have taken from you -already." To expose fully all that is false in this sophism would be an -endless work. I shall confine myself to three observations. You assert -that the country is overburdened with taxes, and on this fact you found -an argument for the protection of certain branches of industry. But we -have to pay these taxes in spite of protection. If, then, a particular -branch of industry presents itself, and says, "I share in the payment -of taxes; that raises the cost price of my products, and I demand that a -protecting duty should also raise their selling price," what does such -a demand amount to? It amounts simply to this, that the tax should be -thrown over on the rest of the community. The object sought for is to -be reimbursed the amount of the tax by a rise of prices. But as the -Treasury requires to have the full amount of all the taxes, and as the -masses have to pay the higher price, it follows that they have to bear -not only their own share of taxation but that of the particular branch -of industry which is protected. But we mean to protect everybody, you -will say. I answer, in the first place, that that is impossible; and, -in the next place, that if it were possible, there would be no relief. -I would pay for you, and you would pay for me; but the tax must be paid -all the same. - -You are thus the dupes of an illusion. You wish in the first instance -to pay taxes in order that you may have an army, a navy, a church, -a university, judges, highways, etc., and then you wish to free from -taxation first one branch of industry, then a second, then a third, -always throwing back the burden upon the masses. You do nothing more -than create interminable complications, without any other result than -these complications themselves. Show me that a rise of price caused -by protection falls upon the foreigner, and I could discover in your -argument something specious. But if it be true that the public pays -the tax before your law, and that after the law is passed it pays for -protection and the tax into the bargain, truly I cannot see what is -gained by it. - -But I go further, and maintain that the heavier our taxes are, the more -we should hasten to throw open our ports and our frontiers to foreigners -less heavily taxed than ourselves. And why? In order to throw back upon -them a greater share of our burden. Is it not an incontestable axiom in -political economy that taxes ultimately fall on the consumer? The more, -then, our exchanges are multiplied, the more will foreign consumers -reimburse us for the taxes incorporated and worked up in the products -we sell them; whilst we in this respect will have to make them a smaller -restitution, seeing that their products, according to our hypothesis, -are less heavily burdened than ours. - -In fine, have you never asked yourselves whether these heavy burdens on -which you found your argument for a prohibitory regime are not caused -by that very regime? If commerce were free, what use would you have for -your great standing armies and powerful navies?.... But this belongs to -the domain of politics. - - Et ne confondons pas, pour trop approfondir, - Leurs affaires avec les notres. - - - - -VI. BALANCE OF TRADE. - -Our adversaries have adopted tactics which are rather embarrassing. -Do we establish our doctrine? They admit it with the greatest possible -respect. Do we attack their principle? They abandon it with the best -grace in the world. They demand only one thing--that our doctrine, which -they hold to be true, should remain relegated in books, and that their -principle, which they acknowledge to be vicious, should reign paramount -in practical legislation. Resign to them the management of tariffs, and -they will give up all dispute with you in the domain of theory. - -"Assuredly," said M. Gauthier de Rumilly, on a recent occasion, "no one -wishes to resuscitate the antiquated theories of the balance of trade." -Very right, Monsieur Gauthier, but please to remember that it is not -enough to give a passing slap to error, and immediately afterwards, and -for two hours together, reason as if that error were truth. - -Let me speak of M. Lestiboudois. Here we have a consistent reasoner, a -logical disputant. There is nothing in his conclusions which is not -to be found in his premises. He asks nothing in practice, but what -he justifies in theory. His principle may be false; that is open to -question. But, at any rate, he has a principle. He believes, and he -proclaims it aloud, that if France gives ten, in order to receive -fifteen, she loses five; and it follows, of course, that he supports -laws which are in keeping with this view of the subject "The important -thing to attend to," he says, "is that the amount of our importations -goes on augmenting, and exceeds the amount of our exportations--that -is to say, France every year purchases more foreign products, and sells -less of her own. Figures prove this. What do we see? In 1842, imports -exceeded exports by 200 millions. These facts appear to prove in the -clearest manner that national industry _is not sufficiently protected_, -that we depend upon foreign labour for our supplies, that the -competition of our rivals _oppresses_ our industry. The present law -appears to me to recognise the fact, which is not true according to the -economists, that when we purchase we necessarily sell a corresponding -amount of commodities. It is evident that we can purchase, not with our -usual products, not with our revenue, not with the results of permanent -labour, but with our capital, with products which have been accumulated -and stored up, those intended for reproduction--that is to say, that we -may expend, that we may dissipate, the proceeds of anterior economies, -that we may impoverish ourselves, that we may proceed on the road to -ruin, and consume entirely the national capital. _This is exactly what -we are doing. Every year we give away 200 millions of francs to the -foreigner_." - -Well, here is a man with whom we can come to an understanding. There is -no hypocrisy in this language. The doctrine of the balance of trade is -openly avowed. France imports 200 millions more than she exports. -Then we lose 200 millions a year. And what is the remedy? To place -restrictions on importation. The conclusion is unexceptionable. - -It is with M. Lestiboudois, then, that we must deal, for how can we -argue with M. Gauthier? If you tell him that the balance of trade is an -error, he replies that that was what he laid down at the beginning. If -you say that the balance of trade is a truth, he will reply that that is -what he proves in his conclusions. - -The economist school will blame me, no doubt, for arguing with M. -Lestiboudois. To attack the balance of trade, it will be said, is to -fight with a windmill. - -But take care. The doctrine of the balance of trade is neither so -antiquated, nor so sick, nor so dead as M. Gauthier would represent it, -for the entire Chamber--M. Gauthier himself included--has recognised by -its votes the theory of M. Lestiboudois. - -I shall not fatigue the reader by proceeding to probe that theory, but -content myself with subjecting it to the test of facts. - -We are constantly told that our principles do not hold good, except in -theory. But tell me, gentlemen, if you regard the books of merchants as -holding good in practice? It appears to me that if there is anything -in the world which should have practical authority, when the question -regards profit and loss, it is commercial accounts. Have all the -merchants in the world come to an understanding for centuries to keep -their books in such a way as to represent profits as losses, and losses -as profits? It may be so, but I would much rather come to the conclusion -that M. Lestiboudois is a bad economist. - -Now, a merchant of my acquaintance having had two transactions, the -results of which were very different, I felt curious to compare the -books of the counting-house with the books of the Customhouse, as -interpreted by M. Lestiboudois to the satisfaction of our six hundred -legislators. - -M. T. despatched a ship from Havre to the United States, with a cargo of -French goods, chiefly those known as _articles de Paris_, amounting to -200,000 francs. This was the figure declared at the Customhouse. When -the cargo arrived at New Orleans it was charged with 10 per cent, -freight and 30 per cent, duty, making a total of 280,000 francs. It was -sold with 20 per cent, profit, or 40,000 francs, and produced a total of -320,000 francs, which the consignee invested in cottons. These cottons -had still for freight, insurance, commission, etc., to bear a cost of -10 per cent. so that when the new cargo arrived at Havre it had cost -352,000 francs, which was the figure entered in the Customhouse books. -Finally M. T. realized upon this return cargo 20 per cent, profit, or -70,400 francs; in other words, the cottons were sold for 422,400 francs. - -If M. Lestiboudois desires it, I shall send him an extract from the -books of M. T. He will there see _at the credit_ of the _profit and -loss_ account--that is to say, as profits--two entries, one of 40,000, -another of 70,400 francs, and M. T. is very sure that his accounts are -accurate. - -And yet, what do the Customhouse books tell M. Lestiboudois regarding -this transaction? They tell him simply that France exported 200,000 -francs' worth, and imported to the extent of 352,000 francs; whence the -honourable deputy concludes "_that she had expended, and dissipated the -profits of her anterior economies, that she is impoverishing herself -that she is on the high road to ruin, and has given away to the -foreigner 152,000 francs of her capital_." - -Some time afterwards, M. T. despatched another vessel with a cargo also -of the value of 200,000 francs, composed of the products of our native -industry. This unfortunate ship was lost in a gale of wind after leaving -the harbour, and all M. T. had to do was to make two short entries in -his books, to this effect:-- - -"_Sundry goods debtors to X_, 200,000 francs, for purchases of different -commodities despatched by the ship N. - -"_Profit and loss debtors to sundry goods_, 200,000 francs, in -consequence of _definitive and total loss_ of the cargo." - -At the same time, the Customhouse books bore an entry of 200.000 francs -in the list of _exportations_; and as there was no corresponding entry -to make in the list of _importations_, it follows that M. Lestiboudois -and the Chamber will see in this shipwreck _a clear and net profit_ for -France of 200,000 francs. - -There is still another inference to be deduced from this, which is, -that according to the theory of the balance of trade, France has a very -simple means of doubling her capital at any moment. It is enough to pass -them through the Customhouse, and then pitch them into the sea. In this -case the exports will represent the amount of her capital, the imports -will be _nil_, and even impossible, and we shall gain all that the sea -swallows up. - -This is a joke, the protectionists will say. It is impossible' we could -give utterance to such absurdities. You do give utterance to them, -however, and, what is more, you act upon them, and impose them on your -fellow-citizens to the utmost of your power. - -The truth is, it would be necessary to take the balance of trade -_backwards [au rebours]_, and calculate the national profits from -foreign trade by the excess of imports over exports. This excess, after -deducting costs, constitutes the real profit. But this theory, which -is true, leads directly to free trade. I make you a present of it, -gentlemen, as I do of all the theories in the preceding chapters. -Exaggerate it as much as you please--it has nothing to fear from that -test. Suppose, if that amuses you, that the foreigner inundates us with -all sorts of useful commodities without asking anything in return, that -our imports are _infinite_ and exports _nil_, I defy you to prove to me -that we should be poorer on that account. - - - - -VII. OF THE MANUFACTURERS - -OF CANDLES, WAX-LIGHTS, LAMPS, CANDLESTICKS, STREET LAMPS, SNUFFERS, -EXTINGUISHERS, AND OF THE PRODUCERS OF OIL, TALLOW, ROSIN, ALCOHOL, AND, -GENERALLY, OF EVERYTHING CONNECTED WITH LIGHTING. - -To Messieurs the Members of the Chamber of Deputies. - -Gentlemen,--You are on the right road. You reject abstract theories, and -have little consideration for cheapness and plenty Your chief care is -the interest of the producer. You desire to emancipate him from external -competition, and reserve the _national market for national industry_. - -We are about to offer you an admirable opportunity of applying -your--what shall we call it? your theory? No; nothing is more deceptive -than theory; your doctrine? your system? your principle? but you dislike -doctrines, you abhor systems, and as for principles, you deny that -there are any in social economy: we shall say, then, your practice, your -practice without theory and without principle. - -We are suffering from the intolerable competition of a foreign rival, -placed, it would seem, in a condition so far superior to ours for the -production of light, that he absolutely _inundates our national market_ -with it at a price fabulously reduced. The moment he shows himself, -our trade leaves us--all consumers apply to him; and a branch of native -industry, having countless ramifications, is all at once rendered -completely stagnant. This rival, who is no other than the Sun, wages war -to the knife against us, and we suspect that he has been raised up by -_perfidious Albion_ (good policy as times go); inasmuch as he displays -towards that haughty island a circumspection with which he dispenses in -our case. - -What we pray for is, that it may please you to pass a law ordering the -shutting up of all windows, sky-lights, dormer-windows, outside and -inside shutters, curtains, blinds, bull's-eyes; in a word, of all -openings, holes, chinks, clefts, and fissures, by or through which the -light of the sun has been in use to enter houses, to the prejudice of -the meritorious manufactures with which we flatter ourselves we have -accommodated our country,--a country which, in gratitude, ought not to -abandon us now to a strife so unequal. - -We trust, Gentlemen, that you will not regard this our request as a -satire, or refuse it without at least previously hearing the reasons -which we have to urge in its support. - -And, first, if you shut up as much as possible all access to natural -light, and create a demand for artificial light, which of our French -manufactures will not be encouraged by it? - -If more tallow is consumed, then there must be more oxen and sheep; and, -consequently, we shall behold the multiplication of artificial meadows, -meat, wool, hides, and, above all, manure, which is the basis and -foundation of all agricultural wealth. - -If more oil is consumed, then we shall have an extended cultivation of -the poppy, of the olive, and of rape. These rich and exhausting plants -will come at the right time to enable us to avail ourselves of the -increased fertility which the rearing of additional cattle will impart -to our lands. - -Our heaths will be covered with resinous trees. Numerous swarms of bees -will, on the mountains, gather perfumed treasures, now wasting their -fragrance on the desert air, like the flowers from which they emanate. -No branch of agriculture but will then exhibit a cheering development. - -The same remark applies to navigation. Thousands of vessels will proceed -to the whale fishery; and, in a short time, we shall possess a navy -capable of maintaining the honour of France, and gratifying the -patriotic aspirations of your petitioners, the undersigned candlemakers -and others. - -But what shall we say of the manufacture of _articles de Paris?_ -Henceforth you will behold gildings, bronzes, crystals, in candlesticks, -in lamps, in lustres, in candelabra, shining forth, in spacious -warerooms, compared with which those of the present day can be regarded -but as mere shops. - -No poor _resinier_ from his heights on the seacoast, no coalminer from -the depth of his sable gallery, but will rejoice in higher wages and -increased prosperity. - -Only have the goodness to reflect, Gentlemen, and you will be convinced -that there is, perhaps, no Frenchman, from the wealthy coalmaster to the -humblest vender of lucifer matches, whose lot will not be ameliorated by -the success of this our petition. - -We foresee your objections, Gentlemen, but we know that you can oppose -to us none but such as you have picked up from the effete works of the -partisans of free trade. We defy you to utter a single word against -us which will not instantly rebound against yourselves and your entire -policy. - -You will tell us that, if we gain by the protection which we seek, the -country will lose by it, because the consumer must bear the loss. - -We answer: - -You have ceased to have any right to invoke the interest of the -consumer; for, whenever his interest is found opposed to that of the -producer, you sacrifice the former. You have done so for the purpose of -_encouraging labour and increasing employment_. For the same reason you -should do so again. - -You have yourselves obviated this objection. When you are told that -the consumer is interested in the free importation of iron, coal, corn, -textile fabrics--yes, you reply, but the producer is interested in their -exclusion. Well, be it so;--if consumers are interested in the free -admission of natural light, the producers of artificial light are -equally interested in its prohibition. - -But, again, you may say that the producer and consumer are identical. If -the manufacturer gain by protection, he will make the agriculturist -also a gainer; and if agriculture prosper, it will open a vent -to manufactures. Very well; if you confer upon us the monopoly of -furnishing light during the day,--first of all, we shall purchase -quantities of tallow, coals, oils, resinous substances, wax, -alcohol--besides silver, iron, bronze, crystal--to carry on our -manufactures; and then we, and those who furnish us with such -commodities, having become rich will consume a great deal, and impart -prosperity to all the other branches of our national industry. - -If you urge that the light of the sun is a gratuitous gift of nature, -and that to reject such gifts is to reject wealth itself under pretence -of encouraging the means of acquiring it, we would caution you against -giving a death-blow to your own policy. Remember that hitherto you have -always repelled foreign products, because they approximate more nearly -than home products to the character of gratuitous gifts. To comply with -the exactions of other monopolists, you have only _half a motive_; and -to repulse us simply because we stand on a stronger vantage-ground than -others would be to adopt the equation, + x + = -; in other words, it -would be to heap _absurdity upon absurdity_. - -Nature and human labour co-operate in various proportions (depending on -countries and climates) in the production of commodities. The part which -nature executes is always gratuitous; it is the part executed by human -labour which constitutes value, and is paid for. - -If a Lisbon orange sells for half the price of a Paris orange, it is -because natural, and consequently gratuitous, heat does for the one, -what artificial, and therefore expensive, heat must do for the other. - -When an orange comes to us from Portugal, we may conclude that it is -furnished in part gratuitously, in part for an onerous consideration; -in other words, it comes to us at _half-price_ as compared with those of -Paris. - -Now, it is precisely the _gratuitous half_ (pardon the word) which we -contend should be excluded. You say, How can natural labour sustain -competition with foreign labour, when the former has all the work to do, -and the latter only does one-half, the sun supplying the remainder? But -if this half being gratuitous, determines you to exclude competition, -how should the whole, being gratuitous, induce you to admit competition? -If you were consistent, you would, while excluding as hurtful to native -industry what is half gratuitous, exclude _a fortiori_ and with double -zeal, that which is altogether gratuitous. - -Once more, when products such as coal, iron, corn, or textile fabrics, -are sent us from abroad, and we can acquire them with less labour than -if we made them ourselves, the difference is a free gift conferred -upon us. The gift is more or less considerable in proportion as the -difference is more or less great. It amounts to a quarter, a half, or -three-quarters of the value of the product, when the foreigner only -asks us for three-fourths, a half, or a quarter of the price we should -otherwise pay. It is as perfect and complete as it can be, when the -donor (like the sun in furnishing us with light) asks us for nothing. -The question, and we ask it formally, is this, Do you desire for -our country the benefit of gratuitous consumption, or the pretended -advantages of onerous production? Make your choice, but be logical; for -as long as you exclude as you do, coal, iron, com, foreign fabrics, in -proportion as their price approximates to zero, what inconsistency would -it be to admit the light of the sun, the price of which is already at -_zero_ during the entire day! - - - - -VIII. DIFFERENTIAL DUTIES. - -A poor vine-dresser of the Gironde had trained with fond enthusiasm a -slip of vine, which, after much fatigue and much labour, yielded him, at -length, a tun of wine; and his success made him forget that each drop -of this precious nectar had cost his brow a drop of sweat. "I shall -sell it," said he to his wife, "and with the price I shall buy stuff -sufficient to enable you to furnish a trousseau for our daughter." The -honest countryman repaired to the nearest town, and met a Belgian and an -Englishman. The Belgian said to him: "Give me your cask of wine, and -I will give you in exchange fifteen parcels of stuff." The Englishman -said: "Give me your wine, and I will give you twenty parcels of stuff; -for we English can manufacture the stuff cheaper than the Belgians." But -a Customhouse officer, who was present, interposed, and said: "My good -friend, exchange with the Belgian if you think proper, but my orders -are to prevent you from making an exchange with the Englishman." "What!" -exclaimed the countryman; "you wish me to be content with fifteen -parcels of stuff which have come from Brussels, when I can get twenty -parcels which have come from Manchester?" "Certainly; don't you see -that France would be a loser if you received twenty parcels, instead -of fifteen?" "I am at a loss to understand you," said the vine-dresser, -"And I am at a loss to explain it," rejoined the Customhouse official; -"but the thing is certain, for all our deputies, ministers, and -journalists agree in this, that the more a nation receives in exchange -for a given quantity of its products, the more it is impoverished." The -peasant found it necessary to conclude a bargain with the Belgian. The -daughter of the peasant got only three-quarters of her trousseau; and -these simple people are still asking themselves how it happens that one -is ruined by receiving four instead of three; and why a person is richer -with three dozens of towels than with four dozens. - - - - -IX. IMMENSE DISCOVERY. - -At a time when everybody is bent on bringing about a saving in the -expense of transport--and when, in order to effect this saving, we are -forming roads and canals, improving our steamers, and connecting Paris -with all our frontiers by a network of railways--at a time, too, when I -believe we are ardently and sincerely seeking a solution of the problem, -_how to bring the prices of commodities, in the place where they are to -be consumed, as nearly as possible to the level of their prices in the -place where they were produced_,--I should think myself wanting to -my country, to my age, and to myself, if I kept longer secret the -marvellous discovery which I have just made. - -The illusions of inventors are proverbial, but I am positively certain -that I have discovered an infallible means of bringing products from -every part of the world to France, and _vice versa_ at a considerable -reduction of cost. - -Infallible, did I say? Its being infallible is only one of the -advantages of my invention. - -It requires neither plans, estimates, preparatory study, engineers, -mechanists, contractors, capital, shareholders, or Government aid! - -It presents no danger of shipwreck, explosion, fire, or collision! - -It may be brought into operation at any time! - -Moreover--and this must undoubtedly recommend it to the public--it will -not add a penny to the Budget, but the reverse. It will not increase the -staff of functionaries, but the reverse. It will interfere with no man's -liberty, but the reverse. - -It is observation, not chance, which has put me in possession of this -discovery, and I will tell you what suggested it. - -I had at the time this question to resolve: - -"Why does an article manufactured at Brussels, for example, cost dearer -when it comes to Paris?" - -I soon perceived that it proceeds from this: That between Paris and -Brussels _obstacles_ of many kinds exist. First of all, there is -_distance_, which entails loss of time, and we must either submit -to this ourselves, or pay another to submit to it. Then come rivers, -marshes, accidents, bad roads, which are so many _difficulties_ to be -surmounted. We succeed in building bridges, in forming roads, and making -them smoother by pavements, iron rails, etc. But all this is costly, and -the commodity must be made to bear the cost. Then there are robbers who -infest the roads, and a body of police must be kept up, etc. - -Now, among these _obstacles_ there is one which we have ourselves set -up, and at no little cost, too, between Brussels and Paris. There are -men who lie in ambuscade along the frontier, armed to the teeth, and -whose business it is to throw _difficulties_ in the way of transporting -merchandise from the one country to the other. They are called -Customhouse officers, and they act in precisely the same way as ruts -and bad roads. They retard, they trammel commerce, they augment the -difference we have remarked between the price paid by the consumer and -the price received by the producer--that very difference, the reduction -of which, as far as possible, forms the subject of our problem. - -That problem is resolved in three words: Reduce your tariff. - -You will then have done what is equivalent to constructing the Northern -Railway without cost, and will immediately begin to put money in your -pocket. - -In truth, I often seriously ask myself how anything so whimsical could -ever have entered into the human brain, as first of all to lay out many -millions for the purpose of removing the _natural obstacles_ which -lie between France and other countries, and then to lay out many more -millions for the purpose of substituting _artificial obstacles_, which -have exactly the same effect; so much so, indeed, that the obstacle -created and the obstacle removed neutralize each other, and leave -things as they were before, the residue of the operation being a double -expense. - -A Belgian product is worth at Brussels 20 francs, and the cost of -carriage would raise the price at Paris to 30 francs. The same article -made in Paris costs 40 francs. And how do we proceed? - -In the first place, we impose a duty of 10 francs on the Belgian -product, in order to raise its cost price at Paris to 40 francs; and we -pay numerous officials to see the duty stringently levied, so that, on -the road, the commodity is charged 10 francs for the carriage, and 10 -francs for the tax. - -Having done this, we reason thus: The carriage from Brussels to Paris, -which costs 10 francs, is very dear. Let us expend two or three hundred -millions [of francs] in railways, and we shall reduce it by one half. -Evidently, all that we gain by this is that the Belgian product would -sell in Paris for 35 francs, viz. - - 20 francs, its price at Brussels. - 10 " duty. - 5 " reduced carriage by railway. - Total, 35 francs, representing cost price at Paris. - -Now, I ask, would we not have attained the same result by lowering the -tariff by 5 francs? We should then have-- - - 20 francs, the price at Brussels. - 5 " reduced duty. - 10 " carriage by ordinary roads. - Total, 35 francs, representing cost price at Paris. - -And by this process we should have saved the 200 millions which the -railway cost, plus the expense of Customhouse surveillance, for this -last would be reduced in proportion to the diminished encouragement held -out to smuggling. - -But it will be said that the duty is necessary to protect Parisian -industry. Be it so; but then you destroy the effect of your railway. - -For, if you persist in desiring that the Belgian product should cost -at Paris 40 francs, you must raise your duty to 15 francs, and then you -have-- - - 20 francs, the price at Brussels. - 15 " protecting duty. - 5 " railway carriage. - Total, 40 francs, being the equalized price. - -Then, I venture to ask, what, under such circumstances, is the good of -your railway? - -In sober earnestness, let me ask, is it not humiliating that the -nineteenth century should make itself a laughing-stock to future ages by -such puerilities, practised with such imperturbable gravity? To be -the dupe of other people is not very pleasant, but to employ a -vast representative apparatus in order to dupe, and double dupe, -ourselves--and that, too, in an affair of arithmetic--should surely -humble the pride of this _age of enlightenment_. - - - - -X. RECIPROCITY. - -We have just seen that whatever increases the expense of conveying -commodities from one country to another--in other words, whatever -renders transport more onerous--acts in the same way as a protective -duty; or if you prefer to put it in another shape, that a protective -duty acts in the same way as more onerous transport. - -A tariff, then, may be regarded in the same light as a marsh, a rut, -an obstruction, a steep declivity--in a word, it is an _obstacle_, the -effect of which is to augment the difference between the price which the -producer of a commodity receives, and the price which the consumer -pays for it. In the same way, it is undoubtedly true that marshes and -quagmires are to be regarded in the same light as protective tariffs. - -There are people (few in number, it is true, but there are such people) -who begin to understand that obstacles are not less obstacles because -they are artificial, and that our mercantile prospects have more to gain -from liberty than from protection, and exactly for the same reason which -makes a canal more favourable to traffic than a steep, roundabout, and -inconvenient road. - -But they maintain that this liberty must be reciprocal. If we remove -the barriers we have erected against the admission of Spanish goods, -for example, Spain must remove the barriers she has erected against the -admission of ours. They are, therefore, the advocates of _commercial -treaties_, on the basis of exact reciprocity, concession for concession; -let us make the _sacrifice_ of buying, say they, to obtain the advantage -of selling. - -People who reason in this way, I am sorry to say, are, whether they know -it or not, protectionists in principle; only, they are a little -more inconsistent than pure protectionists, as the latter are more -inconsistent than absolute prohibitionists. - -The following apologue will demonstrate this:-- - -STULTA AND PUERA. There were, no matter where, two towns called Stulta -and Puera. They completed at great cost a highway from the one town to -the other. When this was done, Stulta said to herself, "See how Puera -inundates us with her products; we must see to it." In consequence, -they created and paid a body of _obstructives_, so called because their -business was to place _obstacles_ in the way of traffic coming from -Puera. Soon afterwards, Puera did the same. - -At the end of some centuries, knowledge having in the interim made -great progress, the common sense of Puera enabled her to see that such -reciprocal obstacles could only be reciprocally hurtful. She therefore -sent a diplomatist to Stulta, who, laying aside official phraseology, -spoke to this effect: "We have made a highway, and now we throw -obstacles in the way of using it. This is absurd. It would have been -better to have left things as they were. We should not, in that case, -have had to pay for making the road in the first place, nor afterwards -have incurred the expense of maintaining _obstructives_. In the name of -Puera, I come to propose to you, not to give up opposing each other -all at once--that would be to act upon a principle, and we despise -principles as much as you do--but to lessen somewhat the present -obstacles, taking care to estimate equitably the respective _sacrifices_ -we make for this purpose." So spoke the diplomatist. Stulta asked for -time to consider the proposal, and proceeded to consult, in succession, -her manufacturers and agriculturists. At length, after the lapse of some -years, she declared that the negotiations were broken off. - -On receiving this intimation, the inhabitants of Puera held a meeting. -An old gentleman (they always suspected he had been secretly bought by -Stulta) rose and said: The obstacles created by Stulta injure our sales, -which is a misfortune. Those which we have ourselves created injure our -purchases, which is another misfortune. With reference to the first, we -are powerless; but the second rests with ourselves. Let us, at least, -get quit of one, since we cannot rid ourselves of both evils. Let us -suppress our _obstructives_ without requiring Stulta to do the same. -Some day, no doubt, she will come to know her own interests better. - -A second counsellor, a practical, matter-of-fact man, guiltless of -any acquaintance with principles, and brought up in the ways of his -forefathers, replied: "Don't listen to that Utopian dreamer, that -theorist, that innovator, that economist, that _Stultomaniac_." - -We shall all be undone if the stoppages of the road are not equalized, -weighed, and balanced between Stulta and Puera. There would be greater -difficulty in going than in coming, in exporting than in importing. We -should find ourselves in the same condition of inferiority relatively -to Stulta, as Havre, Nantes, Bordeaux, Lisbon, London, Hamburg, and New -Orleans, are with relation to the towns situated at the sources of the -Seine, the Loire, the Garonne, the Tagus, the Thames, the Elbe, and -the Mississippi, for it is more difficult for a ship to ascend than -to descend a river. (_A Voice_: Towns at the _embouchures_ of rivers -prosper more than towns at their source.) This is impossible. (Same -Voice: But it is so.) Well, if it be so, they have prospered _contrary -to rules_. Reasoning so conclusive convinced the assembly, and -the orator followed up his victory by talking largely of national -independence, national honour, national dignity, national labour, -inundation of products, tributes, murderous competition. In short, he -carried the vote in favour of the maintenance of obstacles; and if you -are at all curious on the subject, I can point out to you countries, -where you will see with your own eyes Road-makers and Obstructives -working together on the most friendly terms possible, under the orders -of the same legislative assembly, and at the expense of the same -taxpayers, the one set endeavouring to clear the road, and the other set -doing their utmost to render it impassible. - - - - -XI. NOMINAL PRICES. - -Do you desire to be in a situation to decide between liberty and -protection? Do you desire to appreciate the bearing of an economic -phenomenon? Inquire into its effects _upon the abundance or scarcity -of commodities_, and not _upon the rise or fall of prices_. Distrust -_nominal prices_;* and they will only land you in an inextricable -labyrinth. - - * I have translated the expression des prix absolus, nominal - prices, or actual money prices, because the English - economists do not, so far as I remember, make use of the - term absolute price.--See post, chap. v. of second series, - where the author employs the expression in this sense.-- - Translator. - -M. Matthieu de Dombasle, after having shown that protection raises -prices, adds-- - -"The enhancement of price increases the expense of living, and -_consequently_ the price of labour, and each man receives, in the -enhanced price of his products, compensation for the higher prices he -has been obliged to pay for the things he has occasion to buy. Thus, -if every one pays more as a consumer, every one receives more as a -producer." - -It is evident that we could reverse this argument, and say--"If every -one receives more as a producer, every one pays more as a consumer." - -Now, what does this prove? Nothing but this, that protection _displaces_ -wealth uselessly and unjustly. In so far, it simply perpetrates -spoliation. - -Again, to conclude that this vast apparatus leads to simple -compensations, we must stick to the "consequently" of M. de Dombasle, -and make sure that the price of labour will not fail to rise with the -price of the protected products. This is a question of fact which I -remit to M. Moreau de Jonnes, that he may take the trouble to find out -whether the rate of wages advances along with the price of shares in -the coal-mines of Anzin. For my own part, I do not believe that it -does; because, in my opinion, the price of labour, like the price of -everything else, is governed by the relation of supply to demand. Now, -I am convinced that _restriction_ diminishes the supply of coal, and -consequently enhances its price; but I do not see so clearly that it -increases the demand for labour, so as to enhance the rate of wages; and -that this effect should be produced is all the less likely, because -the quantity of labour demanded depends on the disposable capital. Now, -protection may indeed displace capital, and cause its transference from -one employment to another, but it can never increase it by a single -farthing. - -But this question, which is one of the greatest interest and importance, -will be examined in another place.* I return to the subject of _nominal -price_; and I maintain that it is not one of those absurdities which can -be rendered specious by such reasonings as those of M. de Dombasle. - -Put the case of a nation which is isolated, and possesses a given amount -of specie, and which chooses to amuse itself by burning each year one -half of all the commodities that it possesses. I undertake to prove -that, according to the theory of M. de Dombasle, it will not be less -rich. - -In fact, in consequence of the fire, all things will be doubled in -price, and the inventories of property, made before and after the -destruction, will show exactly the same _nominal_ value. But then what -will the country in question have lost? If John buys his cloth dearer, -he also sells his corn at a higher price; and if Peter loses on his -purchase of corn, he retrieves his losses by the sale of his cloth. -"Each recovers, in the extra price of his products, the extra expense -of living he has been put to; and if everybody pays as a consumer, -everybody receives a corresponding amount as a producer." - -All this is a jingling quibble, and not science. The truth, in plain -terms, is this: that men consume cloth and corn by fire or by using -them, and that the effect is the same _as regards price_, but not _as -regards wealth_, for it is precisely in the use of commodities that -wealth or material prosperity consists. - -In the same way, restriction, while diminishing the abundance of things, -may raise their price to such an extent that each party shall be, -_pecuniarily speaking_, as rich as before. But to set down in an -inventory three measures of corn at 20s., or four measures at 15s., -because the result is still sixty shillings,--would this, I ask, come -to the same thing with reference to the satisfaction of men's wants? - -It is to this, the consumer's point of view, that I shall never cease -to recall the protectionists, for this is the end and design of all our -efforts, and the solution of all problems.** - - * See _post_, ch. v., second series.--Translator. - - ** To this view of the subject the author frequently - reverts. It was, in his eyes, all important; and, four days - before his death, he dictated this recommendation:--"Tell M. - de F. to treat economical questions always from the - consumer's point of view, for the interest of the consumer - is identical with that of the human race."--Editor. - -I shall never cease to say to them: Is it, or is it not, true that -restriction, by impeding exchanges, by limiting the division of labour, -by forcing labour to connect itself with difficulties of climate and -situation, diminishes ultimately the quantity of commodities produced by -a determinate amount of efforts? And what does this signify, it will be -said, if the smaller quantity produced under the _regime_ of protection -has the same _nominal value_ as that produced under the _regime_ of -liberty? The answer is obvious. Man does not live upon nominal values, -but upon real products, and the more products there are, whatever be -their price, the richer he is. - -In writing what precedes, I never expected to meet with an -anti-economist who was enough of a logician to admit, in so many words, -that the wealth of nations depends on the value of things, apart from -the consideration of their abundance. But here is what I find in the -work of M. de Saint-Chamans (p. 210):-- - -"If fifteen millions' worth of commodities, sold to foreigners, are -taken from the total production, estimated at fifty millions, the -thirty-five millions' worth of commodities remaining, not being -sufficient to meet the ordinary demand, will increase in price, and rise -to the value of fifty millions. In that case the revenue of the country -will represent a value of fifteen millions additional.... There would -then be an increase of the wealth of the country to the extent of -fifteen millions, exactly the amount of specie imported." - -This is a pleasant view of the matter! If a nation produces in one year, -from its agriculture and commerce, a value of fifty millions, it has -only to sell a quarter of it to the foreigner to be a quarter richer! -Then if it sells the half, it will be one-half richer! And if it should -sell the whole, to its last tuft of wool and its last grain of wheat, -it would bring up its revenue to 100 millions. Singular way of getting -rich, by producing infinite dearness by absolute scarcity! - -Again, would you judge of the two doctrines? Submit them to the test of -exaggeration. - -According to the doctrine of M. de Saint-Chamans, the French would -be quite as rich--that is to say, quite as well supplied with all -things--had they only a thousandth part of their annual products, -because they would be worth a thousand times more. - -According to our doctrine, the French would be infinitely rich if their -annual products were infinitely abundant, and, consequently, without any -value at all.* - - * See _post_, ch. v. of second series of _Sophismes_; and - ch. vi. of _Harmonies Economiques_. - - - - -XII. DOES PROTECTION RAISE THE RATE OF WAGES? - -An atheist, declaiming one day against religion and priestcraft, became -so outrageous in his abuse, that one of his audience, who was not -himself very orthodox, exclaimed, "If you go on much longer in this -strain, you will make me a convert." - -In the same way, when we see our beardless scribblers, our -novel-writers, reformers, fops, amateur contributors to newspapers, -redolent of musk, and saturated with champagne, stuffing their -portfolios with radical prints, or issuing under gilded covers their own -tirades against the egotism and individualism of the age--when we hear -such people declaim against the rigour of our institutions, groan over -the proletariat and the wages system, raise their eyes to Heaven, and -weep over the poverty of the working classes (poverty which they never -see but when they are paid to paint it),--we are likewise tempted to -exclaim, "If you go on longer in this strain, we shall lose all interest -in the working classes." - -Affectation is the besetting sin of our times. When a serious writer, -in a spirit of philanthropy, refers to the sufferings of the working -classes, his words are caught up by these sentimentalists, twisted, -distorted, and exaggerated, _usque ad 'nauseam_. The grand, the only -remedy, it would seem, lies in the high-sounding phrases, association -and organization. The working classes are flattered--fulsomely, -servilely flattered; they are represented as in the condition of slaves, -and men of common sense will soon be ashamed publicly to espouse their -cause, for how can common sense make itself heard in the midst of all -this insipid and empty declamation? - -Far from us be this cowardly indifference, which would not be justified -even by the sentimental affectation which prompts it. - -Workmen! your situation is peculiar! They make merchandise of you, as I -shall show you immediately.... But no; I withdraw that expression. -Let us steer clear of strong language, which may be misapplied; for -spoliation, wrapt up in the sophistry which conceals it, may be in full -operation unknown to the spoliator, and with the blind assent of his -victim. Still, you are deprived of the just remuneration of your labour, -and no one is concerned to do you _justice_. If all that was wanted to -console you were ardent appeals to philanthropy, to impotent charity, -to degrading almsgiving; or if the grand words, organization, communism, -_phalanstere,_* were enough for you, truly they would not be spared. But -_justice_, simple justice, no one thinks of offering you. And yet, would -it not be _just_ that when, after a long day's toil, you have received -your modest wages, you should have it in your power to exchange them -for the greatest amount of satisfactions and enjoyments which you could -possibly obtain for them from any one in any part of the world? - - * Allusion to a socialist work of the day.--Translator. - -Some day I may have occasion also to talk to you of association and -organization, and we shall then see what you have to expect from those -chimeras which now mislead you. - -In the meantime, let us inquire whether _injustice_ is not done you by -fixing legislatively the people from whom you are to purchase the things -you have need of--bread, meat, linens, or cloth; and in dictating, if -I may say so, the artificial scale of prices which you are to adopt in -your dealings. - -Is it true that protection, which admittedly makes you pay dearer -for everything, and entails a loss upon you in this respect, raises -proportionally your wages? - -On what does the rate of wages depend? - -One of your own class has put it forcibly, thus: When two workmen run -after one master, wages fall; they rise when two masters run after one -workman. - -For the sake of brevity, allow me to make use of this formula, more -scientific, although, perhaps, not quite so clear. The rate of wages -depends on the proportion which the supply of labour bears to the demand -for it. - -Now, on what does the _supply_ of labour depend? - -On the number of men waiting for employment; and on this first element -protection can have no effect. - -On what does the _demand_ for labour depend? - -On the disposable capital of the nation. But does the law which says, -We shall no longer receive such or such a product from abroad, we shall -make it at home, augment the capital? Not in the least degree. It may -force capital from one employment to another, but it does not increase -it by a single farthing. It does not then increase the demand for -labour. - -We point with pride to a certain manufacture. Is it established or -maintained with capital which has fallen from the moon? No; that capital -has been withdrawn from agriculture, from shipping, from the production -of wines. And this is the reason why, under the _regime_ of protective -tariffs, there are more workmen in our mines and in our manufacturing -towns, and fewer sailors in our ports, and fewer labourers in our fields -and vineyards. - -I could expatiate at length on this subject, but I prefer to explain -what I mean by an example. - -A countryman was possessed of twenty acres of land, which he worked with -a capital of L400. He divided his land into four parts, and established -the following rotation of crops:--1st, maize; 2d, wheat; 3d, clover; -4th, rye. He required for his own family only a moderate portion of the -grain, meat, and milk which his farm produced, and he sold the surplus -to buy oil, flax, wine, etc. His whole capital was expended each year -in wages, hires, and small payments to the working classes in his -neighbourhood. This capital was returned to him in his sales, and even -went on increasing year by year; and our countryman, knowing very well -that capital produces nothing when it is unemployed, benefited the -working classes by devoting the annual surplus to enclosing and -clearing his land, and to improving his agricultural implements and farm -buildings. He had even some savings in the neighbouring town with his -banker, who, of course, did not let the money lie idle in his till, but -lent it to shipowners and contractors for public works, so that these -savings were always resolving themselves into wages. - -At length the countryman died, and his son, who succeeded him, said to -himself, "My father was a dupe all his life. He purchased oil, and so -paid _tribute_ to Provence, whilst our own land, with some pains, can -be made to grow the olive. He bought cloth, wine, and oranges, and thus -paid tribute to Brittany, Medoc, and Hyeres, whilst we can cultivate -hemp, the vine, and the orange tree with more or less success. He paid -_tribute_ to the miller and the weaver, whilst our own domestics can -weave our linen and grind our wheat." In this way he ruined himself, and -spent among strangers that money which he might have spent at home. - -Misled by such reasoning, the volatile youth changed his rotation of -crops. His land he divided into twenty divisions. In one he planted -olives, in another mulberry trees, in a third he sowed flax, in a fourth -he had vines, in a fifth wheat, and so on. By this means he succeeded -in supplying his family with what they required, and felt himself -independent. He no longer drew anything from the general circulation, -nor did he add anything to it. Was he the richer for this? No; for the -soil was not adapted for the cultivation of the vine, and the climate -was not fitted for the successful cultivation of the olive; and he was -not long in finding out that his family was less plentifully provided -with all the things which they wanted than in the time of his father, -who procured them by exchanging his surplus produce. - -As regarded his workmen, they had no more employment than formerly. -There were five times more fields, but each field was five times -smaller; they produced oil, but they produced less wheat; he no longer -purchased linens, but he no longer sold rye. Moreover, the farmer could -expend in wages only the amount of his capital, and his capital went on -constantly diminishing. A great part of it went for buildings, and the -various implements needed for the more varied cultivation in which he -had engaged. In short, the supply of labour remained the same, but as -the means of remunerating that labour fell off, the ultimate result was -a forcible reduction of wages. - -On a greater scale, this is exactly what takes place in the case of -a nation which isolates itself by adopting a prohibitive _regime_. -It multiplies its branches of industry, I grant, but they become of -diminished importance; it adopts, so to speak, a more complicated -_industrial rotation_, but it is not so prolific, because its capital -and labour have now to struggle with natural difficulties. A greater -proportion of its circulating capital, which forms the wages fund, -must be converted into fixed capital. What remains may have more varied -employment, but the total mass is not increased. It is like distributing -the water of a pond among a multitude of shallow reservoirs--it covers -more ground, and presents a greater surface to the rays of the sun, -and it is precisely for this reason that it is all the sooner absorbed, -evaporated, and lost. - -The amount of capital and labour being given, they create a smaller -amount of commodities in proportion as they encounter more obstacles. It -is beyond doubt, that when international obstructions force capital -and labour into channels and localities where they meet with greater -difficulties of soil and climate, the general result must be, fewer -products created--that is to say, fewer enjoyments for consumers. Now, -when there are fewer enjoyments upon the whole, will the workman's share -of them be augmented? If it were augmented, as is asserted, then the -rich--the men who make the laws--would find their own share not only -subject to the general diminution, but that diminished share would be -still further reduced by what was added to the labourers' share. Is -this possible? Is it credible? I advise you, workmen, to reject such -suspicious generosity.* - - * See _Harmonies Economiques_, ch. xiv. - - - - -XIII. THEORY, PRACTICE. - -As advocates of free trade, we are accused of being theorists, and of -not taking practice sufficiently into account. - -"What fearful prejudices were entertained against M. Say," says M. -Ferrier,* "by that long train of distinguished administrators, and that -imposing phalanx of authors who dissented from his opinions; and M. -Say was not unaware of it. Hear what he says:--'It has been alleged -in support of errors of long standing, that there must have been some -foundation for ideas which have been adopted by all nations. Ought -we not to distrust observations and reasonings which run counter to -opinions which have been constantly entertained down to our own time, -and which have been regarded as sound by so many men remarkable for -their enlightenment and their good intentions? This argument, I allow, -is calculated to make a profound impression, and it might have cast -doubt upon points which we deem the most incontestable, if we had not -seen, by turns, opinions the most false, and now generally acknowledged -to be false, received and professed by everybody during a long series -of ages. Not very long ago all nations, from the rudest to the most -enlightened, and all men, from the street-porter to the _savant_, -admitted the existence of four elements. No one thought of contesting -that doctrine, which, however, is false; so much so, that even the -greenest assistant in a naturalist's class-room would be ashamed to say -that he regarded earth, water, and fire as elements.'" - - * De l'Administration Commerciale opposee a Oeconomie - Politique, p. 5. - -On this M. Ferrier remarks:-- - -"If M. Say thinks to answer thus the very strong objection which he -brings forward, he is singularly mistaken. That men, otherwise well -informed, should have been mistaken for centuries on certain points of -natural history is easily understood, and proves nothing. Water, air, -earth, and fire, whether elements or not, are not the less useful to -man.... Such errors are unimportant: they lead to no popular commotions, -no uneasiness in the public mind; they run counter to no pecuniary -interest; and this is the reason why without any felt inconvenience they -may endure for a thousand years. The physical world goes on as if they -did not exist. But of errors in the moral world, can the same thing -be said? Can we conceive that a system of administration, found to be -absolutely false and therefore hurtful, should be followed out -among many nations for centuries, with the general approval of all -well-informed men? Can it be explained how such a system could coexist -with the constantly increasing prosperity of nations? M. Say admits that -the argument which he combats is fitted to make a profound impression. -Yes, indeed; and the impression remains; for M. Say has rather deepened -than done away with it." - - * Might we not say, that it is a "fearful prejudice" against - MM. Ferrier and Saint-Chamans, that "_economists of all - schools_, that is to say, everybody who has studied the - question, should have arrived at the conclusion, that, after - all, liberty is better than constraint, and the laws of God - wiser than those of Colbert." - -Let us hear what M. de Saint-Chamans says on the same subject:-- - -"It was only in the middle of the last century, of that eighteenth -century which handed over all subjects and all principles without -exception to free discussion, that these _speculative_ purveyors of -ideas, applied by them to all things without being really applicable -to anything, began to write upon political economy. There existed -previously a system of political economy, not to be found in books, but -which had been put in _practical_ operation by governments. Colbert, it -is said, was the inventor of it, and it was adopted as a rule by all the -nations of Europe. The singular thing is, that in spite of contempt and -maledictions, in spite of all the discoveries of the modern school, it -still remains in practical operation. This system, which our authors -have called the _mercantile system_, was designed to.... impede, by -prohibitions or import duties, the entry of foreign products, which -might ruin our own manufactures by their competition. Economic writers -of all schools* have declared this system untenable, absurd, and -calculated to impoverish any country. It has been banished from all -their books, and forced to take refuge in the _practical_ legislation of -all nations. They cannot conceive why, in measures relating to national -wealth, governments should not follow the advice and opinions of learned -authors, rather than trust to their _experience_ of the tried working -of a system which has been long in operation. Above all, they cannot -conceive why the French government should in economic questions -obstinately set itself to resist the progress of enlightenment, and -maintain in its _practice_ those ancient errors, which all our economic -writers have exposed. But enough of this mercantile system, which -has nothing in its favour but _facts_, and is not defended by any -speculative writer."* - - * Du Systeme de l'Impot, par M. le Vicomte de Saint-Chamans, - p. 11. - -Such language as this would lead one to suppose that in demanding -for every one _the free disposal of his property_, economists were -propounding some new system, some new, strange, and chimerical social -order, a sort of _phalanstere_, coined in the mint of their own brain, -and without precedent in the annals of the human race. To me it would -seem that if we have here anything factitious or contingent, it is to -be found, not in liberty, but in protection; not in the free power of -exchanging, but in customs duties employed to overturn artificially the -natural course of remuneration. - -But our business at present is not to compare, or pronounce between, the -two systems; but to inquire which of the two is founded on experience. - -The advocates of monopoly maintain that _the facts_ are on their side, -and that we have on our side only _theory_. - -They flatter themselves that this long series of public acts, this -_old experience_ of Europe, which they invoke, has presented itself as -something very formidable to the mind of M. Say; and I grant that he -has not refuted it with his wonted sagacity. For my own part, I am not -disposed to concede to the monopolists the domain of _facts_, for they -have only in their favour facts which are forced and exceptional; and we -oppose to these, facts which are universal, the free and voluntary acts -of mankind at large. - -What do we say; and what do they say? - -We say, - -"You should buy from others what you cannot make for yourself but at a -greater expense." - -And they say, - -"It is better to make things for yourself, although they cost you more -than, the price at which you could buy them from others." - -Now, gentlemen, throwing aside theory, argument, demonstration, all -which seems to affect you with nausea, which of these two assertions has -on its side the sanction of _universal practice?_ - -Visit your fields, your workshops, your forges, your warehouses; look -above, below, and around you; look at what takes place in your own -houses; remark your own everyday acts; and say what is the principle -which guides these labourers, artisans, and merchants; say what is your -own personal _practice_. - -Does the farmer make his own clothes? Does the tailor produce the corn -he consumes? Does your housekeeper continue to have your bread made -at home, after she finds she can buy it cheaper from the baker? Do -you resign the pen for the brush, to save your paying _tribute_ to -the shoeblack? Does the entire economy of society not rest upon the -separation of employments, the division of labour--in a word, upon -_exchange?_ And what is exchange, but a calculation which we make with -a view to discontinuing direct production in every case in which we find -that possible, and in which indirect acquisition enables us to effect a -saving in time and in effort? - -It is not you, therefore, who are the men of _practice_, since you -cannot point to a single human being who acts upon your principle. - -But you will say, we never intended to make our principle a rule for -individual relations. We perfectly understand that this would be to -break up the bond of society, and would force men to live like snails, -each in his own shell. All that we contend for is, that our principle -regulates _de facto_, the regulations which obtain between the different -agglomerations of the human family. - -Well, I affirm that this principle is still erroneous. The family, -the commune, the canton, the department, the province, are so many -agglomerations, which all, without any exception, reject _practically_ -your principle, and have never dreamt of acting on it. All procure -themselves, by means of exchange, those things which it would cost them -dearer to procure by means of production. And nations would do the same, -did you not hinder them _by force_. - -We, then, are the men of practice and of experience; for we oppose -to the restriction which you have placed exceptionally on certain -international exchanges, the practice and experience of all individuals, -and of all agglomerations of individuals, whose acts are voluntary, and -can consequently be adduced as evidence. But you begin by _constraining, -by hindering_, and then you lay hold of acts which are _forced or -prohibited_, as warranting you to exclaim, "We have practice and -experience on our side!" - -You inveigh against our theory, and even against theories in general. -But when you lay down a principle in opposition to ours, you perhaps -imagine you are not proceeding on theory? Clear your heads of that idea. -You in fact form a theory, as we do; but between your theory and ours -there is this difference: - -Our theory consists merely in observing universal _facts_, universal -opinions; calculations and ways of proceeding which universally prevail; -and in classifying these, and rendering them Co-ordinate, with a view to -their being more easily understood. - -Our theory is so little opposed to practice that it is nothing else but -_practice explained_. We observe men acting as they are moved by the -instinct of self-preservation and a desire for progress, and what -they thus do freely and voluntarily we denominate political or social -economy. We can never help repeating, that each individual man is -_practically_ an excellent economist, producing or exchanging according -as he finds it more to his interest to produce or to exchange. Each, -by experience, educates himself in this science; or rather the science -itself is only this same experience accurately observed and methodically -explained. - -But on your side, you construct a _theory_ in the worst sense of the -word. You imagine, you invent, a course of proceeding which is not -sanctioned by the practice of any living man under the canopy of heaven; -and then you invoke the aid of constraint and prohibition. It is quite -necessary that you should have recourse to _force_, for you desire that -men should be made to produce those things which they find it _more -advantageous_ to buy; you desire that they should renounce this -_advantage_, and act upon a doctrine which implies a contradiction in -terms. - -The doctrine which you acknowledge would be absurd in the relations -of individuals; I defy you to extend it, even in speculation, to -transaction between families, communities, or provinces. By your own -admission, it is only applicable to international relations. - -This is the reason why you are forced to keep repeating: - -"There are no absolute principles, no inflexible rules. What is _good_ -for an individual, a family, a province, is _bad_ for a nation. What -is _good_ in detail--namely, to purchase rather than produce, when -purchasing is more advantageous than producing--that same is _bad_ in -the gross. The political economy of individuals is not that of nations;" -and other nonsense _ejusdem farino_. - -And to what does all this tend? Look at it a little closer. The -intention is to prove that we, the consumers, are your property! that -we are yours body and soul! that you have an exclusive right over our -stomachs and our limbs! that it belongs to you to feed and clothe us on -your own terms, whatever be your ignorance, incapacity, or rapacity! - -No, you are not men of practice; you are men of abstraction--and of -extortion. - - - - -XIV. CONFLICT OF PRINCIPLES. - -There is one thing which confounds me; and it is this: Sincere -publicists, studying the economy of society from the producer's point of -view, have laid down this double formula:-- - -"Governments should order the interests of consumers who are subject to -their laws, in such a way as to be favourable to national industry. - -"They should bring distant consumers under subjection to their laws, for -the purpose of ordering their interests in a way favourable to national -industry." - -The first of these formulas gets the name of protection; the second we -call _debouches_, or the creating of markets, or vents, for our produce. - -Both are founded on the _datum_ which we denominate the _Balance of -Trade_. - -"A nation is impoverished when it imports; enriched when it exports." - -For if every purchase from a foreign country is a _tribute paid_ and a -national loss, it follows, of course, that it is right to restrain, and -even prohibit, importations. - -And if every sale to a foreign country is a _tribute received_, and a -national profit, it is quite right and natural to create markets for our -products even by force. - -The _system of protection_ and the _colonial system_ are, then, only two -aspects of one and the same theory. To _hinder_ our fellow-citizens -from buying from foreigners, and to _force_ foreigners to buy from -our fellow-citizens, are only two consequences of one and the same -principle. - -Now, it is impossible not to admit that this doctrine, if true, makes -general utility to repose on _monopoly_ or internal spoliation, and on -_conquest_ or external spoliation. - -I enter a cottage on the French side of the Pyrenees. - -The father of the family has received but slender wages. His half-naked -children shiver in the icy north wind; the fire is extinguished, and -there is nothing on the table. There are wool, firewood, and corn on the -other side of the mountain; but these good things are forbidden to the -poor day-labourer, for the other side of the mountain is not in France. -Foreign firewood is not allowed to warm the cottage hearth; and the -shepherd's children can never know the taste of Biscayan corn,* and the -wool of Navarre can never warm their benumbed limbs. General utility -has so ordered it. Be it so; but let us agree that all this is in direct -opposition to the first principles of justice. To dispose legislatively -of the interests of consumers, and postpone them to the supposed -interests of national industry, is to encroach upon their liberty--it is -to prohibit an act; namely, the act of exchange, which has in it -nothing contrary to good morals; in a word, it is to do them an act of -_injustice_. - - * The French word employed is _meture_, probably a Spanish - word Gallicized--_mestura_, meslin, mixed corn, as wheat and - rye.---Translator. - -And yet this is necessary, we are told, unless we wish to see national -labour at a standstill, and public prosperity sustain a fatal shock. - -Writers of the protectionist school, then, have arrived at the -melancholy conclusion that there is a radical incompatibility between -Justice and Utility. - -On the other hand, if it be the interest of each nation to _sell_, and -not to _buy_, the natural state of their relations must consist in a -violent action and reaction, for each will seek to impose its products -on all, and all will endeavour to repel the products of each. - -A sale, in fact, implies a purchase, and since, according to this -doctrine, to sell is beneficial, and to buy is the reverse, every -international transaction would imply the amelioration of one people, -and the deterioration of another. - -But if men are, on the one hand, irresistibly impelled towards what is -for their profit, and if, on the other, they resist instinctively what -is hurtful, we are forced to conclude that each nation carries in its -bosom a natural force of expansion, and a not less natural force of -resistance, which forces are equally injurious to all other nations; or, -in other words, that antagonism and war are the _natural_ state of human -society. - -Thus the theory we are discussing may be summed up in these two axioms: - -Utility is incompatible with Justice at home. - -Utility is incompatible with Peace abroad. - -Now, what astonishes and confounds me is, that a publicist, a statesman, -who sincerely holds an economical doctrine which runs so violently -counter to other principles which are incontestable, should be able to -enjoy one moment of calm or peace of mind. - -For my own part, it seems to me, that if I had entered the precincts of -the science by the same gate, if I had failed to perceive clearly that -Liberty, Utility, Justice, Peace, are things not only compatible, but -strictly allied with each other, and, so to speak, identical, I should -have endeavoured to forget what I had learned, and I should have asked: - -"How God could have willed that men should attain prosperity only -through Injustice and War? How He could have willed that they should be -unable to avoid Injustice and War except by renouncing the possibility -of attaining prosperity? - -"Dare I adopt, as the basis of the legislation of a great nation, a -science which thus misleads me by false lights, which has conducted me -to this horrible blasphemy, and landed me in so dreadful an alternative? -And when a long train of illustrious philosophers have been conducted by -this science, to which they have devoted their lives, to more consoling -results--when they affirm that Liberty and Utility are perfectly -reconcilable with Justice and Peace--that all these great principles -run in infinitely extended parallels, and will do so to all eternity, -without running counter to each other,--I would ask, Have they not in -their favour that presumption which results from all that we know of the -goodness and wisdom of God, as manifested in the sublime harmony of the -material creation? In the face of such a presumption, and of so many -reliable authorities, ought I to believe lightly that God has been -pleased to implant antagonism and dissonance in the laws of the moral -world? No; before I should venture to conclude that the principles -of social order run counter to and neutralize each other, and are in -eternal and irreconcilable opposition--before I should venture to impose -on my fellow-citizens a system so impious as that to which my reasonings -would appear to lead,--I should set myself to reexamine the whole chain -of these reasonings, and assure myself that at this stage of the -journey I had not missed my way." But if, after a candid and searching -examination, twenty times repeated, I arrived always at this frightful -conclusion, that we must choose between the Bight and the Good, -discouraged, I should reject the science, and bury myself in voluntary -ignorance; above all, I should decline all participation in public -affairs, leaving to men of another temper and constitution the burden -and responsibility of a choice so painful. - - - - -XV. RECIPROCITY AGAIN. - -M. de Saint-Cricq inquires, "Whether it is certain that the foreigner -will buy from us as much as he sells?" - -M. de Dombasle asks, "What reason we have to believe that English -producers will take from us, rather than from some other country of the -world, the commodities they have need of, and an amount of commodities -equivalent in value to that of their exports to France?" - -I wonder how so many men who call themselves _practical_ men should have -all reasoned without reference to practice! - -In practice, does a single exchange take place, out of a hundred, out -of a thousand, out of ten thousand perhaps, which represents the direct -barter of commodity for commodity? Never since the introduction of money -has any agriculturist said: I want to buy shoes, hats, advice, lessons; -but only from the shoemaker, the hat-maker, the lawyer, the professor, -who will purchase from me corn to an exactly equivalent value. And why -should nations bring each other under a yoke of this kind? Practically -how are such matters transacted? - -Let us suppose a people shut out from external relations. A man, we -shall suppose, produces wheat. He sends it to the _home_ market, -and offers it for the highest price he can obtain. He receives in -exchange--what? Coins, which are just so many drafts or orders, varying -very much in amount, by means of which he can draw, in his turn, from -the national stores, when he judges it proper, and subject to due -competition, everything which he may want or desire. Ultimately, and -at the end of the operation, he will have drawn from the mass the -exact equivalent of what he has contributed to it, and, in value, _his -consumption will exactly equal his production_. - -If the exchanges of the supposed nation with foreigners are left free, -it is no longer to the _national_, but to the _general_, market that -each sends his contributions, and, in turn, derives his supplies for -consumption. He has no need to care whether what he sends into the -market of the world is purchased by a fellow-countryman or by a -foreigner; whether the drafts or orders he receives come from a -Frenchman or an Englishman; whether the commodities for which he -afterwards exchanges these drafts or orders are produced on this or on -the other side of the Rhine or the Pyrenees. There is always in each -individual case an exact balance between what is contributed and what is -received, between what is poured into and what is drawn out of the great -common reservoir; and if this is true of each individual, it is true of -the nation at large. - -The only difference between the two cases is, that in the last each has -to face a more extended market both as regards sales and purchases, and -has consequently more chances of transacting both advantageously. - -This objection may perhaps be urged: If everybody enters into a -league not to take from the general mass the commodities of a certain -individual, that individual cannot, in his turn, obtain from the mass -what he is in want of. It is the same of nations. - -The reply to this is, that if a nation cannot obtain what it has need -of in the general market, it will no longer contribute anything to -that market. It will work for itself. It will be forced in that case to -submit to what you want to impose on it beforehand--_isolation_. - -And this will realize the ideal of the prohibitive _regime_. - -Is it not amusing to think that you inflict upon the nation, now and -beforehand, this very _regime_, from a fear that it might otherwise run -the risk of arriving at it independently of your exertions? - - - - -XVI. OBSTRUCTED NAVIGATION PLEADING FOR THE PROHIBITIONISTS. - -Some years ago I happened to be at Madrid, and went to the Cortes. The -subject of debate was a proposed treaty with Portugal for improving -the navigation of the Douro. One of the deputies rose and said: "If the -navigation of the Douro is improved in the way now proposed, the traffic -will be carried on at less expense. The grain of Portugal will, in -consequence, be sold in the markets of Castile at a lower price, and -will become a formidable rival to our _national industry_. I oppose -the project, unless, indeed, our ministers will undertake to raise -the tariff of customs to the extent required to re-establish the -equilibrium." The Assembly found the argument unanswerable. - -Three months afterwards I was at Lisbon. The same question was discussed -in the Senate. A noble hidalgo made a speech: "Mr President," he said, -"this project is absurd. You place guards, at great expense, along the -banks of the Douro to prevent Portugal being invaded by Castilian grain; -and at the same time you propose, also at great expense, to facilitate -that invasion. This is a piece of inconsistency to which I cannot -assent. Let us leave the Douro to our children, as it has come to us -from our fathers." - -Afterwards, when the subject of improving the navigation of the Garonne -was discussed, I remembered the arguments of the Iberian orators, and I -said to myself, If the Toulouse deputies were as good economists as the -Spanish deputies, and the representatives of Bordeaux as acute logicians -as those of Oporto, assuredly they would leave the Garonne - -"Dormir au bruit flatteur de son onde naissante;" - -for the canalisation of the Garonne would favour the invasion of -Toulouse products, to the prejudice of Bordeaux, and the inundation of -Bordeaux products would do the same thing to the detriment of Toulouse. - - - - -XVII. A NEGATIVE RAILWAY. - -I have said that when, unfortunately, one has regard to the interest of -the producer, and not to that of the consumer, it is impossible to -avoid running counter to the general interest, because the demand of the -producer, as such, is only for efforts, wants, and obstacles. - -I find a remarkable illustration of this in a Bordeaux newspaper. - -M. Simiot proposes this question:-- - -Should the proposed railway from Paris to Madrid offer a solution of -continuity at Bordeaux? - -He answers the question in the affirmative, and gives a multiplicity of -reasons, which I shall not stop to examine, except this one: - -The railway from Paris to Bayonne should have a break at Bordeaux, for -if goods and passengers are forced to stop at that town, profits will -accrue to bargemen, pedlars, commissionaires, hotel-keepers, etc. - -Here we have clearly the interest of labour put before the interest of -consumers. - -But if Bordeaux has a right to profit by a gap in the line of railway, -and if such profit is consistent with the public interest, then -Angouleme, Poitiers, Tours, Orleans, nay, more, all the intermediate -places, Ruffec, Chatellerault, etc., should also demand gaps, as being -for the general interest, and, of course, for the interest of national -industry; for the more these breaks in the line are multiplied, -the greater will be the increase of consignments, commissions, -transhipments, etc., along the whole extent of the railway. In this -way, we shall succeed in having a line of railway composed of successive -gaps, and which may be denominated a _Negative Railway_. - -Let the protectionists say what they will, it is not the less certain -that _the principle of restriction_ is the very same as the _principle -of gaps_; the sacrifice of the consumer's interest to that of the -producer,--in other words, the sacrifice of the end to the means. - - - - -XVIII. THERE ARE NO ABSOLUTE PRINCIPLES. - -We cannot wonder enough at the facility with which men resign themselves -to continue ignorant of what it is most important that they should know; -and we may be certain that such ignorance is incorrigible in those who -venture to proclaim this axiom: There are no absolute principles. - -You enter the legislative precincts. The subject of debate is whether -the law should prohibit international exchanges, or proclaim freedom. - -A deputy rises, and says: - -If you tolerate these exchanges, the foreigner will inundate you with -his products: England with her textile fabrics, Belgium with coals, -Spain with wools, Italy with silks, Switzerland with cattle, Sweden -with iron, Prussia with corn; so that home industry will no longer be -possible. - -Another replies: - -If you prohibit international exchanges, the various bounties which -nature has lavished on different climates will be for you as if they -did not exist. You cannot participate in the mechanical skill of the -English, in the wealth of the Belgian mines, in the fertility of the -Polish soil, in the luxuriance of the Swiss pastures, in the cheapness -of Spanish labour, in the warmth of the Italian climate; and you must -obtain from a refractory and misdirected production those commodities -which, through exchange, would have been furnished to you by an easy -production. - -Assuredly, one of these deputies must be wrong. But which? We must take -care to make no mistake on the subject; for this is not a matter of -abstract opinion merely. You have to choose between two roads, and one -of them leads necessarily to _poverty_. - -To get rid of the dilemma, we are told that there are no absolute -principles. - -This axiom, which is so much in fashion nowadays, not only countenances -indolence, but ministers to ambition. - -If the theory of prohibition comes to prevail, or if the doctrine of -free trade comes to triumph, one brief enactment will constitute our -whole economic code. In the first case, the law will proclaim that _all -exchanges with foreign countries are prohibited_; in the second, that -_all exchanges with foreign countries are free_; and many grand and -distinguished personages will thereby lose their importance. - -But if exchange does not possess a character which is peculiar to -it,--if it is not governed by any natural law,--if, capriciously, it -be sometimes useful and sometimes detrimental,--if it does not find its -motive force in the good which it accomplishes, its limit in the good -which it ceases to accomplish,--if its consequences cannot be estimated -by those who effect exchanges;--in a word, if there be no absolute -principles, then we must proceed to weigh, balance, and regulate -transactions, we must equalize the conditions of labour, and try to find -out the average rate of profits--a colossal task, well deserving the -large emoluments and powerful influence awarded to those who undertake -it. - -On entering Paris, which I had come to visit, I said to myself, Here -are a million of human beings, who would all die in a short time if -provisions of every kind ceased to flow towards this great metropolis. -Imagination is baffled when it tries to appreciate the vast multiplicity -of commodities which must enter to-morrow through the barriers in order -to preserve the inhabitants from falling a prey to the convulsions of -famine, rebellion, and pillage. And yet all sleep at this moment, and -their peaceful slumbers are not disturbed for a single instant by the -prospect of such a frightful catastrophe. On the other hand, eighty -departments have been labouring to-day, without concert, without any -mutual understanding, for the provisioning of Paris. How does each -succeeding day bring what is wanted, nothing more, nothing less, to so -gigantic a market? What, then, is the ingenious and secret power which -governs the astonishing regularity of movements so complicated, a -regularity in which everybody has implicit faith, although happiness -and life itself are at stake? That power is an _absolute principle_, the -principle of freedom in transactions. We have faith in that inward light -which Providence has placed in the heart of all men, and to which He has -confided the preservation and indefinite amelioration of our species, -namely, a regard to personal _interest_--since we must give it its right -name--a principle so active, so vigilant, so foreseeing, when it is free -in its action. In what situation, I would ask, would the inhabitants of -Paris be, if a minister should take it into his head to substitute for -this power the combinations of his own genius, however superior we might -suppose them to be--if he thought to subject to his supreme direction -this prodigious mechanism, to hold the springs of it in his hands, to -decide by whom, or in what manner, or on what conditions, everything -needed should be produced, transported, exchanged, and consumed? Truly, -there may be much suffering within the walls of Paris--poverty, despair, -perhaps starvation, causing more tears to flow than ardent charity -is able to dry up; but I affirm that it is probable, nay, that it is -certain, that the arbitrary intervention of government would multiply -infinitely those sufferings, and spread over all our fellow-citizens -those evils which at present affect only a small number of them. - -This faith, then, which we repose in a principle, when the question -relates only to our home transactions, why should we not retain, when -the same principle is applied to our international transactions, which -are undoubtedly less numerous, less delicate, and less complicated? -And if it is not necessary that the _prefecture_ should regulate our -Parisian industries, weigh our chances, balance our profits and losses, -see that our circulating medium is not exhausted, and equalize the -conditions of our home labour, why should it be necessary that the -Customhouse, departing from its fiscal duties, should pretend to -exercise a protective action over our external commerce? - - - - -XIX. NATIONAL INDEPENDENCE. - -Among the arguments which we hear adduced in favour of the restrictive -_regime_, we must not forget that which is founded on _national -independence_. - -"What should we do in case of war," it is said, "if we are placed at the -mercy of England for iron and coal?" - -English monopolists do not fail to cry out in their turn: - -"What would become of Great Britain, in case of war, if she is dependent -on France for provisions?" - -One thing is overlooked, which is this--that the kind of dependence -which results from exchange, from commercial transactions, is a -_reciprocal dependence_. We cannot be dependent on the foreigner without -the foreigner being dependent on us. Now, this is the very essence of -society. To break up natural relations is not to place ourselves in a -state of independence, but in a state of isolation. - -Remark this: A nation isolates itself looking forward to the possibility -of war; but is not this very act of isolating itself the beginning of -war? It renders war more easy, less burdensome, and, it may be, less -unpopular. Let countries be permanent markets for each other's produce; -let their reciprocal relations be such that they cannot be broken -without inflicting on each other the double suffering of privation and -a glut of commodities; and they will no longer stand in need of naval -armaments, which ruin them, and overgrown armies, which crush them; -the peace of the world will not then be compromised by the caprice of -a Thiers or of a Palmerston; and war will disappear for want of what -supports it, for want of resources, inducements, pretexts, and popular -sympathy. - -I am quite aware that I shall be reproached (it is the fashion of -the day) with basing the fraternity of nations on men's personal -interest--vile, prosaic self-interest. Better far, it may be thought, -that it should have had its basis in charity, in love, even in a little -self-abnegation, and that, interfering somewhat with men's material -comforts, it should have had the merit of a generous sacrifice. - -When shall we be done with these puerile declamations? When will -_tartuferie_ be finally banished from science? When shall we cease to -exhibit this nauseous contradiction between our professions and our -practice? We hoot at and execrate personal _interest_; in other words, -we denounce what is useful and good (for to say that all men are -interested in anything is to say that the thing is good in itself), as -if personal interest were not the necessary, eternal, and indestructible -mainspring to which Providence has confided human perfectibility. Are we -not represented as being all angels of disinterestedness? And does the -thought never occur to those who say so, that the public begins to see -with disgust that this affected language disfigures the pages of those -very writers who axe most successful in filling their own pockets at -the public expense? Oh! affectation! affectation! thou art verily the -besetting sin of our times! - -What! because material prosperity and peace are things correlative, -because it has pleased God to establish this beautiful harmony in the -moral world, am I not to admire, am I not to adore His ordinances, am -I not to accept with gratitude laws which make justice the condition -of happiness? You desire peace only in as far as it runs counter to -material prosperity; and liberty is rejected because it does not impose -sacrifices. If abnegation has indeed so many charms for you, why do you -fail to practise it in private life? Society will be grateful to you, -for some one, at least, will reap the fruit; but to desire to impose -it upon mankind as a principle is the very height of absurdity, for the -abnegation of all is the sacrifice of all, which is evil erected into a -theory. - -But, thank Heaven, one can write or read many of these declamations -without the world ceasing on that account to obey the social motive -force, which leads us to shun evil and seek after good, and which, -whether they like it or not, we must denominate personal interest. - -After all, it is singular enough to see sentiments of the most sublime -self-denial invoked in support of spoliation itself. See to what this -boasted disinterestedness tends! These men who are so fantastically -delicate as not to desire peace itself, if it is founded on the vile -interest of mankind, put their hand into the pockets of others, and -especially of the poor; for what article of the tariff protects the -poor? Be pleased, gentlemen, to dispose of what belongs to yourselves -as you think proper, but leave us the disposal of the fruit of our own -toil, to use it or exchange it as we see best. Declaim on self-sacrifice -as much as you choose, it is all very fine and very beautiful, but be at -least consistent. - - - - -XX. HUMAN LABOUR, NATIONAL LABOUR. - -Machine-breaking--prohibition of foreign commodities--are two acts -founded on the same doctrine. - -We see men who clap their hands when a great invention is introduced, -and who nevertheless adhere to the protectionist _regime_. Such men are -grossly inconsistent! - -With what do they reproach free trade? With encouraging the production -by foreigners, more skilled or more favourably situated than we are, of -commodities which, but for free trade, would be produced at home. In a -word, they accuse free trade of being injurious to _national labour?_ - -For the same reason, should they not reproach machinery with -accomplishing by natural agents what otherwise would have been done by -manual labour, and so of being injurious to _human labour?_ - -The foreign workman, better and more favourably situated than the home -workman for the production of certain commodities, is, with reference to -the latter, a veritable _economic machine,_ crushing him by competition. -In like manner, machinery, which executes a piece of work at a lower -price than a certain number of men could do by manual labour, is, in -relation to these manual labourers, a veritable _foreign competitor_, -who paralyzes them by his rivalry. - -If, then, it is politic to protect _national labour_ against the -competition of _foreign labour_, it is not less so to protect _human -labour_ against the rivalry of _mechanical labour_. - -Thus, every adherent of the _regime_ of protection, if he is logical, -should not content himself with prohibiting foreign products; he should -proscribe also the products of the shuttle and the plough. - -And this is the reason why I like better the logic of those men who, -declaiming against the invasion of foreign merchandise, declaim likewise -against the excess of production which is due to the inventive power of -the human mind. - -Such a man is M. de Saint-Chamans. "One of the strongest arguments -against free trade," he says, "is the too extensive employment of -machinery, for many workmen are deprived of employment, either by -foreign competition, which lowers the price of our manufactured goods, -or by instruments which take the place of men in our workshops."* - - * Du Systeme d'impots, p. 438. - -M. de Saint-Chamans has seen clearly the analogy, or, we should rather -say, the identity, which obtains between imports and machinery. For this -reason, he proscribes both; and it is really agreeable to have to do -with such intrepid reasoners, who, even when wrong, carry out their -argument to its logical conclusion. - -But here is the mess in which they land themselves. - -If it be true, a priori, that the domain of invention and that of labour -cannot be simultaneously extended but at each other's expense, it must -be in those countries where machinery most abounds--in Lancashire, for -example--that we should expect to find the fewest workmen. And if, on -the other hand, we establish the fact that mechanical power and manual -labour coexist, and to a greater extent, among rich nations than among -savages, the conclusion is inevitable, that these two powers do not -exclude each other. - -I cannot convince myself how any thinking being can enjoy a moment's -repose in presence of the following dilemma: Either the inventions of -man are not injurious to manual labour, as general facts attest, since -there are more of both in England and France than among the Hurons -and Cherokees, and that being so, I am on a wrong road, though I know -neither where nor when I missed my way; at all events, I see I am wrong, -and I should commit the crime of lese-humanity were I to introduce my -error into the legislation of my country. - -Or else, the discoveries of the human mind limit the amount of manual -labour, as special facts appear to indicate; for I see every day some -machine or other superseding twenty or a hundred workmen; and then I -am forced to acknowledge a flagrant, eternal, and incurable antithesis -between the intellectual and physical powers of man--between his -progress and his present wellbeing; and in these circumstances I am -forced to say that the Creator of man might have endowed him with -reason, or with physical strength, with moral force, or with brute -force; but that He mocked him by conferring on him, at the same time, -faculties which are destructive of each other. - -The difficulty is pressing and puzzling; but you contrive to find your -way out of it by adopting the strange apophthegm: - -_In political economy, there are no absolute principles_. - -In plain language, this means: - -"I know not whether it be true or false; I am ignorant of what -constitutes general good or evil. I give myself no trouble about that. -The immediate effect of each measure upon my own personal interest is -the only law which I can consent to recognise." - -There are no principles! You might as well say there are no facts; for -principles are merely formulas which classify such facts as are well -established. - -Machinery, and the importation of foreign commodities, certainly -produce effects. These effects may be good or bad; on that there may be -difference of opinion. But whatever view we take of them, it is reduced -to a formula, by one of these two principles: Machinery is a good; or, -machinery is an evil: Importations of foreign produce are beneficial; -or, such importations are hurtful. But to assert that there are no -principles, certainly exhibits the lowest degree of abasement to which -the human mind can descend; and I confess that I blush for my country -when I hear such a monstrous heresy proclaimed in the French Chambers, -and with their assent; that is to say, in the face and with the assent -of the _elite_ of our fellow-citizens; and this in order to justify -their imposing laws upon us in total ignorance of the real state of the -case. - -But then I am told to destroy the sophism, by proving that machinery is -not hurtful to human labour, nor the importation of foreign products to -national labour. - -A work like the present cannot well include very full or complete -demonstrations. My design is rather to state difficulties than to -resolve them; to excite reflection rather than to satisfy doubts. No -conviction makes so lasting an impression on the mind as that which -it works out for itself. But I shall endeavour nevertheless to put the -reader on the right road. - -What misleads the adversaries of machinery and foreign importations -is, that they judge of them by their immediate and transitory -effects, instead of following them out to their general and definitive -consequences. - -The immediate effect of the invention and employment of an ingenious -machine is to render superfluous, for the attainment of a given result, -a certain amount of manual labour. But its action does not stop there. -For the very reason that the desired result is obtained with fewer -efforts, the product is handed over to the public at a lower price; and -the aggregate of savings thus realized by all purchasers, enables them -to procure other satisfactions; that is to say, to encourage manual -labour in general to exactly the extent of the manual labour which has -been saved in the special branch of industry which has been recently -improved. So that the level of labour has not fallen, while that of -enjoyments has risen. - -Let us render this evident by an example. - -Suppose there are used annually in this country ten millions of hats -at 15 shillings; this makes the sum which goes to the support of this -branch of industry L7,500,000 sterling. A machine is invented which -allows these hats to be manufactured and sold at 10 shillings. The sum -now wanted for the support of this industry is reduced to L5,000,000, -provided the demand is not augmented by the change. But the remaining -sum of L2,500,000 is not by this change withdrawn from the support of -_human labour_. That sum, economized by the purchasers of hats, will -enable them to satisfy other wants, and, consequently, to that extent -will go to remunerate the aggregate industry of the country. With the -five shillings saved, John will purchase a pair of shoes, James a book, -Jerome a piece of furniture, etc. Human labour, taken in the aggregate, -will continue, then, to be supported and encouraged to the extent of -L7,500,000; but this sum will yield the same number of hats, plus all -the satisfactions and enjoyments corresponding to L2,500,000 that the -employment of the machine has enabled the consumers of hats to save. -These additional enjoyments constitute the clear profit which the -country will have derived from the invention. This is a free gift, a -tribute which human genius will have derived from nature. We do not at -all dispute, that in the course of the transformation a certain amount -of labour will have been _displaced_; but we cannot allow that it has -been destroyed or diminished. - -The same thing holds of the importation of foreign commodities. Let us -revert to our former hypothesis. - -The country manufactures ten millions of hats, of which the cost price -was 15 shillings. The foreigner sends similar hats to our market, and -furnishes them at 10 shillings each. I maintain that the _national -labour_ will not be thereby diminished. - -For it must produce to the extent of L5,000,000, to enable it to pay for -10 millions of hats at 10 shillings. - -And then there remains to each purchaser five shillings saved on -each hat, or in all, L2,500,000, which will be spent on other -enjoyments--that is to say, which will go to support labour in other -departments of industry. - -Then the aggregate labour of the country will remain what it was, and -the additional enjoyments represented by L2,500,000 saved upon hats, -will form the clear profit accruing from imports under the system of -free trade. - -It is of no use to try to frighten us by a picture of the sufferings -which, on this hypothesis, the displacement of labour will entail. - -For, if the prohibition had never been imposed, the labour would have -found its natural place under the ordinary law of exchange, and no -displacement would have taken place. - -If, on the other hand, prohibition has led to an artificial and -unproductive employment of labour, it is prohibition, and not liberty, -which is to blame for a displacement which is inevitable in the -transition from what is detrimental to what is beneficial. - -At all events, let no one pretend that because an abuse cannot be done -away with, without inconvenience to those who profit by it, what has -been suffered to exist for a time should be allowed to exist for ever. - - - - -XXI. RAW MATERIALS. - -It is said that the most advantageous of all branches of trade is that -which supplies manufactured commodities in exchange for raw materials. -For these raw materials are the aliment and support of _national -labour_. - -Hence the conclusion is drawn: - -That the best law of customs is that which gives the greatest possible -facility to the importation of raw materials, and which throws most -obstacles in the way of importing finished goods. - -There is no sophism in political economy more widely disseminated than -this. It is cherished not only by the protectionist school, but also, -and above all, by the school which dubs itself liberal; and it is -unfortunate that it should be so, for what can be more injurious to a -good cause than that it should be at the same time vigorously attacked -and feebly defended? - -Commercial liberty is likely to have the fate of liberty in general; it -will only find a place in the statute-book after it has taken possession -of men's minds and convictions. But if it be true that a reform, in -order to be solidly established, should be generally understood, it -follows that nothing can so much retard reform as that which misleads -public opinion; and what is more calculated to mislead public opinion -than works which, in advocating freedom, invoke aid from the doctrines -of monopoly? - -Some years ago three of the great towns of France--Lyons, Bordeaux, and -Havre--united in a movement against the restrictive _regime_. All Europe -was stirred on seeing raised what they took for the banner of liberty. -Alas! it proved to be also the banner of monopoly--of a monopoly a -little more niggardly and much more absurd than that of which they -seemed to desire the overthrow. By the aid of the sophism which I -have just endeavoured to expose, the petitioners did nothing more than -reproduce the doctrine of protection to national industry, tacking to it -an additional inconsistency. - -It was, in fact, nothing else than the _regime_ of prohibition. Just -listen to M. de Saint-Cricq:-- - -"Labour constitutes the wealth of a nation, because labour alone creates -those material objects which our wants demand; and universal ease and -comfort consist in the abundance of these things." So much for the -principle. - -"But this abundance must be produced by _national labour_. If it were -the result of foreign labour, national labour would be immediately -brought to a stand." Here lies the error. _(See the preceding sophism.)_ - -"What course should an agricultural and manufacturing country take under -such circumstances? Reserve its markets for the products of its own soil -and of its own industry." Such is the end and design. - -"And for that purpose, restrain by duties, and, if necessary, prohibit -importation of the products of the soil and industry of other nations." -Such are the means. - -Let us compare this system with that which the Bordeaux petition -advocates. - -Commodities are there divided into three classes:-- - -"The first includes provisions, and _raw materials upon which no human -labour has been bestowed. In principle, a wise economy would demand -that this class should be free of duties_. Here we have no labour, no -protection. - -"The second consists of products which have, _to some extent, been -prepared_. This preparation warrants such products being _charged with -a certain amount of duty_." Here protection begins, because here, -according to the petitioners, begins _national labour_. - -"The third comprises goods and products in their finished and perfect -state. These contribute nothing to national labour, and we regard this -class as the most taxable." Here labour, and production along with it, -reach their maximum. - -We thus see that the petitioners profess their belief in the doctrine, -that foreign labour is injurious to national labour; and this is the -_error_ of the prohibitive system. - -They demand that the home market should be reserved for home industry. -That is the _design_ of the system of prohibition. - -They demand that foreign labour should be subjected to restrictions and -taxes. These are the means employed by the system of prohibition. - -What difference, then, can we possibly discover between the Bordeaux -petitioners and the Corypheus of restriction? One difference, and one -only--the greater or less extension given to the word labour. - -M. de Saint-Cricq extends it to everything, and so he wishes to protect -all. - -"Labour constitutes all the wealth of a people," he says; "to protect -agricultural industry, and all agricultural industry; to protect -manufacturing industry, and all manufacturing industry, is the cry which -should never cease to be heard in this Chamber." - -The Bordeaux petitioners take no labour into account but that of the -manufacturers; and for that reason they would admit them to the benefits -of protection. - -"Raw materials are commodities upon which no human labour has been -bestowed. In principle, we should not tax them. Manufactured products -can no longer serve the cause of national industry, and we regard them -as the best subjects for taxation." - -It is not our business in this place to inquire whether protection to -national industry is reasonable. M. de Saint-Cricq and the Bordeaux -gentlemen are at one upon this point, and, as we have shown in the -preceding chapters, we on this subject differ from both. - -Our present business is to discover whether it is by M. de Saint-Cricq, -or by the Bordeaux petitioners, that the word labour is used in a -correct sense. - -Now, in this view of the question, we think that M. de Saint-Cricq has -very much the best of it; and to prove this, we may suppose them to hold -some such dialogue as the following:-- - -M. de Saint-Cricq: You grant that national labour should be protected. -You grant that the products of no foreign labour can be introduced into -our market without superseding a corresponding amount of our national -labour. Only, you contend that there are a multiplicity of products -possessed of value (for they sell), but upon which no human labour has -been bestowed [vierges de tout travail humain]. And you enumerate, among -other things, com, flour, meat, cattle, tallow, salt, iron, copper, -lead, coal, wools, hides, seeds, etc. - -If you will only prove to me that the value of these things is not due -to labour, I will grant that it is useless to protect them. - -But, on the other hand, if I demonstrate to you that there is as much -labour worked up in a 100 fr. worth of wool as in a 100 fr. worth of -textile fabrics, you will allow that the one is as worthy of protection -as the other. - -Now, why is this sack of wool worth 100 fr.? Is it not because that -is its cost price? and what does its cost price represent, but the -aggregate wages of all the labour, and profits of all the capital, which -have contributed to the production of the commodity? - -The Bordeaux Petitioners: Well, perhaps as regards wool you may -be right. But take the case of a sack of corn, a bar of iron, a -hundredweight of coals,--are these commodities produced by labour? Are -they not created by nature? - -M. de Saint-Cricq: Undoubtedly nature creates the elements of all these -things, but it is labour which produces the value. I was wrong myself -in saying that labour created material objects, and that vicious form -of expression has led me into other errors. It does not belong to man -to create, to make anything out of nothing, be he agriculturist or -manufacturer; and if by production is meant creation, all our labour -must be marked down as unproductive, and yours, as merchants, more -unproductive than all others, excepting perhaps my own. - -The agriculturist, then, cannot pretend to have created corn, but he -has created value; I mean to say, he has, by his labour, and that of -his servants, labourers, reapers, etc., transformed into corn substances -which had no resemblance to it whatever. The miller who converts the -corn into flour, the baker who converts the flour into bread, do the -same thing. - -In order that man may be enabled to clothe himself, a multitude of -operations are necessary. Prior to all intervention of human labour, the -true raw materials of cloth are the air, the water, the heat, the gases, -the light, the salts, which enter into its composition. These are the -raw materials upon which strictly speaking, no human labour has been -employed. They are _vierges de tout travail humain_; and since they -have no value, I should never dream of protecting them. But the -first application of labour converts these substances into grass and -provender, a second into wool, a third into yarn, a fourth into a woven -fabric, a fifth into clothing. Who can assert that the whole of these -operations, from the first furrow laid open by the plough, to the last -stitch of the tailor's needle, do not resolve themselves into labour? - -And it is because these operations are spread over several branches of -industry, in order to accelerate and facilitate the accomplishment of -the ultimate object, which is to furnish clothing to those who have -need of it, that you desire, by an arbitrary distinction, to rank the -importance of such works in the order in which they succeed each other, -so that the first of the series shall not merit even the name of labour, -and that the last, being labour _par excellence_, shall be worthy of the -favours of protection? - -The Petitioners: Yes; we begin to see that corn, like wool, is not -exactly a product of which it can be said that no human labour has been -bestowed upon it; but the agriculturist has not, at least, like the -manufacturer, done everything himself or by means of his workmen; nature -has assisted him, and if there is labour worked up in corn, it is not -the simple product of labour. - -M. de Saint-Cricq: But its value resolves itself exclusively into -labour. I am happy that nature concurs in the material formation of -grain. I could even wish that it were entirely her work; but you must -allow that I have constrained this assistance of nature by my labour, -and when I sell you my corn you will remark this, that it is not for the -labour of nature that I ask you to pay, but for my own. - -But, as you state the case, manufactured commodities are no longer the -exclusive products of labour. Is the manufacturer not beholden to nature -in his processes? Does he not avail himself of the assistance of the -steam-engine, of the pressure of the atmosphere, just as, with the -assistance of the plough, I avail myself of its humidity? Has he created -the laws of gravitation, of the transmission of forces, of affinity? - -The Petitioners: Well, this is the case of the wool over again; but coal -is assuredly the work, the exclusive work, of nature. It is indeed a -product upon which no human labour has ever been bestowed. - -M. de Saint-Cricq: Yes; nature has undoubtedly created the coal, but -labour has imparted value to it. For the millions of years during which -it was buried 100 fathoms under ground, unknown to everybody, it was -destitute of value. It was necessary to search for it--that is labour; -it was necessary to send it to market--that is additional labour. -Then the price you pay for it in the market is nothing else than the -remuneration of the labour of mining and transport.* - - * I do not particularize the parts of the remuneration - falling to the lessee, the capitalist, etc., for several - reasons:--1st, Because, on looking at the thing more - closely, you will see that the remuneration always resolves - itself into the reimbursement of advances or the payment of - anterior labour. 2dly, Because, under the term labour, I - include not only the wages of the workmen, but the - legitimate recompense of everything which co-operates in the - work of production. 3dly (and above all), Because the - production of manufactured products is, like that of raw - materials, burdened with auxiliary remunerations other than - the mere expense of manual labour; and, moreover, this - objection, frivolous in itself, would apply as much to the - most delicate processes of manufacture, as to the rudest - operations of agriculture. - -Thus far we see that M. de Saint-Cricq has the best of the argument; -that the value of raw materials, like that of manufactured commodities, -represents the cost of production, that is to say, the labour worked -up in them; that it is not possible to conceive of a product possessing -value, which has had no human labour bestowed on it; that the -distinction made by the petitioners is futile in theory; that, as the -basis of an unequal distribution of favours, it would be iniquitous in -practice, since the result would be that one-third of our countrymen, -who happened to be engaged in manufactures, would obtain the advantages -of monopoly, on the alleged ground that they produce by labour, whilst -the other two-thirds--namely, the agricultural population--would be -abandoned to competition under the pretext that they produce without -labour. - -The rejoinder to this, I am quite sure, will be, that a nation derives -more advantages from importing what are called raw materials, whether -produced by labour or not, and exporting manufactured commodities. -This will be repeated and insisted on, and it is an opinion very widely -accredited. - -"The more abundant raw materials are," says the Bordeaux petition, "the -more are manufactures promoted and multiplied." - -"Raw materials," says the same document in another place, "open up an -unlimited field of work for the inhabitants of the countries into which -they are imported." - -"Raw materials," says the Havre petition, "constituting as they do the -elements of labour, must be submitted to a different treatment, and -be gradually admitted at the lowest rate of duty." The same petition -expresses a wish that manufactured products should be admitted, not -gradually, but after an indefinite lapse of time, not at the lowest rate -of duty, but at a duty of 20 per cent. - -"Among other articles, the low price and abundance of which are a -necessity," says the Lyons petition, "manufacturers include all raw -materials." - -All this is founded on an illusion. - -We have seen that all value represents labour. Now, it is quite true -that manufacturing labour increases tenfold, sometimes a hundredfold, -the value of the raw material; that is to say, it yields ten times, a -hundred times, more profit to the nation. Hence men are led to reason -thus: The production of a hundredweight of iron brings in a gain of -only fifteen shillings to workmen of all classes. The conversion of -this hundredweight of iron into the mainsprings of watches raises their -earnings to L500; and will any one venture to say that a nation has -not a greater interest to secure for its labour a gain of five -hundred pounds than a gain of fifteen shillings? We do not exchange a -hundredweight of unwrought iron for a hundredweight of watch-springs, -nor a hundredweight of unwashed wool for a hundredweight of cashmere -shawls; but we exchange a certain value of one of these materials for an -equal value of another. Now, to exchange equal value for equal value is -to exchange equal labour for equal labour. It is not true, then, that -a nation which sells five pounds' worth of wrought fabrics or -watch-springs, gains more than a nation which sells five pounds' worth -of wool or iron. - -In a country where no law can be voted, where no tax can be imposed, -but with the consent of those whose dealings the law is to regulate, and -whose pockets the tax is to affect, the public cannot be robbed without -first being imposed on and misled. Our ignorance is the raw material of -every extortion from which we suffer, and we may be certain beforehand, -that every sophism is the precursor of an act of plunder. My good -friends I when you detect a sophism in a petition, button up your -breeches-pocket, for you may be sure that this is the mark aimed at. - -Let us see, then, what is the real object secretly aimed at by the -shipowners of Bordeaux and Havre, and the manufacturers of Lyons, and -which is concealed under the distinction which they attempt to draw -between agricultural and manufactured commodities. - -"It is principally this first class (that which comprises raw materials, -upon which no human labour has been bestowed) which affords," say -the Bordeaux petitioners, "the principal support to our merchant -shipping...." In principle, a wise economy would not tax this class.... -The second (commodities partly wrought up) may be taxed to a certain -extent. The third (commodities which call for no more exertion of -labour) we regard as the fittest subjects of taxation. - -The Havre petitioners "consider that it is indispensable to reduce -gradually the duty on raw materials to the lowest rate, in order -that our manufacturers may gradually find employment for the shipping -interest, which furnishes them with the first and indispensable -materials of labour." - -The manufacturers could not remain behindhand in politeness towards the -shipowners. So the Lyons petition asks for the free introduction of raw -materials, "in order to prove," as they express it, "that the interests -of the manufacturing are not always opposed to those of the maritime -towns." - -No; but then the interests of both, understood as the petitioners -understand them, are in direct opposition to the interests of -agriculture and of consumers. - -Well, gentlemen, we have come at length to see what you are aiming at, -and the object of your subtle economical distinctions. You desire that -the law should restrain the transport of finished goods across the -ocean, in order that the more costly conveyance of raw and rough -materials, bulky, and mixed up with refuse, should afford greater -scope for your merchant shipping, and more largely employ your marine -resources. This is what you call a wise economy. - -On the same principle, why do you not ask that the pines of Russia -should be brought to you with their branches, bark, and roots; the -silver of Mexico in its mineral state; the hides of Buenos Ayres -sticking to the bones of the diseased carcases from which they have been -torn? - -I expect that railway shareholders, the moment they are in a majority in -the Chambers, will proceed to make a law forbidding the manufacture -of the brandy which is consumed in Paris. And why not? Would not a law -enforcing the conveyance of ten casks of wine for every cask of brandy -afford Parisian industry the indispensable materials of its labour, and -give employment to our locomotive resources? - -How long will men shut their eyes to this simple truth? - -Manufactures, shipping, labour--all have for end the general, the public -good; to create useless industries, to favour superfluous conveyances, -to support a greater amount of labour than is necessary, not for the -good of the public, but at the expense of the public--is to realize a -true _petitio principii_. It is not labour which is desirable for its -own sake; it is consumption. All labour without a commensurate result is -a loss. You may as well pay sailors for pitching stones into the sea as -pay them for transporting useless refuse. Thus, we arrive at the result -to which all economic sophisms, numerous as they are, conduct us, -namely, confounding the means with the end, and developing the one at -the expense of the other. - - - - -XXII. METAPHORS. - -A sophism sometimes expands, and runs through the whole texture of a -long and elaborate theory. More frequently, it shrinks and contracts, -assumes the guise of a principle, and lurks in a word or a phrase. - -May God protect us from the devil and from metaphors! was the -exclamation of Paul-Louis. And it is difficult to say which of them has -done most mischief in this world of ours. The devil, you will say; for -he has put the spirit of plunder into all our hearts. True, but he has -left free the means of repressing abuses by the resistance of those who -suffer from them. It is the sophism which paralyzes this resistance. The -sword which malice puts into the hands of assailants would be powerless, -did sophistry not break the buckler which should shield the party -assailed. It was with reason, therefore, that Malebranche inscribed on -the title-page of his work this sentence: _L'erreur est la cause de la -misere des hommes_. - -Let us see in what way this takes place. Ambitious men are often -actuated by sinister and wicked intentions; their design, for example, -may be to implant in the public mind the germ of international hatred. -This fatal germ may develop itself, light up a general conflagration, -arrest civilization, cause torrents of blood to be shed, and bring upon -the country the most terrible of all scourges, invasion. At any -rate, and apart from this, such sentiments of hatred lower us in the -estimation of other nations, and force Frenchmen who retain any sense of -justice to blush for their country. These are undoubtedly most serious -evils; and to guard the public against the underhand practices of those -who would expose the country to such hazard, it is only necessary to see -clearly into their designs. How do they manage to conceal them? By the -use of metaphors. They twist, distort, and pervert the meaning of three -or four words, and the thing is done. - -The word _invasion_ itself is a good illustration of this. - -A French ironmaster exclaims: Preserve us from the invasion of English -iron. An English landowner exclaims in return: Preserve us from the -invasion of French corn. And then they proceed to interpose barriers -between the two countries. These barriers create isolation, isolation -gives rise to hatred, hatred to war, war to invasion. What does it -signify? cry the two sophists; is it not better to expose ourselves to -an eventual invasion than accept an invasion which is certain? And the -people believe them, and the barriers are kept up. - -And yet what analogy is there between an exchange and an invasion? What -possible similarity can be imagined between a ship of war which comes to -vomit fire and devastation on our towns, and a merchant ship which comes -to offer a free voluntary exchange of commodities for commodities? - -The same thing holds of the use made of the word _inundation_. This word -is ordinarily used in a bad sense, for we often see our fields injured, -and our harvests carried away by floods. If, however, they leave on -our soil something of greater value than what they carry away, like -the inundations of the Nile, we should be thankful for them, as the -Egyptians are. Before we declaim, then, against the inundations of -foreign products--before proceeding to restrain them by irksome and -costly obstacles--we should inquire to what class they belong, and -whether they ravage or fertilize. What should we think of Mehemet Ali, -if, instead of raising, at great cost, bars across the Nile, to extend -wider its inundations, he were to spend his money in digging a deeper -channel to prevent Egypt being soiled by the foreign slime which -descends upon her from the Mountains of the Moon? We display exactly -the same degree of wisdom and sense, when we desire, at the cost of -millions, to defend our country.... From what? From the benefits which -nature has bestowed on other climates. - -Among the metaphors which conceal a pernicious theory, there is no one -more in use than that presented by the words _tribute and tributary_. - -These words have now become so common that they are used as synonymous -with _purchase and purchaser_, and are employed indiscriminately. - -And yet a tribute is as different from a purchase as a theft is from an -exchange; and I should like quite as well to hear it said, Cartouche has -broken into my strong-box and purchased a thousand pounds, as to hear -one of our deputies repeat, We have paid Germany tribute for a thousand -horses which she has sold us. - -For what distinguishes the act of Cartouche from a purchase is, that he -has not put into my strong-box, and with my consent, a value equivalent -to what he has taken out of it. - -And what distinguishes our remittance of L20,000 which we have made to -Germany from a tribute paid to her is this, that she has not received -the money gratuitously, but has given us in exchange a thousand horses, -which we have judged to be worth the L20,000. - -Is it worth while exposing seriously such an abuse of language? Yes; for -these terms are used seriously both in newspapers and in books. - -Do not let it be supposed that these are instances of a mere _lapsus -linguo_ on the part of certain ignorant writers! For one writer who -abstains from so using them, I will point you out ten who admit them, -and amongst the rest, the D'Argouts, the Dupins, the Villeles--peers, -deputies, ministers of state,--men, in short, whose words are laws, -and whose sophisms, even the most transparent, serve as a basis for the -government of the country. - -A celebrated modern philosopher has added to the categories of Aristotle -the sophism which consists in employing a phrase which includes a -_petitio pinncipii_. He gives many examples of it; and he should have -added the word tributary to his list. The business, in fact, is to -discover whether purchases made from foreigners are useful or hurtful. -They are hurtful, you say. And why? Because they render us tributaries -to the foreigner. This is just to use a word which implies the very -thing to be proved. - -It may be asked how this abuse of words first came to be introduced into -the rhetoric of the monopolists? - -Money leaves the country to satisfy the rapacity of a victorious enemy. -Money also leaves the country to pay for commodities. An analogy is -established between the two cases by taking into account only the points -in which they resemble each other, and keeping out of view the points in -which they differ. - -Yet this circumstance--that is to say, the non-reimbursement in the -first case, and the reimbursement voluntarily agreed upon in the -second--establishes betwixt them such a difference that it is really -impossible to class them in the same category. To hand over a hundred -pounds by force to a man who has caught you by the throat, or to hand -them over voluntarily to a man who furnishes you with what you want, are -things as different as light and darkness. You might as well assert that -it is a matter of indifference whether you throw your bread into the -river, or eat it, for in both cases the bread is destroyed. The vice -of this reasoning, like that applied to the word tribute, consists in -asserting an entire similitude between two cases, looking only at their -points of resemblance, and keeping out of sight the points in which they -differ. - - - - -CONCLUSION. - -All the sophisms which I have hitherto exposed have reference to a -single question--the system of restriction. There are other tempting -subjects, such as _vested interests, inopportuneness, draining away -our money_, etc., etc., with which I shall not at present trouble the -reader. - -Nor does Social Economy confine herself to this limited circle. -_Fourierisme, Saint-Simonisme_, communism, mysticism, sentimentalism, -false philanthropy, affected aspirations after a chimerical equality and -fraternity; questions relating to luxury, to wages, to machinery, to -the pretended tyranny of capital, to colonies, to markets and vents for -produce, to conquests, to population, to association, emigration, taxes, -and loans,--have encumbered the field of science with a multiplicity of -parasitical arguments, of sophisms which afford work to the hoe and the -grubber of the diligent economist. - -I am quite aware of the inconvenience attending this plan, or rather of -this absence of plan. To attack one by one so many incoherent sophisms, -which sometimes run foul of each other, and more frequently run into -each other, is to enter into an irregular and capricious struggle, and -involve ourselves in perpetual repetitions. - -How much I should prefer to explain simply the situation in which things -are, without occupying myself with the thousand aspects under which -ignorance sees them!... To explain the laws under which societies -prosper or decay, is to demolish virtually all these sophisms at once. -When Laplace described all that was then known of the movements of -the heavenly bodies, he dissipated, without even naming them, all -the reveries of the Egyptian, Greek, and Hindoo astrologers far more -effectually than he could have done by refuting them directly in -innumerable volumes. Truth is one, and the work which explains it is an -edifice at once durable and imposing: - - Il brave les tyrans avides, - Plus hardi que les Pyramides - Et plus durable que l'airain. - -Error is multifarious and of an ephemeral nature; and the work which -combats it does not carry in itself a principle of greatness and -duration. - -But if the power, and perhaps the occasion, have been wanting to -enable me to proceed in the manner of Laplace and of Say, I cannot help -thinking that the form I have adopted has also its modest utility. It -seems to me well suited to the wants of our day, and the occasional -moments which are set aside for study. - -A treatise has no doubt unquestionable superiority, but on one -condition--namely, that it is read and carefully pondered and thought -over. It is addressed to a select class of readers. Its mission is to -fix first of all, and afterwards enlarge, the circle of our acquired -knowledge. - -A refutation of vulgar errors and prejudices cannot occupy this high -position. It aspires merely to clear the road before the march of truth, -to prepare men's minds for its reception, to rectify public opinion, and -disarm dangerous ignorance. - -It is, above all, in the department of Social Economy that this -hand-to-hand struggle, that these constantly-recurring battles with -popular errors, are of true practical utility. - -The sciences may be divided into two classes. - -One of these classes may be known only to _savans_. It includes those -sciences the application of which constitutes the business of special -professions. The vulgar reap the fruit, in spite of their ignorance. -A man may find use for a watch, though ignorant of mechanics and -astronomy, and he may be carried along by a locomotive or a steamer, -trusting to the skill of the engineer and the pilot. We walk according -to the laws of equilibrium, although unacquainted with these laws, just -as M. Jourdain had talked prose all his life without knowing it. - -But there are sciences which exercise on the public mind an influence -which is only in proportion to public enlightenment, and derive all -their efficacy, not from knowledge accumulated in some gifted minds, but -from knowledge diffused over the general masses. Among these we include -morals, medicine, social economy, and, in countries where men are their -own masters, Politics. It is to such sciences that the saying of Bentham -specially applies, "To disseminate them is better than to advance them." -What signifies it, that some great man, or even that God himself, should -have promulgated the laws of morality, as long as men, imbued with false -notions, mistake virtues for vices, and vices for virtues? What matters -it that Smith, Say, and, according to M. de Saint-Chamans, economists of -all schools, have proclaimed, in reference to commercial transactions, -the superiority of liberty over constraint, if the men who make our -laws, and for whom our laws are made, think differently? - -Those sciences, which have been correctly named social, have also this -peculiarity, that being of universal and daily application, no one will -confess himself ignorant of them. When the business is to resolve a -question in chemistry or geometry, no one pretends to have acquired -these sciences by intuition, no one is ashamed to consult M. Thenard, or -makes any difficulty about referring to the works of Legendre or Bezout. -But in the social sciences, authority is scarcely acknowledged. As -each man daily takes charge of his morals, whether good or bad, of his -health, of his purse, of his politics, whether sound or absurd, so -each man believes himself qualified to discuss, comment, and pronounce -judgment on social questions. Are you ill? There is no old woman who -will not at once tell you the cause of your ailment, and the remedy -for it. "Humours," she will say; "you must take physic." But what are -humours? and is there any such disease? About this she gives herself -no concern. I cannot help thinking of this old woman when I hear social -maladies explained by these hackneyed phrases:--"The superabundance of -products," "the tyranny of capital," "an industrial plethora," and -other such commonplaces, of which we cannot even say, _Verba et voces, -protereaque nihil_, for they are so many pestilent errors. - -From what I have said, two things result--1st, That the social sciences -must abound more in sophisms than others, because in them each man -takes counsel of his own judgment and instincts; 2d, That it is in these -sciences that sophisms are especially mischievous, because they mislead -public opinion, and in a matter, too, with reference to which public -opinion is force, is law. - -In these sciences, then, we have need of two sorts of books, those which -explain them, and those which further and advance them--those which -establish truth, and those which combat error. - -It seems to me that the inherent fault of this little work, repetition, -is exactly what will make it useful. - -In the question I have treated, each sophism has undoubtedly its own -formula, and its special bearing, but all may be traced to a common -root, which is, _forgetting men's interests as consumers_. To point out -that a thousand errors may be traced to this prolific sophism, is to -teach the public to detect it, to estimate it at its true worth, and to -distrust it, under all circumstances. - -After all, the design of my present work is not exactly to implant -convictions, but rather to awaken doubts. - -I have no expectation that the reader, on laying down the book, will -exclaim _I know_; I would much rather that he should say candidly, _I am -ignorant!_ - -"I am ignorant, for I begin to fear that there is something illusory in -the flattering promises of scarcity." (Sophism I.) - -"I am not so much charmed with obstacles as I once was. (Sophism II.) - -"_Effort without result_ no longer appears to me so desirable as _result -without effort_." (Sophism III.) - -"It is very possible that the secret of trade does not consist, like -the secret of arms (if we adopt the definition of the bully in the -_Bourgeois Gentilhomme_), in giving and not receiving." (Sophism VI.) - -"I can understand that a commodity is worth more in proportion as it has -had more labour bestowed upon it; but in exchange, will two equal values -cease to be equal values, because the one proceeds from the plough, and -the other from the loom?" (Sophism XXI.) - -"I confess that I begin to think it singular that the human race should -be improved by shackles, and enriched by taxes; and, truth to say, -I should be relieved of a troublesome weight, I should experience -unmitigated satisfaction, were it proved to me, as the author of the -_Sophismes_ asserts, that there is no incompatibility between thriving -circumstances and justice, between peace and liberty, between the -extension of labour and the progress of intelligence." (Sophisms XIV. -and XX.) - -"Then, without being quite convinced by his arguments, to which I know -not whether to give the name of reasonings or of paradoxes, I shall -apply myself to the acknowledged masters of the science." - -Let us conclude this monography of sophism with a final and important -observation. - -The world is not sufficiently alive to the influence exercised over it -by sophisms. - -If I must speak my mind, when the _right of the strongest_ has been -put aside, sophisms have set up in its place _the right of the most -cunning_; and it is difficult to say which of these two tryants has been -the more fatal to humanity. - -Men have an immoderate love of enjoyment, of influence, of -consideration, of power--in a word, of wealth. - -At the same time, they are urged on by a strong, an overpowering, -inclination to procure the things they so much desire, at the expense of -other people. - -But these other people--in plain language, the public--have an equally -strong desire to keep what they have got, if they can, and if they know -it. - -Spoliation, which plays so great a part in this world's affairs, has, -then, only two agents at command, _force and cunning_; and two limits, -_courage and intelligence_. - -Force employed to effect spoliation forms the groundwork of human -annals. To trace back its history, would be to reproduce very nearly -the history of all nations--Assyrians, Babylonians, Medes, Persians, -Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, Goths, Franks, Huns, Turks, Arabs, Monguls, -Tartars; not to speak of Spaniards in America, Englishmen in India, -Frenchmen in Africa, Russians in Asia, etc. - -But civilized nations, at least, composed of men who produce wealth, -have become sufficiently numerous, and sufficiently strong to defend -themselves. Does this mean that they are no longer plundered? Not at -all; they are plundered as much as ever, and, what is more, they plunder -one another. - -Only, the agent employed has been changed; it is no longer by _force, -but by cunning_, that they seize upon the public wealth. - -To rob the public, we must first deceive it. The trick consists in -persuading the public that the theft is for its advantage; and by this -means inducing it to accept, in exchange for its property, services -which are fictitious, and often worse. Hence comes the Sophism,--Sophism -theocratic, Sophism economic, Sophism political, Sophism financial. -Since; then, force is held in check, the Sophism is not only an evil, -but the very genius of evil It must in its turn be held in check -also. And for that end we must render the public more cunning than the -cunning, as it has already become stronger than the strong. - -Good Public! it is under the influence of this conviction that I -dedicate to you this first essay--although the preface is strangely -transposed, and the dedication somewhat late. - -END OF THE FIRST SERIES. - - - - - -SECOND SERIES. - - - - -I. PHYSIOLOGY OF SPOLIATION. - -Why should I go on tormenting myself with this dry and dreary science of -_Political Economy?_ - -Why? The question is reasonable. Labour of every kind is in itself -sufficiently repugnant to warrant one in asking to what result it leads? - -Let us see, then, how it is. - -I do not address myself to those philosophers who profess to adore -poverty, if not on their own account, at least on the part of the human -race. - -I speak to those who deem wealth, of some importance. We understand by -that word, not the opulence of some classes, but the ease, the material -prosperity, the security, the independence, the instruction, the dignity -of all. - -There are only two means of procuring the necessaries, conveniences, and -enjoyments of life: Production and Spoliation. - -There are some people who represent Spoliation as an accident, a local -and transient abuse, branded by the moralist, denounced by the law, and -unworthy of the Economist's attention. - -In spite of benevolence, in spite of optimism, we are forced to -acknowledge that Spoilation plays too prominent a part in the world, and -mingles too largely in important human affairs, to warrant the social -sciences, especially Political Economy, in holding it as of no account. - -I go further. That which prevents the social order from attaining that -perfection of which it is susceptible, is the constant effort of its -members to live and enjoy themselves at the expense of each other. -So that if Spoliation did not exist, social science would be without -object, for society would then be perfect. - -I go further still. When Spoliation has once become the recognised means -of existence of a body of men united and held together by social ties, -they soon proceed to frame a law which sanctions it, and to adopt a -system of morals which sanctities it. - -It is sufficient to enumerate some of the more glaring forms which -Spoliation assumes, in order to show the place which it occupies in -human transactions. - -There is first of all War. Among savages the conqueror puts to death the -vanquished, in order to acquire a right, which, if not incontestable, -is, at least, uncontested, to his enemy's hunting grounds. - -Then comes Slavery. When man comes to find that the land may be made -fertile by means of labour, he says to his brother man, "Thine be the -labour, and mine the product." - -Next we have Priestcraft. "According as you give or refuse me a portion -of your substance, I will open to you the gate of Heaven or of Hell." - -Lastly comes Monopoly. Its distinguishing character is to leave in -existence the great social law of service for service, but to bring -force to bear upon the bargain, so as to impair the just proportion -between the service received and the service rendered. - -Spoliation bears always in its bosom that germ of death by which it is -ultimately destroyed. It is rarely the many who despoil the few. Were -it so, the few would soon be reduced to such a state as to be no longer -able to satisfy the cupidity of the many, and spoliation would die out -for want of support. - -It is almost always the majority who are oppressed, but spoliation is -not the less on this account subject to an inevitable check. - -For, if the agent be Force, as in the cases of War and Slavery, it is -natural that Force, in the long run, should pass to the side of the -greatest number. - -And, if the agent be Cunning, as in the case of Priestcraft and -Monopoly, it is natural that the majority should become enlightened, -otherwise intelligence would cease to be intelligence. - -Another natural law deposits a second germ of death in the heart of -spoliation, which is this: - -Spoliation not only _displaces_ wealth, but always partially _destroys_ -it. - -War annihilates many values. - -Slavery paralyzes, to a great extent, men's faculties. - -Priestcraft diverts men's efforts towards objects which are puerile or -hurtful. - -Monopoly transfers wealth from one pocket to another, but much is lost -in the transference. - -This is an admirable law. Without it, provided there existed an -equilibrium between the forces of the oppressors and oppressed, -spoliation would have no limits. In consequence of the operation of -this law, the equilibrium tends always to be upset; either because the -spoliators have the fear of such a loss of wealth, or because, in the -absence of such fear, the evil constantly increases, and it is in the -nature of anything which constantly gets worse and worse, ultimately to -perish and be annihilated. - -There comes at last a time when, in its progressive acceleration, this -loss of wealth is such that the spoliator finds himself poorer than he -would have been had there been no spoliation. - -Take, for example, a people to whom the expense of war costs more than -the value of the booty. - -A master who pays dearer for slave labour than for free labour. - -A system of priestcraft, which, renders people so dull and stupid, -and destroys their energy to such an extent, that there is no longer -anything to be got from them. - -A monopoly which increases its efforts at absorption in proportion as -there is less to absorb, just as one should endeavour to milk a cow more -vigorously in proportion as there is less milk to be got. - -Monopoly, it will be seen, is a species of the genus spoliation. There -are many varieties; among others, Sinecures, Privileges, Restrictions. - -Among the forms which it assumes, there are some which are very simple -and primitive. Of this kind are feudal rights. Under this _regime_ the -masses are despoiled, and they know it. It implies an abuse of force, -and goes down when force is wanting. - -Others are very complicated. The masses are frequently despoiled without -knowing it. They may even imagine that they owe all to spoliation--not -only what is left to them, but what is taken from them, and what is lost -in the process. Nay more, I affirm that, in course of time, and owing to -the ingenious mechanism to which they become accustomed, many men become -spoliators without knowing that they are so, or desiring to be so. -Monopolies of this kind are engendered by artifice and nourished by -error. They disappear only with advancing enlightenment. - -I have said enough to show that political economy has an evident -practical utility. It is the torch which, by exposing craft and -dissipating error, puts an end to this social disorder of spoliation. -Some one--I rather think a lady--has rightly described our science as -"_la serrure de surete du pecule populaire_." - -COMMENTARY. - -Were this little book destined to last for three or four thousand years, -and, like a new Koran, to be read, re-read, pondered over, and studied -sentence by sentence, word by word, letter by letter; if it were -destined to a place in all the libraries of the world, and to be -explained by avalanches of annotations and paraphrases, I might abandon -to their fate the preceding observations, though somewhat obscure from -their conciseness; but since they require a gloss, I think it as well to -be my own commentator. - -The true and equitable law of human transactions is the _exchange, -freely bargained for, of service for service_. Spoliation consists -in banishing by force or artifice this liberty of bargaining, for -the purpose of enabling a man or a class to receive a service without -rendering an equivalent service. - -Spoliation by force consists in waiting till a man has produced a -commodity, and then depriving him of it by the strong hand. - -This kind of spoliation is formally forbidden by the decalogue--_Thou -shalt not steal_. - -When this takes place between individuals, it is called theft, and -leads to the hulks; when it takes place between nations, it is called -_conquest, and leads to glory_. - -Whence this difference? It is proper to search out its cause, for -it will reveal to us the existence of an irresistible power, public -opinion, which, like the atmosphere, surrounds and envelops us so -thoroughly that we cease to perceive it. Rousseau never said anything -truer than this: _Il faut beaucoup de philosophie pour observer les -faits qui sont trop pres de nous_---"You need much philosophy to observe -accurately things which are under your nose." - -A thief for the very reason that he does his work secretly, has always -public opinion against him. He frightens all who are within his reach. -Yet if he has associates, he takes pride in displaying before them his -skill and prowess. Here we begin to perceive the force of opinion; for -the applause of his accomplices takes away the sense of guilt, and even -prompts him to glory in his shame. - -The _warrior_ lives in a different medium. The public opinion which -brands him is elsewhere, among the nations he has conquered, and he does -not feel its pressure. The public opinion at home applauds and sustains -him. He and his companions in arms feel sensibly the bond which imites -them. The country which has created enemies, and brought danger upon -herself, feels it necessary to extol the bravery of her sons. She -decrees to the boldest, who have enlarged her frontiers, or brought her, -in the greatest amount of booty, honours, renown, and glory. Poets sing -their exploits, and ladies twine wreaths and garlands for them. And such -is the power of public opinion that it takes from spoliation all idea of -injustice, and from the spoliator all sense of wrongdoing. - -The public opinion which reacts against military spoliation makes -itself felt, not in the conquering, but in the conquered, country, and -exercises little influence. And yet it is not altogether inoperative, -and makes itself the more felt in proportion as nations have more -frequent intercourse, and understand each other better. In consequence, -we see that the study of languages, and a freer communication between -nations, tends to bring about and render predominant a stronger feeling -against this species of spoliation. - -Unfortunately, it not unfrequently happens that the nations which -surround an aggressive and warlike people are themselves given to -spoliation when they can accomplish it, and thus become imbued with the -same prejudices. - -In that case there is only one remedy--time; and nations must be taught -by painful experience the enormous evils of mutual spoliation. - -We may note another check--a superior and growing morality. But the -object of this is to multiply virtuous actions. How then can morality -restrain acts of spoliation when public opinion places such acts in the -rank of the most exalted virtue? What more powerful means of rendering -a people moral than religion? And what religion more favourable to -peace than Christianity? Yet what have we witnessed for eighteen hundred -years? During all these ages we have seen men fight, not only in spite -of their religion, but in name of religion itself. - -The wars waged by a conquering nation are not always offensive and -aggressive wars. Such a nation is sometimes so unfortunate as to be -obliged to send its soldiers into the field to defend the domestic -hearth, and to protect its families, its property, its independence, and -its liberty. War then assumes a character of grandeur and sacredness. -The national banner, blessed by the ministers of the God of peace, -represents all that is most sacred in the land; it is followed as -the living image of patriotism and of honour; and warlike virtues are -extolled above all other virtues. But when the danger is past, public -opinion still prevails; and by the natural reaction of a spirit of -revenge, which is mistaken for patriotism, the banner is paraded from -capital to capital. It is in this way that nature seems to prepare a -punishment for the aggressor. - -It is the fear of this punishment, and not the progress of philosophy, -which retains arms in the arsenals; for we cannot deny that nations the -most advanced in civilization go to war, and think little of justice -when they have no reprisals to fear, as the Himalaya, the Atlas, and the -Caucasus bear witness. - -If religion is powerless, and if philosophy is equally powerless, how -then are wars to be put an end to? - -Political economy demonstrates, that even as regards the nation which -proves victorious; war is always made in the interest of the few, and -at the expense of the masses. When the masses, then, shall see this -clearly, the weight of public opinion, which is now divided, will come -to be entirely on the side of peace. - -Spoliation by force assumes still another form. No man will engage -voluntarily in the business of production in order to be robbed of -what he produces. Man himself is therefore laid hold of, robbed of his -freedom and personality, and forced to labour. The language held to -him is not, "_If you do this for me, I will do that for you;" but this, -"Yours be the fatigue, and mine the enjoyment_." This is slavery, which -always implies abuse of force. - -It is important to inquire whether it is not in the very nature of a -force which is incontestably dominant to commit abuses. For my own part, -I should be loath to trust it, and would as soon expect a stone pitched -from a height to stop midway of its own accord, as absolute power to -prescribe limits to itself. - -I should like, at least, to have pointed out to me a country and an -epoch in which slavery has been abolished by the free, graceful, and -voluntary act of the masters. - -Slavery affords a second and striking example of the insufficiency of -religious and philanthropical sentiments, when set in opposition to the -powerful and energetic sentiment of self-interest. This may appear a -melancholy view of the subject to certain modern schools who seek for -the renovating principle of society in self-sacrifice. Let them begin, -then, by reforming human nature. - -In the West Indies, ever since the introduction of slavery, the masters, -from father to son, have professed the Christian religion. Many times -a day they repeat these words, "All men are brethren: to love your -neighbour is to fulfil the whole law." - -And they continue to have slaves. Nothing appears to them more natural -and legitimate. Do modern reformers expect that their system of -morals will ever be as universally accepted,' as popular, of as great -authority, and be as much on men's lips, as the Gospel? And if the -Gospel has not been able to penetrate from the lips to the heart, by -piercing or surmounting the formidable barrier of self-interest, how can -they expect that their system of morals is to work this miracle? - -What! is slavery then invulnerable? No; what has introduced it will -destroy it, I mean self-interest; provided that, in favouring the -special interests which have created this scourge, we do not run counter -to the general interests from which we look for the remedy. - -It is one of the truths which political economy has demonstrated, that -free labour is essentially progressive, and slave labour necessarily -stationary. The triumph of the former, therefore, over the latter is -inevitable. What has become of the culture of indigo by slave labour? - -Free labour directed to the production of sugar will lower its price -more and more, and slave property will become less and less valuable to -the owners. Slavery would long since have gone down of its own accord -in America, if in Europe our laws had not raised the price of sugar -artificially. It is for this reason that we see the masters, their -creditors, and their delegates working actively to maintain these laws, -which are at present the pillars of the edifice. - -Unfortunately, they still carry along with them the sympathies of those -populations from among whom slavery has disappeared, and this again -shows how powerful an agent public opinion is. - -If public opinion is sovereign, even in the region of Force, it is very -much more so in the region of Craft [_Ruse_], In truth, this is its true -domain. Cunning is the abuse of intelligence, and public opinion is -the progress of intelligence. These two powers are at least of the same -nature. Imposture on the part of the spoliator implies credulity on the -part of those despoiled, and the natural antidote to credulity is truth. -Hence it follows that to enlighten men's minds is to take away from this -species of spoliation what supports and feeds it. - -I shall pass briefly in review some specimens of spoliation which are -due to craft exercised on a very extensive scale. - -The first which presents itself is spoliation by priestcraft [_ruse -theocratique_]. - -What is the object in view? The object is to procure provisions, -vestments, luxury, consideration, influence, power, by exchanging -fictitious for real services. - -If I tell a man, "I am going to render you great and immediate -services," I must keep my word, or this man will soon be in a situation -to detect the imposture, and my artifice will be instantly unmasked. - -But if I say to him, "In exchange for your services I am going to render -you immense service, not in this world, but in another; for after this -life is ended, your being eternally happy or miserable depends upon me. -I am an intermediate being between God and His creature, and I can, at -my will, open the gates of heaven or of hell." If this man only believes -me, I have him in my power. - -This species of imposture has been practised wholesale since the -beginning of the world, and we know what plenitude of power was -exercised by the Egyptian priests. - -It is easy to discover how these impostors proceed. We have only to ask -ourselves what we should do were we in their place. - -If I arrived among an ignorant tribe with views of this sort, and -succeeded by some extraordinary and marvellous act to pass myself off -for a supernatural being, I should give myself out for an envoy of God, -and as possessing absolute control over the future destinies of man. - -Then I should strictly forbid any inquiry into the validity of my titles -and pretensions. I should do more. As reason would be my most dangerous -antagonist, I should forbid the use of reason itself, unless applied -to this formidable subject. In the language of the savages, I should -_taboo_ this question and everything relating to it. To handle it, or -even think of it, should be declared an unpardonable sin. - -It would be the very triumph of my art to guard with a _taboo_ barrier -every intellectual avenue which could possibly lead to a discovery of -my imposture; and what better security than to declare even doubt to be -sacrilege? - -And still to this fundamental security I should add others. For example, -effectually to prevent enlightenment ever reaching the masses, I should -appropriate to myself and my accomplices the monopoly of all knowledge, -which I would conceal under the veil of a dead language and hieroglyphic -characters; and in order that I should never be exposed to any danger, -I would take care to establish an institution which would enable me, day -after day, to penetrate the secrets of all consciences. - -It would not be amiss that I should at the same time satisfy some of the -real wants of my people, especially if, in doing so, I could increase -my influence and authority. Thus, as men have great need of instruction, -and of being taught morals, I should constitute myself the dispenser of -these. By this means I should direct as I saw best the minds and hearts -of my people. I should establish an indissoluble connexion between -morals and my authority. I should represent them as incapable of -existing, except in this state of union; so that, if some bold man were -to attempt to stir a tabooed question, society at large, which could -not dispense with moral teaching, would feel the earth tremble under its -feet, and would turn with rage against this frantic innovator. - -When things had come to this pass, it is obvious that the people would -become my property in a stricter sense than if they were my slaves. -The slave curses his chains--they would hug theirs; and I should thus -succeed in imprinting the brand of servitude, not on their foreheads, -but on their innermost consciences. - -Public opinion alone can overturn such an edifice of iniquity; but where -can it make a beginning, when every stone of the edifice is tabooed? It -is obviously an affair of time and the printing-press. - -God forbid that I should desire to shake the consoling religious -convictions which connect this life of trial with a life of felicity. -But that our irresistible religious aspirations have been abused, is -what no one, not even the head of the Church himself, can deny. It -appears to me that there is a sure test by which a people can discover -whether they are duped or not. Examine Religion and the Priest, in order -to discover whether the priest is the instrument of religion, or whether -religion is not rather the instrument of the priest. - -_If the priest is the instrument of religion_, if his sole care is -to spread over the country morals and blessings, he will be gentle, -tolerant, humble, charitable, full of zeal; his life will be a -reflection of his Divine Model; he will preach liberty and equality -among men, peace and fraternity between nations; he will repel the -seductions of temporal power, desiring no alliance with what of all -things in the world most requires to be kept in check; he will be a man -of the people, a man of sound counsels, a man of consolation, a man of -public opinion, a man of the Gospel. - -If, on the contrary, _religion is the instrument of the priest_, he -will treat it as we treat an instrument, which we alter, bend, and twist -about in all directions, so as to make it available for the purpose -we have in view. He will increase the number of questions which are -tabooed; his morals will change with times, men, and circumstances. He -will endeavour to impose upon people by gestures and studied attitudes; -and will mumble a hundred times a day words, the meaning of which -has evaporated, and which have come to be nothing better than a vain -conventionalism. He will traffic in sacred things, but in such a way -as not to shake men's faith in their sacredness; and he will take care, -when he meets with acute, clear-sighted people, not to carry on this -traffic so openly or actively as in other circumstances. He will mix -himself up with worldly intrigues; and he will take the side of men in -power, provided they embrace his side. In a word, in all his actions, we -shall discover that his object is not to advance the cause of religion -through the clergy, but the cause of the clergy through religion; and -as so many efforts must have an object, and as this object, on our -hypothesis, can be nothing else than wealth and power, the most -incontestable sign of the people having been duped is that the priest -has become rich and powerful. - -It is quite evident that a true religion may be abused as well as a -false religion. The more respectable its authority is, the more is it -to be feared that the proofs of that respectability will be pressed too -far. But the results will be widely different. Abuses have a tendency to -excite the sound, enlightened, and independent portion of the population -to rebellion. And it is a much more serious thing to shake public belief -in a true than in a false religion. - -Spoliation by such means, and the intelligence of a people, are always -in an inverse ratio to each other; for it is of the nature of abuses to -be carried as far only as safety permits. Not that in the midst of the -most ignorant people pure and devoted priests are never to be found; but -the question is, how can we prevent a knave from assuming the cassock, -and ambition from encircling his brow with a mitre? Spoliators obey the -Malthusian law: they multiply as the means of existence increase; and a -knave's means of existence is the credulity of his dupes. Public opinion -must be enlightened. There is no other remedy. - -Another variety of spoliation by craft and artifice is to be found in -what are called _commercial frauds_, an expression, as it appears to me, -not sufficiently broad; for not only is the merchant who adulterates -his commodities, or uses a false measure, guilty of fraud, but the -physician who gets paid for bad advice, and the advocate who fans and -encourages lawsuits. In an exchange between two services, one of them -may be of bad quality; but here, the services received being stipulated -for beforehand, spoliation must evidently recede before the advance of -public enlightenment. - -Next in order come abuses of _public services_--a vast field of -spoliation, so vast that we can only glance at it. - -Had man been created a solitary animal, each man would work for himself. -Individual wealth would, in that case, be in proportion to the services -rendered by each man to himself. - -_But, man being a sociable animal, services are exchanged for other -services_; a proposition which you may, if you choose, construe -backwards [_a rebours_]. - -There exist in society wants so general, so universal, that its members -provide for them by organizing public services. Such, for example, is -the need of security. We arrange, we club together, to remunerate by -services of various kinds those who render us the service of watching -over the general security. - -There is nothing which does not come within the domain of political -economy. Do this for me, and I will do that for you. The essence of the -transaction is the same, the remunerative process alone is different; -but this last is a circumstance of great importance. - -In ordinary transactions, each man is the judge, both of the service he -receives and the service he renders. He can always refuse an exchange, -or make it elsewhere; whence the necessity of bringing to market -services which will be willingly accepted. - -It is not so in state matters, especially before the introduction of -representative government. Whether we have need of such services as the -government furnishes or not, whether they are good or bad, we are forced -always to accept them such as they are, and at the price at which the -government estimates them. - -Now it is the tendency of all men to see through the small end of the -telescope the services which they render, and through the large end the -services which they receive. In private transactions, then, we should be -led a fine dance, if we were without the security afforded by _a price -freely and openly bargained for_. - -Now this guarantee we have either not at all or to a very limited -extent in public transactions. And yet the government, composed of men -(although at the present day they would persuade us that legislators are -something more than men), obeys the universal tendency. The government -desires to render us great service, to serve us more than we need, and -to make us accept, as true services, services which are sometimes very -far from being so, and to exact from us in return other services or -contributions. - -In this way the state is also subject to the Malthusian law. It tends to -pass the level of its means of existence, it grows great in proportion -to these means, and these means consist of the people's substance. Woe, -then, to those nations who are unable to set bounds to the action of the -government! Liberty, private enterprise, wealth, thrift, independence, -all will be wanting in such circumstances. - -For there is one circumstance especially which it is very necessary -to mark--it is this: Among the services which we demand from the -government, the principal one is security. To ensure this there -is needed a force which is capable of overcoming all other forces, -individual or collective, internal or external, which can be brought -against it. Combined with that unfortunate disposition, which we -discover in men to live at other people's expense, there is here a -danger which is self-evident. - -Just consider on what an immense scale, as we learn from history, -spoliation has been exercised through the abuse and excess of the powers -of government. Consider what services have been rendered to the people, -and what services the public powers have exacted from them, among the -Assyrians, the Babylonians, Egyptians, Romans, Persians, Turks, Chinese, -Russians, English, Spaniards, Frenchmen. Imagination is startled at the -enormous disproportion. - -At length, representative government has been instituted, and we should -have thought, _a priori_, that these disorders would have disappeared as -if by enchantment. - -In fact, the principle of representative government is this: "The people -themselves, by their representatives, are to decide on the nature and -extent of the functions which they judge it right to regard as public -services, and the amount of remuneration to be attached to such -services." - -The tendency to appropriate the property of others, and the tendency to -defend that property, being thus placed in opposite scales, we should -have thought that the second would have outweighed the first. - -I am convinced that this is what must ultimately happen, but it has not -happened hitherto. - -Why? For two very simple reasons. Governments have had too much, and the -people too little, sagacity. - -Governments are very skilful. They act with method and consistency, -upon a plan well arranged, and constantly improved by tradition and -experience. They study men, and their passions. If they discover, for -example, that they are actuated by warlike impulses, they stimulate this -fatal propensity, and add fuel to the flame. They surround the nation -with dangers through the action of diplomacy, and then they very -naturally demand more soldiers, more sailors, more arsenals and -fortifications; sometimes they have not even to solicit these, but -have them offered; and then they have rank, pensions, and places to -distribute. To meet all this, large sums of money are needed, and taxes -and loans are resorted to. - -If the nation is generous, government undertakes to cure all the ills -of humanity; to revive trade, to make agriculture flourish, to develop -manufactures, encourage arts and learning, extirpate poverty, etc., -etc. All that requires to be done is to create offices, and pay -functionaries. - -In short, the tactics consist in representing restraints as effective -services; and the nation pays, not for services, but for disservices. -Governments, assuming gigantic proportions, end by eating up half the -revenues they exact. And the people, wondering at being obliged to work -so hard, after hearing of inventions which are to multiply products _ad -infinitum_.... continue always the same overgrown children they were -before. - -While the government displays so much skill and ability, the people -display scarcely any. When called upon to elect those whose province it -is to determine the sphere and remuneration of governmental action, whom -do they choose? The agents of the government. Thus, they confer on -the executive the power of fixing the limits of its own operations and -exactions. They act like the _Bourgeois Gentilhomme_, who, in place of -himself deciding on the number and cut of his coats, referred the whole -thing--to his tailor. - -And when matters have thus gone on from bad to worse, the people at -length have their eyes opened, not to the remedy--(they have not got -that length yet)--but to the evil. - -To govern is so agreeable a business, that every one aspires to it. -The counsellors of the people never cease telling them: We see your -sufferings, and deplore them. It would be very different if we governed -you. - -In the meantime, and sometimes for a long period, there are rebellions -and _emeutes_. When the people are vanquished, the expense of the war -only adds to their burdens. When they are victorious, the _personnel_ of -the government is changed, and the abuses remain unreformed. - -And this state of things will continue until the people shall learn to -know and defend their true interests--so that we always come back -to this, that there is no resource but in the progress of public -intelligence. - -Certain nations seem marvellously disposed to become the prey of -government spoliation; those especially where the people, losing sight -of their own dignity and their own energy, think themselves undone if -they are not _governed and controlled_ in everything. Without having -travelled very much, I have seen countries where it is believed -that agriculture can make no progress unless experimental farms are -maintained by the government; that there would soon be no horses but for -the state _haras_; and that fathers of families would either not educate -their children, or have them taught immorality, if the state did -not prescribe the course of education, etc., etc. In such a country, -revolutions succeed each other, and the governing powers are changed in -rapid succession. But the governed continue nevertheless to be governed -on the principle of mercy and compassion (for the tendency which I am -here exposing is the very food upon which governments live), until -at length the people perceive that it is better to leave the greatest -possible number of services in the category of those which the parties -interested exchange at _a price fixed by free and open bargaining_. - -We have seen that an exchange of services constitutes society; and it -must be an exchange of good and loyal services. But we have shown also -that men have a strong interest, and consequently an irresistible bent, -to exaggerate the relative value of the services which they render. -And, in truth, I can perceive no other cure for this evil but the free -acceptance or the free refusal of those to whom these services are -offered. - -Whence it happens that certain men have recourse to the law in order -that it may control this freedom in certain branches of industry. This -kind of spoliation is called Privilege or Monopoly. Mark well its origin -and character. - -Everybody knows that the services which he brings to the general market -are appreciated and remunerated in proportion to their rarity. The -intervention of law is invoked to drive out of the market all those who -come to offer analogous services; or, which comes to the same thing, if -the assistance of an instrument or a machine is necessary to enable such -services to be rendered, the law interposes to give exclusive possession -of it. - -This variety of spoliation being the principal subject of the present -volume, I shall not enlarge upon it in this place, but content myself -with one remark. - -When monopoly is an isolated fact, it never fails to enrich the man -who is invested with it. It may happen, then, that other classes of -producers, in place of waiting for the downfall of this monopoly, demand -for themselves similar monopolies. This species of spoliation, thus -erected into a system, becomes the most ridiculous of mystifications for -everybody; and the ultimate result is, that each man believes himself to -be deriving greater profit from a market which is impoverished by all. - -It is unnecessary to add, that this strange _regime_ introduces a -universal antagonism among all classes, all professions, and all -nations; that it calls for the interposition (constant, but always -uncertain) of government action; that it gives rise to all the abuses we -have enumerated; that it places all branches of industry in a state of -hopeless insecurity; and that it accustoms men to rely upon the law, -and not upon themselves, for their means of subsistence. It would be -difficult to imagine a more active cause of social perturbation. - -But it may be said, Why make use of this ugly term, Spoliation? It -is coarse, it wounds, irritates, and turns against you all calm and -moderate men--it envenoms the controversy. - -To speak plainly, I respect the persons, and I believe in the sincerity -of nearly all the partisans of protection; I claim no right to call in -question the personal probity, the delicacy, the philanthropy, of any -one whatsoever. I again repeat that protection is the fruit, the fatal -fruit, of a common error, of which everybody, or at least the majority -of men, are at once the victims and the accomplices. But with all this I -cannot prevent things being as they are. - -Figure Diogenes putting his head out of his tub, and saying, "Athenians, -you are served by slaves. Has it never occurred to you, that you thereby -exercise over your brethren the most iniquitous species of spoliation?" - -Or, again, figure a tribune speaking thus in the forum: "Romans, you -derive all your means of existence from the pillage of all nations in -succession." - -JUSTIFICATION. - -In saying so, they would only speak undoubted truth. But are we to -conclude from this that Athens and Rome were inhabited only by bad and -dishonest people, and hold in contempt Socrates and Plato, Cato and -Cincinnatus? - -Who could entertain for a moment any such thought? But these great men -lived in a social medium which took away all consciousness of injustice. -We know that Aristotle could not even realize the idea of any society -existing without slavery. - -Slavery in modern times has existed down to our own day without exciting -many scruples in the minds of planters. Armies serve as the instruments -of great conquests, that is to say, of great spoliations. But that is -not to say that they do not contain multitudes of soldiers and officers -personally of as delicate feelings as are usually to be found in -industrial careers, if not indeed more so; men who would blush at the -very thought of anything dishonest, and would face a thousand deaths -rather than stoop to any meanness. - -We must not blame individuals, but rather the general movement which -carries them along, and blinds them to the real state of the case; a -movement for which society at large is responsible. - -The same thing holds of monopoly. I blame the system, and not -individuals--society at large, and not individual members of society. If -the greatest philosophers have been unable to discover the iniquity of -slavery, how much more easily may agriculturists and manufacturers have -been led to take a wrong view of the nature and effects of a system of -restriction! - - - - -II. TWO PRINCIPLES OF MORALITY. - -Having reached, if he has reached, the end of the last chapter, I fancy -I hear the reader exclaim: - -"Well, are we wrong in reproaching economists with being dry and -cold? What a picture of human nature! What! Is spoliation, then, to be -regarded as an inevitable, almost normal, force, assuming all forms, -at work under all pretexts, by law and without law, jobbing and abusing -things the most sacred, working on feebleness and credulity by turns, -and making progress just in proportion as these are prevalent! Is there -in the world a more melancholy picture than this?" - -The question is not whether the picture be melancholy, but whether it is -true. History will tell us. - -It is singular enough that those who decry political economy (or -_economisme_, as they are pleased to call it), because that science -studies man and the world as they are, are themselves much further -advanced in pessimism, at least as regards the past and the present, -than the economists whom they disparage. Open their books and their -journals; and what do you find? Bitterness, hatred of society, carried -to such a pitch that the very word civilization is in their eyes the -synonym of injustice, dis-order, and anarchy. They go the length even of -denouncing liberty, so little confidence have they in the development of -the human race as the natural result of its organization. Liberty! it is -liberty, as they think, which is impelling us nearer and nearer to ruin. - -True, these writers are optimists in reference to the future. For if the -human race, left to itself, has pursued a wrong road for six thousand -years, a discoverer has appeared, who has pointed out the true way of -safety; and however little the flock may regard the pastor's crook, -they will be infallibly led towards the promised land, where happiness, -without any effort on their part, awaits them, and where order, -security, and harmony are the cheap reward of improvidence. - -The human race have only to consent to these reformers changing (to use -Rousseau's expression) _its physical and moral constitution_. - -It is not the business of political economy to inquire what society -might have become had God made man otherwise than He has been pleased to -make him. It may perhaps be a subject of regret that in the beginning, -Providence should have forgotten to call to its counsels some of our -modern _organisateurs_. And as the celestial mechanism would have been -very differently constructed had the Creator consulted Alphonsus the -Wise, in the same way had He only taken the advice of Fourrier, the -social order would have had no resemblance to that in which we are -forced to breathe, live, and move. But since we are here--since _in -eo vivimus, movemur, et minus_--all we have to do is to study and make -ourselves acquainted with the laws of the social order in which we find -ourselves, especially if its amelioration depends essentially on our -knowledge of these laws. - -We cannot prevent the human heart from being the seat of insatiable -desires. - -We cannot so order it that these desires should be satisfied without -labour. - -We cannot so order it that man should not have as much repugnance to -labour as desire for enjoyment. - -We cannot so order it that from this organization there should not -result a perpetual effort on the part of certain men to increase their -own share of enjoyments at the expense of others; throwing over upon -them, by force or cunning, the labour and exertion which are the -necessary condition of such enjoyments being obtained. - -It is not for us to go in the face of universal history, or stifle the -voice of the past, which tells us that such has been the state of -things from the beginning. We cannot deny that war, slavery, thraldom, -priestcraft, government abuses, privileges, frauds of every kind, and -monopolies, have been the incontestable and terrible manifestations -of these two sentiments combined in the heart of man--_desire of -enjoyments, and repugnance to fatigue_. - -_In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread_. Yes, but every one -desires to have the greatest possible quantity of bread, with the least -possible amount of sweat. Such is the testimony of history. - -But let us be thankful that history also shows us that the diffusion of -enjoyments and of efforts has a tendency to become more and more equal -among men. - -Unless we shut our eyes to the light of the sun, we must admit that -society has in this respect made progress. - -If this be so, there must be in society a natural and providential -force, a law which repels more and more the principle of dishonesty, and -realizes more and more the principle of justice. - -We maintain that this force exists in society, and that God has placed -it there. If it did not exist, we should be reduced, like Utopian -dreamers, to seek for it in artificial arrangements, in arrangements -which imply a previous alteration in the physical and moral constitution -of man; or rather, we should conclude that the search was useless and -vain, for the simple reason that we cannot understand the action of a -lever without its fulcrum. - -Let us try, then, to describe the beneficent force which tends gradually -to surmount the mischievous and injurious force to which we have given -the name of spoliation, and the presence of which is only too well -explained by reasoning, and established by experience. - -Every injurious or hurtful act has necessarily two terms: the point -whence it comes, and the point to which it tends--the _terminus a quo, -and the terminus ad quern_--the man who acts, and the man acted upon; -or, in the language of the schoolmen, the _agent and the patient_. - -We may be protected, then, from an injurious act in two ways: by the -voluntary abstention of the agent; or by the resistance of the patient. - -These two moral principles, far from running counter to each other, -concur in their action, namely, the religious or philosophical moral -principle, and the moral principle which I shall venture to term -economic. - -The religious moral principle, in order to ensure the suppression of an -injurious act, addresses its author, addresses man in his capacity of -agent, and says to him: "Amend your life; purify your conduct; cease -to do evil; learn to do well; subdue your passions; sacrifice -self-interest; oppress not your neighbour, whom it is your duty to love -and assist; first of all, be just, and be charitable afterwards." This -species of moral principle will always be esteemed the most beautiful -and touching, that which best displays the human race in its native -majesty, which will be most extolled by the eloquent, and call forth the -greatest amount of admiration and sympathy. - -The economic moral principle aspires at attaining the same result; but -addresses man more especially in the capacity of patient. It points out -to him the effects of human actions, and by that simple explanation, -stimulates him to react against those who injure him, and honour those -who are useful to him. It strives to disseminate among the oppressed -masses enough of good sense, information, and well-founded distrust, to -render oppression more and more difficult and dangerous. - -We must remark, too, that the economic principle of morality does not -fail to act likewise on the oppressor. An injurious act is productive of -both good and evil; evil for the man who is subject to it, and good for -the man who avails himself of it; without which indeed it would not have -been thought of. But the good and the evil are far from compensating -each other. The sum total of evil always and necessarily preponderates -over the good; because the very fact that oppression is present entails -a loss of power, creates dangers, provokes reprisals, and renders, -costly precautions necessary. The simple explanation of these effects, -then, not only provokes reaction on the part of the oppressed, but -brings over to the side of justice all whose hearts are not perverted, -and disturbs the security of the oppressors themselves. - -But it is easy to understand that this economic principle of morality, -which is rather virtual than formal; which is only, after all, a -scientific demonstration, which would lose its efficacy if it changed -its character; which addresses itself not to the heart, but to the -intellect; which aims at convincing rather than persuading; which does -not give advice, but furnishes proofs; whose mission is not to touch the -feelings, but enlighten the judgment, which obtains over vice no other -victory than that of depriving it of support; it is easy, I say, to -understand why this principle of morality should be accused of being dry -and prosaic. - -The reproach is well founded in itself, without being just in its -application. It just amounts to saying that political economy does not -discuss everything, that it does not comprehend everything--that it -is not, in short, universal science. But who ever claimed for it this -character, or put forward on its behalf so exorbitant a pretension? - -The accusation would be well founded only if political economy presented -its processes as exclusive, and had the presumption, if we may so speak, -to deny to philosophy and religion their own proper and peculiar means -of working for the cultivation and improvement of man. - -Let us admit, then, the simultaneous action of morality, properly so -called, and of political economy; the one branding the injurious act in -its motive, and exposing its unseemliness, the other discrediting it in -our judgment, by a picture of its effects. - -Let us admit even that the triumph of the religious moralist, when -achieved, is more beautiful, more consoling, more fundamental But we -must at the same time acknowledge that the triumph of the economist is -more easy and more certain. - -In a few lines, which are worth many large volumes, J. B. Say has said -that, to put an end to the disorder introduced into an honourable family -by hypocrisy there are only two alternatives: to _reform Tartuffe, or -sharpen the wits of Orgon_. Moliere, that great painter of the human -heart, appears constantly to have regarded the second of these processes -as the more efficacious. - -It is the same thing in real life, and on the stage of the world. - -Tell me what Caesar did, and I will tell you what the character was of -the Romans of his time. - -Tell me what modern diplomacy accomplishes, and I will tell you what is -the moral condition of the nations among whom it is exercised. - -We should not be paying nearly two milliards [L80,000,000 sterling] of -taxes, if we did not empower those who live upon them to vote them. - -We should not have been landed in all the difficulties and charges to -which the African question has given rise, had we had our eyes open to -the fact that _two and two make four, in political economy, as well as -in arithmetic_. - -M. Guizot would not have felt himself authorized to say that _France is -rich enough to pay for her glory_, if France had never been smitten with -the love of false glory. - -The same statesman would never have ventured to say that liberty is -too precious a thing for France to stand higgling about its price, -had France only reflected that a _heavy budget and liberty are -incompatible_. - -It is not by monopolists, but by their victims, that monopolies are -maintained. - -In the matter of elections, it is not because there are parties who -offer bribes that there are parties open to receive them, but the -contrary; and the proof of this is, that it is the parties who receive -the bribes who, in the long run, defray the cost of corruption. Is it -not their business to put an end to the practice? - -Let the religious principle of morality, if it can, touch the hearts of -the Tartuffes, the Caesars, the planters of colonies, the sinecurists, -the monopolists, etc. The clear duty of political economy is to -enlighten their dupes. - -Of these two processes, which exercises the more efficacious influence -on social progress? I feel it almost unnecessary to say, that I believe -it is the second; and I fear we can never exempt mankind from the -necessity of learning first of all _defensive morality_. - -After all I have heard and read and observed, I have never yet met -with an instance of an abuse which had been in operation on a somewhat -extensive scale, put an end to by the voluntary renunciation of those -who profit by it. - -On the other hand, I have seen many abuses put down by the determined -resistance of those who suffered from them. - -To expose the effects of abuses, then, is the surest means of putting -an end to them. And this holds especially true of abuses like the policy -of restriction, which, whilst inflicting real evils on the masses, -are productive of nothing to those who imagine they profit by them but -illusion and deception! - -After all, can the kind of morality we are advocating of itself enable -us to realize all that social perfection which the sympathetic nature of -the soul of man and its noble faculties authorize us to look forward to -and hope for? I am far from saying so. Assume the complete diffusion of -defensive morality, it resolves itself simply into the conviction that -men's interests, rightly understood, are always in accord with justice -and general utility. Such a society, although certainly well ordered, -would not be very attractive. There would be fewer cheats simply because -there would be fewer dupes. Vice always lurking in the background, and -starved, so to speak, for want of support, would revive the moment that -support was restored to it. - -The prudence of each would be enforced by the vigilance of all; and -reform, confining itself to the regulation of external acts, and never -going deeper than the skin, would fail to penetrate men's hearts and -consciences. Such a society would remind us of one of those exact, -rigorous, and just men, who are ready to resent the slightest invasion -of their rights, and to defend themselves on all sides from attacks. You -esteem them; you perhaps admire them; you would elect them as deputies; -but you would never make them your friends. - -But the two principles of morality I have described, instead of running -counter to each other, work in concert, attacking vice from opposite -directions. Whilst the economists are doing their part, sharpening the -wits of the Orgons, eradicating prejudices, exciting just and necessary -distrust, studying and explaining the true nature of things and of -actions, let the religious moralist accomplish on his side his more -attractive, although more difficult, labours. Let him attack dishonesty -in a hand-to-hand fight; let him pursue it into the most secret -recesses of the heart; let him paint in glowing colours the charms -of beneficence, of self-sacrifice, of devotion; let him open up the -fountains of virtue, where we can only dry up the fountains of vice. -This is his duty, and a noble duty it is. But why should he contest the -utility of the duty which has devolved upon us? - -In a society which, without being personally and individually virtuous, -would nevertheless be well ordered through the action of the economic -principle of morality (which means a knowledge of the economy of the -social body), would not an opening be made for the work of the religious -moralist? - -Habit, it is said, is a second nature. - -A country might still be unhappy, although for a long time each man may -have been unused to injustice through the continued resistance of an -enlightened public. But such a country, it seems to me, would be well -prepared to receive a system of teaching more pure and elevated. We get -a considerable way on the road to good, when we become unused to evil. -Men can never remain stationary. Diverted from the path of vice, feeling -that it leads only to infamy, they would feel so much the more sensibly -the attractions of virtue. - -Society must perhaps pass through this prosaic state of transition, in -which men practise virtue from motives of prudence, in order to rise -afterwards to that fairer and more poetic region where such calculating -motives are no longer wanted. - - - - -III. THE TWO HATCHETS. - -_Petition of Jacques Bonhomme, Carpenter, to M. Cunin-Gridaine, Minister -of Commerce_. - -Monsieur le Fabricant-Ministre, - -I am a carpenter to trade, as was St Joseph of old; and I handle the -hatchet and adze, for your benefit. - -Now, while engaged in hewing and chopping from morning to night upon the -lands of our Lord the King, the idea has struck me that my labour may be -regarded as _national_, as well as yours. - -And, in these circumstances, I cannot see why protection should not -visit my woodyard as well as your workshop. - -For, sooth to say, if you make cloths I make roofs; and both, in their -own way, shelter our customers from cold and from rain. - -And yet I run after customers; and customers run after you. You have -found out the way of securing them by hindering them from supplying -themselves elsewhere, while mine apply to whomsoever they think proper. - -What is astonishing in all this? Monsieur Cunin, the Minister of State, -has not forgotten M. Cunin, the manufacturer--all quite natural. But, -alas! my humble trade has not given a Minister to France, although -practised, in Scripture times, by far more august personages. - -And in the immortal code which I find embodied in Scripture, I cannot -discover the slightest expression which could be quoted by carpenters, -as authorizing them to enrich themselves at the expense of other people. - -You see, then, how I am situated. I earn fifteen pence a day, when it -is not Sunday or holiday. I offer you my services at the same time as -a Flemish carpenter offers you his, and, because he abates a halfpenny, -you give him the preference. - -But I desire to clothe myself; and if a Belgian weaver presents his -cloth alongside of yours, you drive him and his cloth out of the -country. - -So that, being forced to frequent your shop, although the dearest, my -poor fifteen pence go no further in reality than fourteen. - -Nay, they are not worth more than thirteen! for in place of expelling -the Belgian weaver at your own cost (which was the least you could do), -you, for your own ends, make me pay for the people you set at his heels. - -And as a great number of your co-legislators, with whom you are on -a marvellously good footing, take each a halfpenny or a penny, under -pretext of protecting iron, or coal, or oil, or corn, I find, when -everything is taken into account, that of my fifteen pence, I have only -been able to save seven pence or eight pence from pillage. - -You will no doubt tell me that these small halfpence, which pass in this -way from my pocket to yours, maintain workpeople who reside around your -castle, and enable you to live in a style of magnificence. To which I -will only reply, that if the pence had been left with me, the -person who earned them, they would have maintained workpeople in my -neighbourhood. - -Be this as it may, Monsieur le Ministre-fabricant, knowing that I should -be but ill received by you, I have not come to require you, as I had -good right to do, to withdraw the restriction which you impose on your -customers. I prefer following the ordinary course, and I approach you to -solicit a little bit of protection for myself. - -Here, of course, you will interpose a difficulty. "My good friend," -you will say, "I would protect you and your fellow-workmen with all my -heart; but how can I confer customhouse favours on carpenter-work? -What use would it be to prohibit the importation of houses by sea or by -land?" - -That would be a good joke, to be sure; but, by dint of thinking, I have -discovered another mode of favouring the children of St Joseph; which -you will welcome the more willingly, I hope, as it differs in nothing -from that which constitutes the privilege which you vote year after year -in your own favour. - -The means of favouring us, which I have thus marvellously discovered, is -to prohibit the use of sharp axes in this country. - -I maintain that such a restriction would not be in the least more -illogical or more arbitrary than the one to which you subject us in the -case of your cloth. - -Why do you drive away the Belgians? Because they sell cheaper than -you. And why do they sell cheaper than you? Because they have a certain -degree of superiority over you as manufacturers. - -Between you and a Belgian, therefore, there is exactly the same -difference as in my trade there would be between a blunt and a sharp -axe. - -And you force me, as a tradesman, to purchase from you the product of -the blunt hatchet? - -Regard the country at large as a workman who desires, by his labour, to -procure all things he has want of, and, among others, cloth. - -There are two means of effecting this. - -The first is to spin and weave the wool. - -The second is to produce other articles, as, for example, French clocks, -paper-hangings, or wines, and exchange them with the Belgians for the -cloth wanted. - -Of these two processes, the one which gives the best result may be -represented by the sharp axe, and the other by the blunt one. - -You do not deny that at present, in France, we obtain a piece of stuff -by the work of our own looms (that is the blunt axe) _with more labour_ -than by producing and exchanging wines (that is the sharp axe). So far -are you from denying this, that it is precisely because of this _excess -of labour_ (in which you make wealth to consist) that you recommend, -nay, that you _compel_ the employment of the worse of the two hatchets. - -Now, only be consistent, be impartial, and if you mean to be just, treat -the poor carpenters as you treat yourselves. - -Pass a law to this effect: - -"_No one shall henceforth be permitted to employ any beams or rafters, -but such as are produced and fashioned by blunt hatchets_." - -And see what will immediately happen. - -Whereas at present we give a hundred blows of the axe, we shall then -give three hundred. The work which we now do in an hour will then -require three hours. What a powerful encouragement will thus be given to -labour! Masters, journeymen, apprentices! our sufferings are now at an -end. We shall be in demand; and, therefore, well paid. Whoever shall -henceforth desire to have a roof to cover him must comply with our -exactions, just as at present whoever desires clothes to his back must -comply with yours. - -And should the theoretical advocates of free trade ever dare to call -in question the utility of the measure, we know well where to seek for -reasons to confute them Your Inquiry of 1834 is still to be had. With -that weapon, we shall conquer; for you have there admirably pleaded the -cause of restriction, and of blunt axes, which are in reality the same -thing. - - - - -IV. LOWER COUNCIL OF LABOUR. - -"What! you have the face to demand for all citizens a right to sell, -buy, barter, and exchange; to render and receive service for service, -and to judge for themselves, on the single condition that they do all -honestly, and comply with the demands of the public treasury? Then you -simply desire to deprive our workmen of employment, of wages, and of -bread?" - -This is what is said to us. I know very well what to think of it; but -what I wish to know is, what the workmen themselves think of it. - -I have at hand an excellent instrument of inquiry. Not those Upper -Councils of Industry, where extensive proprietors who call themselves -labourers, rich shipowners who call themselves sailors, and wealthy -shareholders who pass themselves off for workmen, turn their -philanthropy to account in a way which we all know. - -No; it is with workmen, who are workmen in reality, that we have -to do--joiners, carpenters, masons, tailors, shoemakers, dyers, -blacksmiths, innkeepers, grocers, etc., etc.,--and who, in my village, -have founded a friendly society. - -I have transformed this friendly society, at my own hand, into a Lower -Council of Labour, and instituted an inquiry which will be found of -great importance, although it is not crammed with figures, or inflated -to the bulk of a quarto volume, printed at the expense of the State. - -My object was to interrogate these plain, simple people as to the manner -in which they are, or believe themselves to be, affected by the policy -of protection. The president pointed out that this would be infringing -to some extent on the fundamental conditions of the Association. For in -France, this land of liberty, people who associate give up their right -to talk politics--in other words, their right to discuss their common -interests. However, after some hesitation, he agreed to include the -question in the order of the day. - -They divided the assembly into as many committees as there were groups -of distinct trades, and delivered to each committee a schedule to be -filled up after fifteen days' deliberation. - -On the day fixed, the worthy president (we adopt the official style) -took the chair, and there were laid upon the table (still the official -style) fifteen reports, which he read in succession. - -The first which was taken into consideration was that of the tailors. -Here is an exact and literal copy of it:-- - -EFFECTS OF PROTECTION.--REPORT OF THE TAILORS. - -Inconveniences. - -1st, In consequence of the policy of protection, we pay dearer for -bread, meat, sugar, firewood, thread, needles, etc., which is equivalent -in our case to a considerable reduction of wages. - -2d, In consequence of the policy of 'protection, our customers also pay -dearer for everything, and this leaves them less to spend upon clothing; -whence it follows that we have less employment, and, consequently, -smaller returns. - -3d, In consequence of the policy of protection, the stuffs which we make -up are dear, and people on that account wear their clothes longer, or -dispense with part of them. This, again, is equivalent to a diminution -of employment, and forces us to offer our services at a lower rate of -remuneration. - -Advantages. - -None. - -Note.--After all our inquiries, deliberations, and discussions, we have -been quite unable to discover that in any respect whatever the policy of -protection has been of advantage to our trade. - -Here is another report:-- - -EFFECTS OF PROTECTION.--REPORT OF THE BLACKSMITHS. - -Inconveniences. - -1st, The policy of protection imposes a tax upon us every time we eat, -drink, or warm or clothe ourselves, and this tax does not go to the -treasury. - -2d, It imposes a like tax upon all our fellow-citizens who are not of -our trade, and they, being so much the poorer, have recourse to cheap -substitutes for our work, which deprives us of the employment we should -otherwise have had. None. - -3d, It keeps up iron at so high a price, that it is not employed in -the country for ploughs, grates, gates, balconies, etc.; and our trade, -which might furnish employment to so many other people who are in want -of it, no longer furnishes employment to ourselves. - -4th, The revenue which the treasury fails to obtain from commodities -which are not imported is levied upon the salt we use, postages, etc. - -All the other reports (with which it is unnecessary to trouble the -reader) are to the same tune. Gardeners, carpenters, shoemakers, -clogmakers, boatmen, millers, all give vent to the same complaints. - -I regret that there are no agricultural labourers in our association. -Their report would assuredly have been very instructive. - -But, alas! in our country of the Landes, the poor labourers, protected -though they be, have not the means of joining an association, and, -having insured their cattle, they find they cannot themselves become -members of a friendly society. The boon of protection does not hinder -them from being the parias of our social order. What shall I say of the -vine-dressers? - -What I remark, especially, is the good sense displayed by our villagers -in perceiving not only the direct injury which the policy of protection -does them, but the indirect injury, which, although in the first -instance affecting their customers, falls back, _par ricochet_, upon -themselves. - -This is what the economists of the _Moniteur Industriel_ do not appear -to understand. - -And perhaps those men whose eyes a dash of protection has fascinated, -especially our agriculturists, would be willing to give it up, if they -were enabled to see this side of the question. - -In that case they might perhaps say to themselves, "Better far to be -self-supported in the midst of a set of customers in easy circumstances, -than to be protected in the midst of an impoverished clientele." - -For to desire to enrich by turns each separate branch of industry by -creating a void round each in succession, is as vain an attempt as it -would be for a man to try to leap over his own shadow. - - - - -V. DEARNESS-CHEAPNESS. - -I think it necessary to submit to the reader some theoretical remarks -on the illusions to which the words dearness and cheapness give rise. At -first sight, these remarks may, I feel, be regarded as subtle, but the -question is not whether they are subtle or the reverse, but whether they -are true. Now, I not only believe them to be perfectly true, but to be -well fitted to suggest matter of reflection to men (of whom there are -not a few) who have sincere faith in the efficacy of a protectionist -policy. - -The advocates of Liberty and the defenders of Restriction are both -obliged to employ the expressions, dearness, cheapness. The former -declare themselves in favour of cheapness with a view to the interest of -the consumer; the latter pronounce in favour of dearness, having regard -especially to the interest of the producer. Others content themselves -with saying, The producer and consumer are one and the same person; -which leaves undecided the question whether the law should promote -cheapness or dearness. - -In the midst of this conflict, it would seem that the law has only -one course to follow, and that is to allow prices to settle and adjust -themselves naturally. But then we are attacked by the bitter enemies of -_laissez faire_. At all hazards they want the law to interfere, without -knowing or caring in what direction. And yet it lies with those who -desire to create by legal intervention an artificial dearness or an -unnatural cheapness, to explain the grounds of their preference. The -_onus probandi_ rests upon them exclusively. Liberty is always esteemed -good, till the contrary is proved; and to allow prices to settle and -adjust themselves naturally, is liberty. - -But the parties to this dispute have changed positions. The advocates of -dearness have secured the triumph of their system, and it lies with the -defenders of natural prices to prove the goodness of their cause. On -both sides, the argument turns on two words; and it is therefore very -essential to ascertain what these two words really mean. - -But we must first of all notice a series of facts which are fitted to -disconcert the champions of both camps. - -To engender dearness, the restrictionists have obtained protective -duties, and a cheapness, which is to them inexplicable, has come to -deceive their hopes. - -To create cheapness, the free-traders have occasionally succeeded in -securing liberty, and, to their astonishment, an elevation of prices has -been the consequence. - -For example, in France, in order to favour agriculture, a duty of 22 per -cent has been imposed on foreign wool, and it has turned out that French -wool has been sold at a lower price after the measure than before it. - -In England, to satisfy the consumer, they lowered, and ultimately -removed, the duty on foreign wool; and it has come to pass that in that -country the price of wool is higher than ever. - -And these are not isolated facts; for the price of wool is governed by -precisely the same laws which govern the price of everything else. The -same result is produced in all analogous cases. Contrary to expectation, -protection has, to some extent, brought about a fall, and competition, -to some extent, a rise of prices. - -When the confusion of ideas thence arising had reached its height, the -protectionists began saying to their adversaries, "It is our system -which brings about the cheapness of which you boast so much." To which -the reply was, "It is liberty which has induced the dearness which you -find so useful."* - -At this rate, would it not be amusing to see cheapness become the -watch-word of the Rue Hauteville, and dearness the watchword of the Rue -Choiseul? - -Evidently there is in all this a misconception, an illusion, which it is -necessary to clear up; and this is what I shall now endeavour to do. - -Put the case of two isolated nations, each composed of a million of -inhabitants. Grant that, _coteris paribus_, the one possesses double -the quantity of everything,--corn, meat, iron, furniture, fuel, books, -clothing, etc.,--which the other possesses. - -It will be granted that the one is twice as rich as the other. - -And yet there is no reason to affirm that a difference in _actual money -prices_** exists in the two countries. Nominal prices may perhaps -be higher in the richer country. It may be that in the United States -everything is nominally dearer than in Poland, and that the population -of the former country should, nevertheless, be better provided with -all that they need; whence we infer that it is not the nominal price -of products, but their comparative abundance, which constitutes wealth. -When, then, we desire to pronounce an opinion on the comparative merits -of restriction and free-trade, we should not inquire which of the two -systems engenders dearness or cheapness, but which of the two brings -abundance or scarcity. - - * Recently, M. Duchatel, who had formerly advocated free - trade, with a view to low prices, said to the Chamber: It - would not be difficult for me to prove that protection leads - to cheapness. - - **The expression, _prix absolus_ (absolute prices), which - the author employs here and in chap. xi. of the First Series - (ante), is not, I think, used by English economists, and - from the context in both instances I take it to mean _actual - money prices;_ or what Adam Smith terms _nominal prices_,-- - Translator. - -For, observe this, that products being exchanged for each other, a -relative scarcity of all, and a relative abundance of all, leave the -nominal prices of commodities in general at the same point; but this -cannot be affirmed of the relative condition of the inhabitants of the -two countries. - -Let us dip a little deeper still into this subject. - -When we see an increase and a reduction of duties produce effects -so different from what we had expected, depreciation often following -taxation, and enhancement following free trade, it becomes the -imperative duty of political economy to seek an explanation of phenomena -so much opposed to received ideas; for it is needless to say that a -science, if it is worthy of the name, is nothing else than a faithful -statement and a sound explanation of facts. - -Now the phenomenon we are here examining is explained very -satisfactorily by a circumstance of which we must never lose sight. - -Dearness is due to two causes, and not to one only. - -The same thing holds of cheapness. - -It is one of the least disputed points in political economy that price -is determined by the relative state of supply and demand. - -There are then two terms which affect price--supply and demand. These -terms are essentially variable. They may be combined in the same -direction, in contrary directions, and in infinitely varied proportions. -Hence the combinations of which price is the result are inexhaustible. - -High price may be the result, either of diminished supply, or of -increased demand. - -Low price may be the result of increased supply, or of diminished -demand. - -Hence there are two kinds of dearness, and two kinds of cheapness. - -There is a _dearness_ of an injurious kind, that which proceeds from a -diminution of supply, for that implies scarcity, privation (such as has -been felt this year* from the scarcity of corn); and there is a dearness -of a beneficial kind, that which results from an increase of demand, for -the latter presupposes the development of general wealth. - - * This was written in 1847.--Translator. - -In the same way, there is a _cheapness_ which is desirable, that which -has its source in abundance; and an injurious cheapness, that has for -its cause the failure of demand, and the impoverishment of consumers. - -Now, be pleased to remark this; that restriction tends to induce, at the -same time, both the injurious cause of dearness, and the injurious cause -of cheapness: injurious dearness, by diminishing the supply, for this -is the avowed object of restriction; and injurious cheapness, by -diminishing also the demand; seeing that it gives a false direction to -labour and capital, and fetters consumers with taxes and trammels. - -So that, as regards price, these two tendencies neutralize each other; -and this is the reason why the restrictive system, restraining, as it -does, demand and supply at one and the same time, does not in the long -run realize even that dearness which is its object. - -But, as regards the condition of the population, these causes do not -at all neutralize each other; on the contrary, they concur in making it -worse. - -The effect of freedom of trade is exactly the opposite. In its general -result, it may be that it does not realize the cheapness it promises; -for it has two tendencies, one towards desirable cheapness through -the extension of supply, or abundance; the other towards appreciable -dearness by the development of demand, or general wealth. These two -tendencies neutralize each other in what concerns nominal price, but -they concur in what regards the material prosperity of the population. - -In short, under the restrictive system, in as far as it is operative, -men recede towards a state of things, in which both demand and supply -are enfeebled. Under a system of freedom, they progress towards a -state of things in which both are developed simultaneously, and without -necessarily affecting nominal prices. Such prices form no good criterion -of wealth. They may remain the same whilst society is falling into a -state of the most abject poverty, or whilst it is advancing towards a -state of the greatest prosperity. - -We shall now, in a few words, show the practical application of this -doctrine. - -A cultivator of the south of France believes himself to be very rich, -because he is protected by duties from external competition. He may be -as poor as Job; but he nevertheless imagines that sooner or later he -will get rich by protection. In these circumstances, if we ask him the -question which was put by the Odier Committee in these words,-- - -"Do you desire--yes or no--to be subject to foreign competition?" His -first impulse is to answer "No," and the Odier Committee proudly welcome -his response. - -However, we must go a little deeper into the matter. Unquestionably, -foreign competition--nay, competition in general--is always -troublesome; and if one branch of trade alone could get quit of it, that -branch of trade would for some time profit largely. - -But protection is not an isolated favour; it is a system. If, to the -profit of the agriculturist, protection tends to create a scarcity of -corn and of meat, it tends likewise to create, to the profit of other -industries, a scarcity of iron, of cloth, of fuel, tools, etc.,--a -scarcity, in short, of everything. - -Now, if a scarcity of corn tends to enhance its price through a -diminution of supply, the scarcity of all other commodities for which -corn is exchanged tends to reduce the price of corn by a diminution of -demand, so that it is not at all certain that ultimately corn will be a -penny dearer than it would have been under a system of free trade. There -is nothing certain in the whole process but this--that as there is upon -the whole less of every commodity in the country, each man will be less -plentifully provided with everything he has occasion to buy. - -The agriculturist should ask himself whether it would not be more -for his interest that a certain quantity of corn and cattle should be -imported from abroad, and that he should at the same time find himself -surrounded by a population in easy circumstances, able and willing to -consume and pay for all sorts of agricultural produce. - -Suppose a department in which the people are clothed in rags, fed upon -chesnuts, and lodged in hovels. How can agriculture flourish in such -a locality? What can the soil be made to produce with a well-founded -expectation of fair remuneration? Meat? The people do not eat it. Milk? -They must content themselves with water. Butter? It is regarded as a -luxury. Wool? The use of it is dispensed with as much as possible. Does -any one imagine that all the ordinary objects of consumption can thus be -put beyond the reach of the masses, without tending to lower prices as -much as protection is tending to raise them? - -What has been said of the agriculturist holds equally true of the -manufacturer. Our manufacturers of cloth assure us that external -competition will lower prices by increasing the supply. Granted; but -will not these prices be again raised by an increased demand? Is the -consumption of cloth a fixed and invariable quantity? Has every man as -much of it as he would wish to have? And if general wealth is advanced -and developed by the abolition of all these taxes and restrictions, will -the first use to which this emancipation is turned by the population not -be to dress better? - -The question,--the constantly-recurring question,--then, is not to -find out whether protection is favourable to any one special branch of -industry, but whether, when everything is weighed, balanced, and taken -into account, restriction is, in its own nature, more productive than -liberty. - -Now, no one will venture to maintain this. On the contrary, we are -perpetually met with the admission, "You are right in principle." - -If it be so, if restriction confers no benefit on individual branches of -industry without doing a greater amount of injury to general wealth, -we are forced to conclude that actual money prices, considered by -themselves, only express a relation between each special branch of -industry and industry in general, between supply and demand; and that, -on this account, a remunerative price, which is the professed object of -protection, is rather injured than favoured by the system. - -SUPPLEMENT.* - - * What follows appeared in the _Libre Echange_ of 1st August - 1847.--Editor. - -The article which we have published under the title of Dearness, -Cheapness, has brought us several letters. We give them, along with our -replies:-- - -Mr Editor,--You upset all our ideas. I endeavoured to aid the cause -of free trade, and found it necessary to urge the consideration of -cheapness. I went about everywhere, saying, "When freedom of trade is -accorded, bread, meat, cloth, linen, iron, fuel, will go on falling in -price." This displeased those who sell, but gave great pleasure to those -who buy these commodities. And now you throw out doubts as to whether -free trade will bring us cheapness or not. What, then, is to be gained -by it? What gain will it be to the people if foreign competition, which -may damage their sales, does not benefit them in their purchases? - -Mr Free-trader,--Allow us to tell you that you must have read only half -the article which has called forth your letter. We said that free trade -acts exactly in the same way as roads, canals, railways, and everything -else which facilitates communication by removing obstacles. Its first -tendency is to increase the supply of the commodity freed from duty, and -consequently to lower its price. But by augmenting at the same time the -supply of all other commodities for which this article is exchanged, it -increases the demand, and the price by this means rises again. You ask -what gain this would be to the people? Suppose a balance with several -scales, in each of which is deposited a certain quantity of the articles -you have enumerated. If you add to the corn in one scale it will tend -to fall; but if you add a little cloth, a little iron, a little fuel, -to what the other scales contained, you will redress the equilibrium. -If you look only at the beam, you will find nothing changed. But if you -look at the people for whose use these articles are produced, you will -find them better fed, clothed, and warmed. - -Mr Editor,--I am a manufacturer of cloth, and a protectionist. I confess -that your article on dearness and cheapness has made me reflect. It -contains something specious which would require to be well established -before we declare ourselves converted. - -Mr Protectionist,--We say that your restrictive measures have an -iniquitous object in view, namely, artificial dearness. But we do not -affirm that they always realize the hopes of those who promote them. -It is certain that they inflict on the consumer all the injurious -consequences of scarcity. It is not certain that they always confer a -corresponding advantage on the producer. Why? Because if they diminish -the supply, they diminish also the demand. - -This proves that there is in the economic arrangement of this world a -moral force, a _vis medieatrix_, which causes unjust ambition in the -long run to fall a prey to self-deception. - -Would you have the goodness, Sir, to remark that one of the elements -of the prosperity of each individual branch of industry is the -general wealth of the community. The value of a house is not always in -proportion to what it has cost, but likewise in proportion to the number -and fortune of the tenants. Are two houses exactly similar necessarily -of the same value? By no means, if the one is situated in Paris and -the other in Lower Brittany. Never speak of price without taking into -account collateral circumstances, and let it be remembered that no -attempt is so bootless as to endeavour to found the prosperity of parts -on the ruin of the whole. And yet this is what the policy of restriction -pretends to do. - -Consider what would have happened at Paris, for example, if this strife -of interests had been attended with success. - -Suppose that the first shoemaker who established himself in that city -had succeeded in ejecting all others; that the first tailor, the first -mason, the first printer, the first watchmaker, the first physician, -the first baker, had been equally successful. Paris would at this moment -have been still a village of 1200 or 1500 inhabitants. It has turned out -very differently. The market of Paris has been open to all (excepting -those whom you still keep out), and it is this freedom which has -enlarged and aggrandized it. The struggles of competition have been -bitter and long continued, and this is what has made Paris a city of a -million of inhabitants. The general wealth has increased, no doubt; but -has the individual wealth of the shoemakers and tailors been diminished? -This is the question you have to ask. You may say that according as the -number of competitors increased, the price of their products would go on -falling. Has it done so? No; for if the supply has been augmented, the -demand has been enlarged. - -The same thing will hold good of your commodity, cloth; let it enter -freely. You will have more competitors in the trade, it is true; but -you will have more customers, and, above all, richer customers. Is it -possible you can never have thought of this, when you see nine-tenths of -your fellow-citizens underclothed in winter, for want of the commodity -which you manufacture? - -If you wish to prosper, allow your customers to thrive. This is a -lesson which you have* been very long in learning. When it is thoroughly -learnt, each man will seek his own interest in the general good; -and then jealousies between man and man, town and town, province and -province, nation and nation, will no longer trouble the world. - - - - -VI. TO ARTISANS AND WORKMEN. - -Many journals have attacked me in your presence and hearing. Perhaps you -will not object to read my defence? - -I am not suspicious. When a man writes or speaks, I take for granted -that he believes what he says. - -And yet, after reading and re-reading the journals to which I now reply, -I seem unable to discover any other than melancholy tendencies. - -Our present business is to inquire which is more favourable to your -interests,--liberty or restriction. - -I believe that it is liberty,--they believe that it is restriction. It -is for each party to prove his own thesis. - -Was it necessary to insinuate that we free-traders are the agents of -England, of the south of France, of the government? - -On this point, you see how easy recrimination would be. - -We are the agents of England, they say, because some of us employ the -words meeting and free-trader! - -And do they not make use of the words drawback and budget? - -We, it would seem, imitate Cobden and the English democracy! - -And do they not parody Lord George Bentinck and the British aristocracy? - -We borrow from perfidious Albion the doctrine of liberty! - -And do they not borrow from the same source the quibbles of protection? - -We follow the lead of Bordeaux and the south! - -And do they not avail themselves of the cupidity of Lille and the north? - -We favour the secret designs of the ministry, whose object is to divert -public attention from their real policy! - -And do they not act in the interest of the civil list, which profits -most of all from the policy of protection? - -You see, then, very clearly, that if we did not despise this war of -disparagement, arms would not be wanting to carry it on. But this is -beside the question. - -The question, and we must never lose sight of it, is this: _Whether -is it better for the working classes to be free, or not to be free to -purchase foreign commodities?_ - -Workmen! they tell you that "If you are free to purchase from the -foreigner those things which you now produce yourselves, you will cease -to produce them; you will be without employment, without wages, and -without bread; it is therefore for your own good to restrain your -liberty." - -This objection returns upon us under two forms:--They say, for example, -"If we clothe ourselves with English cloth; if we make our ploughs of -English iron; if we cut our bread with English knives; if we wipe our -hands with English towels,--what will become of French workmen, what -will become of national labour?" - -Tell me, workmen! if a man should stand on the quay at Boulogne, and -say to every Englishman who landed, "If you will give me these English -boots, I will give you this French hat;" or, "If you will give me that -English horse, I will give you this French tilbury;" or ask him, "Will -you exchange that machine made at Birmingham, for this clock made -at Paris?" or, again, "Can you arrange to barter this Newcastle coal -against this champagne wine?" Tell me whether, assuming this man to make -his proposals with discernment, any one would be justified in saying -that our national labour, taken in the aggregate, would suffer in -consequence? - -Nor would it make the slightest difference in this respect were we to -suppose twenty such offers to be made in place of one, or a million such -barters to be effected in place of four; nor would it in any respect -alter the case were we to assume the intervention of merchants and -money, whereby such transactions would be greatly facilitated and -multiplied. - -Now, when one country buys from another wholesale, to sell again in -retail, or buys in retail, to sell again in the lump, if we trace the -transaction to its ultimate results, we shall always find that _commerce -resolves itself into barter, products for products, services for -services. If, then, barter does no injury to national labour, since it -implies as much national labour given as foreign labour received, it -follows that a hundred thousand millions of such acts of barter would do -as little injury as one_. - -But who would profit? you will ask. The profit consists in turning to -most account the resources of each country, so that the same amount -of labour shall yield everywhere a greater amount of satisfactions and -enjoyments. - -There are some who in your case have recourse to a singular system of -tactics. They begin by admitting the superiority of the free to the -prohibitive system, in order, doubtless, not to have the battle to fight -on this ground. - -Then they remark that the transition from one system to another is -always attended with some displacement of labour. - -Lastly, they enlarge on the sufferings, which, in their opinion, such -displacements must always entail. They exaggerate these sufferings, they -multiply them, they make them the principal subject of discussion, they -present them as the exclusive and definitive result of reform, and in -this way they endeavour to enlist you under the banners of monopoly. - -This is just the system of tactics which has been employed to defend -every system of abuse; and one thing I must plainly avow, that it is -this system of tactics which constantly embarrasses those who advocate -reforms, even those most useful to the people. You will soon see the -reason of this. - -When an abuse has once taken root, everything is arranged on the -assumption of its continuance. Some men depend upon it for subsistence, -others depend upon them, and so on, till a formidable edifice is -erected. - -Would you venture to pull it down? All cry out, and remark this--the men -who bawl out appear always at first sight to be in the right, because -it is far easier to show the derangements which must accompany a reform -than the arrangements which must follow it. - -The supporters of abuses cite particular instances of sufferings; they -point out particular employers who, with their workmen, and the people -who supply them with materials, are about to be injured; and the poor -reformer can only refer to the general good which must gradually diffuse -itself over the masses. That by no means produces the same sensation. - -Thus, when the question turns on the abolition of slavery. "Poor men!" -is the language addressed to the negroes, "who is henceforth to support -you. The manager handles the lash, but he likewise distributes the -cassava." - -The slaves regret to part with their chains, for they ask themselves, -"Whence will come the cassava?" - -They fail to see that it is not the manager who feeds them, but their -own labour--which feeds both them and the manager. - -When they set about reforming the convents in Spain, they asked the -beggars, "Where will you now find food and clothing? The prior is your -best friend. Is it not very convenient to be in a situation to address -yourselves to him?" - -And the mendicants replied, "True; if the prior goes away, we see very -clearly that we shall be losers, and we do not see at all so clearly who -is to come in his place." - -They did not take into account that if the convents bestowed alms, -they lived upon them; so that the nation had more to give away than to -receive. - -In the same way, workmen! monopoly, quite imperceptibly, saddles -you with taxes, and then, with the produce of these taxes, finds you -employment. - -And your sham friends exclaim, "But for monopolies, where would you find -employment?" - -And you, like the Spanish beggars, reply, "True, true; the employment -which the monopolists find us is certain. The promises of liberty are of -uncertain fulfilment." - -For you do not see that they take from you in the first instance the -money with part of which they afterwards afford you employment. - -You ask, Who is to find you employment? And the answer is, that you will -give employment to one another! With the money of which he is no -longer deprived by taxation, the shoemaker will dress better, and give -employment to the tailor. The tailor will more frequently renew his -_chaussure_, and afford employment to the shoemaker; and the same thing -will take place in all other departments of trade. - -It has been said that under a system of free trade we should have fewer -workmen in our mines and spinning-mills. - -I do not think so. But if this happened, we should necessarily have a -greater number of people working freely and independently, either in -their own houses or at out-door employment. - -For if our mines and spinning-factories are not capable of supporting -themselves, as is asserted, without the aid of taxes levied from the -_public at large_, the moment these taxes are repealed _everybody_ will -be by so much in better circumstances; and it is this improvement in the -general circumstances of the community which lends support to individual -branches of industry. - -Pardon my dwelling a little longer on this view of the subject; for my -great anxiety is to see you all ranged on the side of liberty. - -Suppose that the capital employed in manufactures yields 5 per cent, -profit. But Mondor has an establishment in which he employs L100,000, -at a loss, instead of a profit, of 5 per cent. Between the loss and -the gain supposed there is a difference of L10,000. What takes place? A -small tax of L10,000 is coolly levied from the public, and handed over -to Mondor. You don't see it, for the thing is skilfully disguised. It -is not the tax-gatherer who waits upon you to demand your share of this -burden; but you pay it to Mondor, the ironmaster, every time that you -purchase your trowels, hatchets, and planes. Then they tell you that -unless you pay this tax, Mondor will not be able to give employment; and -his workmen, James and John, must go without work. And yet, if they -gave up the tax, it would enable you to find employment for one another, -independently of Mondor. - -And then, with a little patience, after this smooth pillow of protection -has been taken from under his head, Mondor, you may depend upon it, will -set his wits to work, and contrive to convert his loss into a profit, -and James and John will not be sent away, in which case there will be -profit for everybody. - -You may still rejoin, "We allow that, after the reform, there will be -more employment, upon the whole, than before; in the meantime, James and -John are starving." - -To which I reply: - -1st, That when labour is only displaced, to be augmented, a man who has -a head and hands is seldom left long in a state of destitution. - -2d, There is nothing to hinder the State's reserving a fund to meet, -during the transition, any temporary want of employment, in which, -however, for my own part, I do not believe. - -3d, If I do not misunderstand the workmen, they are quite prepared to -encounter any temporary suffering necessarily attendant on a transfer of -labour from one department to another, by which the community are more -likely to be benefited and have justice done them. I only wish I could -say the same thing of their employers! - -What! will it be said that because you are workmen you are for that -reason unintelligent and immoral? Your pretended friends seem to think -so. Is it not surprising that in your hearing they should discuss such -a question, talking exclusively of wages and profits without ever once -allowing the word justice to pass their lips? And yet they know that -restriction is unjust. Why have they not the courage to admit it, and -say to you, "Workmen! an iniquity prevails in this country, but it is -profitable to you, and we must maintain it." Why? because they know you -would disclaim it. - -It is not true that this injustice is profitable to you. Give me your -attention for a few moments longer, and then judge for yourselves. - -What is it that we protect in France? Things which are produced on a -great scale by rich capitalists and in large establishments, as iron, -coal, cloth, and textile fabrics; and they tell you that this is done, -not in the interest of employers, but in yours, and in order to secure -you employment. - -And yet whenever _foreign labour_ presents itself in our markets, in -such a shape that it may be injurious to you, but advantageous for your -employers, it is allowed to enter without any restriction being imposed. - -Are there not in Paris thirty thousand Germans who make clothes and -shoes? Why are they permitted to establish themselves alongside of -you while the importation of cloth is restricted? Because cloth is -manufactured in grand establishments which belong to manufacturing -legislators. But clothes are made by workmen in their own houses. -In converting wool into cloth, these gentlemen desire to have no -competition, because that is their trade; but in converting cloth into -coats, they allow it, because that is your trade. - -In making our railways, an embargo was laid on English rails, but -English workmen were brought over. Why was this? Simply because -English rails came into competition with the iron produced in our great -establishments, while the English labourers were only your rivals. - -We have no wish that German tailors and English navvies should be kept -out of France. What we ask is, that the entry of cloth and rails should -be left free. We simply demand justice and equality before the law, for -all. - -It is a mockery to tell us that customs restrictions are imposed for -your benefit. Tailors, shoemakers, carpenters, masons, blacksmiths, -shopkeepers, grocers, watchmakers, butchers, bakers, dressmakers! I defy -you all to point out a single way in which restriction is profitable to -you, and I shall point out, whenever you desire it, four ways in which -it is hurtful to you. - -And, after all, see how little foundation your journalists have for -attributing self-abnegation to the monopolists. - -I may venture to denominate the rate of wages which settles and -establishes itself naturally under a regime of freedom, the _natural -rate of wages_. When you affirm, therefore, that restriction is -profitable to you, it is tantamount to affirming that it adds an -_overplus to your natural_ wages. Now, a surplus of wages beyond the -natural rate must come from some quarter or other; it does not fall from -the skies, but comes from those who pay it. - -You are landed, then, in this conclusion by your pretended friends, that -the policy of protection has been introduced in order that the interests -of capitalists should be sacrificed to those of the workmen. - -Do you think this probable? - -Where is your place, then, in the Chamber of Peers? When did you take -your seat in the Palais Bourbon? Who has consulted you? And where did -this idea of establishing a policy of protection take its rise? - -I think I hear you answer, "It is not we who have established it. -Alas! we are neither Peers, nor Deputies, nor Councillors of State. The -capitalists have done it all." - -Verily, they must have been in a good humour that day! What! these -capitalists have made the law; they have established a policy of -prohibition for the express purpose of enabling you to profit at their -expense! - -But here is something stranger still. - -How does it come to pass that your pretended friends, who hold forth -to you on the goodness, the generosity, and the self-abnegation of -capitalists, never cease condoling with you on your being deprived of -your political rights? From their point of view, I would ask what -you could make of such rights if you had them? The capitalists have a -monopoly of legislation;--granted. By means of this monopoly, they have -adjudged themselves a monopoly of iron, of cloth, of textile fabrics, of -coal, of wood, of meat,--granted likewise. But here are your pretended -friends, who tell you that in acting thus, capitalists have impoverished -themselves, without being under any obligation to do so, in order to -enrich you who have no right to be enriched! Assuredly, if you were -electors and deputies tomorrow, you could not manage your affairs better -than they are managed for you; you could not manage them so well. - -If the industrial legislation under which you live is intended for your -profit, it is an act of perfidy to demand for you political rights; for -these new-fashioned democrats never can get quit of this dilemma--the -law made by the bourgeoisie either gives you more, or it gives you less -than your natural wages. If that law gives you less, they deceive you, -in soliciting you to maintain it. If it gives you more, they still -deceive you, by inviting you to demand political rights at the very time -when the bourgeoisie are making sacrifices for you, which, in common -honesty, you could not by your votes exact, even if you had the power. - -Workmen! I should be sorry indeed if this address should excite in your -minds feelings of irritation against the rich. If self-interest, ill -understood, or too apt to be alarmed, still maintains monopoly, let us -not forget that monopoly has its root in errors which are common to both -capitalists and labourers. - -Instead of exciting the one class against the other, let us try to bring -them together. And for that end what ought we to do? If it be true that -the natural social tendencies concur in levelling inequalities among -men, we have only to allow these tendencies to act, remove artificial -obstructions which retard their operation, and allow the relations -of the various classes of society to be established on principles of -Justice--principles always mixed up, in my mind at least, with the -principle of Liberty. - - - - -VII. A CHINESE STORY. - -We hear a great outcry against the cupidity and the egotism of the age! - -For my own part, I see the world, Paris especially, peopled with -Deciuses. - -Open the thousand volumes, the thousand newspapers of all sorts -and sizes, which the Parisian press vomits forth every day on the -country--are they not all the work of minor saints? - -How vividly they depict the vices of the times! How touching the -tenderness they display for the masses! How liberally they invite the -rich to share with the poor, if not the poor to share with the rich! -How many plans of social reforms, social ameliorations, and social -organizations! What shallow writer fails to devote himself to the -wellbeing of the working classes? We have only to contribute a few -shillings to procure them leisure to deliver themselves up to their -humane lucubrations. - -And then they declare against the egotism and individualism of our age! - -There is nothing which they do not pretend to enlist in the service -of the working classes--there is positively no exception, not even -the Customhouse. You fancy, perhaps, that the Customhouse is merely an -instrument of taxation, like the _octroi_ or the toll-bar? Nothing of -the kind. It is essentially an institution for promoting the march of -civilization, fraternity, and equality. What would you be at? It is -the fashion to introduce, or affect to introduce, sentiment and -sentimentalism everywhere, even into the toll-gatherer's booth. - -The Customhouse, we must allow, has a very singular machinery for -realizing philanthropical aspirations. - -It includes an army of directors, sub-directors, inspectors, -sub-inspectors, comptrollers, examiners, heads of departments, clerks, -supernumeraries, aspirant-supernumeraries, not to speak of the officers -of the active service; and the object of all this complicated machinery -is to exercise over the industry of the people a negative action, which -is summed up in the word obstruct. - -Observe, I do not say that the object is to tax, but to obstruct. To -prevent, not acts which are repugnant to good morals or public order, -but transactions which are in themselves not only harmless, but fitted -to maintain peace and union among nations. - -And yet the human race is so flexible and elastic that it always -surmounts these obstructions. And then we hear of the labour market -being glutted. - -If you hinder a people from obtaining its subsistence from abroad, it -will produce it at home. The labour is greater and more painful, but -subsistence must be had. If you hinder a man from traversing the valley, -he must cross the hills. The road is longer and more difficult, but he -must get to his journey's end. - -This is lamentable, but we come now to what is ludicrous. When the law -has thus created obstacles, and when, in order to overcome them, society -has diverted a corresponding amount of labour from other employments, -you are no longer permitted to demand a reform. If you point to the -obstacle, you are told of the amount of labour to which it has given -employment. And if you rejoin that this labour is not created, but -displaced, you are answered, in the words of the _Esprit Public_, "The -impoverishment alone is certain and immediate; as to our enrichment, it -is more than problematical." - -This reminds me of a Chinese story, which I shall relate to you. - -There were in China two large towns, called _Tchin_ and _Tchan_. - -A magnificent canal united them. The Emperor thought fit to order -enormous blocks of stone to be thrown into it, for the purpose of -rendering it useless. - -On seeing this, Kouang, his first mandarin, said to him: - -"Son of Heaven! this is a mistake." - -To which the Emperor replied: - -"Kouang! you talk nonsense." - -I give you only the substance of their conversation. - -At the end of three months, the Celestial Emperor sent again for the -mandarin, and said to him: - -"Kouang, behold!" - -And Kouang opened his eyes, and looked. - -And he saw at some distance from the canal a multitude of men at work. -Some were excavating, others were filling up hollows, levelling, and -paving; and the mandarin, who was very knowing, said to himself, They -are making a highway. - -When other three months had elapsed, the Emperor again sent for Kouang, -and said to him: - -"Look!" - -And Kouang looked. - -And he saw the road completed, and from one end of it to the other he -saw here and there inns for travellers erected. Crowds of pedestrians, -carts, palanquins, came and went, and innumerable Chinese, overcome -with fatigue, carried backwards and forwards heavy burdens from Tchin -to Tchan, and from Tchan to Tchin; and Kouang said to himself, It is the -destruction of the canal which gives employment to these poor people. -But the idea never struck him that their labour was simply _diverted -from other employments_. - -Three months more passed, and the Emperor said to Kouang: "Look!" - -And Kouang looked. - -And he saw that the hostelries were full of travellers, and that to -supply their wants there were grouped around them butchers' and bakers' -stalls, shops for the sale of edible birds' nests, etc. He also saw -that, the artisans having need of clothing, there had settled among them -tailors, shoemakers, and those who sold parasols and fans; and as they -could not sleep in the open air, even in the Celestial Empire, there -were also masons, carpenters, and slaters. Then there were officers of -police, judges, fakirs; in a word, a town with its faubourgs had risen -round each hostelry. - -And the Emperor asked Kouang what he thought of all this. And Kouang -said that he never could have imagined that the destruction of a canal -could have provided employment for so many people; for the thought never -struck him that this was not employment created, but _labour diverted_ -from other employments, and that men would have eaten and drank in -passing along the canal as well as in passing along the highroad. - -However, to the astonishment of the Chinese, the Son of Heaven at length -died and was buried. - -His successor sent for Kouang, and ordered him to have the canal cleared -out and restored. - -And Kouang said to the new Emperor: - -"Son of Heaven! you commit a blunder." - -And the Emperor replied: - -"Kouang, you talk nonsense." - -But Kouang persisted, and said: "Sire, what is your object?" - -"My object is to facilitate the transit of goods and passengers between -Tchin and Tchan, to render carriage less expensive, in order that the -people may have tea and clothing cheaper." - -But Kouang was ready with his answer. He had received the night before -several numbers of the Moniteur Industriel, a Chinese newspaper. Knowing -his lesson well, he asked and obtained permission to reply, and after -having prostrated himself nine times, he said: - -"Sire, your object is, by increased facility of transit, to reduce the -price of articles of consumption, and bring them within reach of the -people; and to effect that, you begin by taking away from them all the -employment to which the destruction of the canal had given rise. Sire, -in political economy, nominal cheapness-" _The Emperor_: "I believe you -are repeating by rote." _Kouang_: "True, Sire; and it will be better to -read what I have to say." So, producing the _Esprit Public_, he read -as follows: "In political economy, the nominal cheapness of articles of -consumption is only a secondary question. The problem is to establish -an equilibrium between the price of labour and that of the means of -subsistence. The abundance of labour constitutes the wealth of nations; -and the best economic system is that which supplies the people with the -greatest amount of employment. The question is not whether it is better -to pay four or eight cash for a cup of tea, or five or ten tales for -a shirt. These are puerilities unworthy of a thinking mind. Nobody -disputes your proposition. The question is whether it is better to pay -dearer for a commodity you want to buy, and have, through the abundance -of employment and the higher price of labour, the means of acquiring it; -or whether, it is better to limit the sources of employment, and with -them the mass of the national production--to transport, by improved -means of transit, the objects of consumption, cheaper, it is true, but -taking away at the same time from classes of our population the means of -purchasing these objects even at their reduced price." - -Seeing the Emperor still unconvinced, Kouang added, "Sire, deign to give -me your attention. I have still another quotation from the _Moniteur -Industriel_ to bring under your notice." - -But the Emperor said: - -"I don't require your Chinese journals to enable me to find out that to -create _obstacles_ is to divert and misapply labour. But that is not my -mission. Go and clear out the canal; and we shall reform the Customhouse -afterwards." - -And Kouang went away tearing his beard, and appealing to his God, "O Fo! -take pity on thy people; for we have now got an Emperor of the English -school, and I see clearly that in a short time we shall be in want of -everything, for we shall no longer require to do anything." - - - - -VIII. POST HOC, ERGO PROPTER HOC. - -This is the greatest and most common fallacy in reasoning. - -Real sufferings, for example, have manifested themselves in England.* - - * This was written in January 1848.--Translator. - -These sufferings come in the train of two other phenomena: - -1st, The reformed tariff; - -2d, Two bad harvests in succession. - -To which of these two last circumstances are we to attribute the first? - -The protectionists exclaim: - -It is this accursed free-trade which does all the harm. It promised us -wonderful things; we accepted it; and here are our manufactures at a -standstill, and the people suffering: _Cum hoc, ergo propter hoc_. - -Free-trade distributes in the most uniform and equitable manner the -fruits which Providence accords to human labour. If we are deprived -of part of these fruits by natural causes, such as a succession of bad -seasons, free-trade does not fail to distribute in the same manner what -remains. Men are, no doubt, not so well provided with what they want; -but are we to impute this to free-trade, or to the bad harvests? - -Liberty acts on the same principle as insurances. When an accident, like -a fire, happens, insurance spreads over a great number of men, and a -great number of years, losses which, in the absence of insurance, would -have fallen all at once upon one individual. But will any one undertake -to affirm that fire has become a greater evil since the introduction of -insurance? - -In 1842, 1843, and 1844, the reduction of taxes began in England. At the -same time the harvests were very abundant; and we are led to conclude -that these two circumstances concurred in producing the unparalleled -prosperity which England enjoyed during that period. - -In 1845, the harvest was bad; and in 1846, worse still. - -Provisions rose in price; and the people were forced to expend their -resources on first necessaries, and to limit their consumption of other -commodities. Clothing was less in demand, manufactories had less work, -and wages tended to fall. - -Fortunately, in that same year, the barriers of restriction were still -more effectually removed, and an enormous quantity of provisions reached -the English market. Had this not been so, it is nearly certain that a -formidable revolution would have taken place. - -And yet free-trade is blamed for disasters which it tended to prevent, -and in part, at least, to repair! - -A poor leper lived in solitude. Whatever he happened to touch, no -one else would touch. Obliged to pine in solitude, he led a miserable -existence. An eminent physician cured him, and now our poor hermit was -admitted to all the benefits of _free-trade, and had full liberty to -effect exchanges_. What brilliant prospects were opened to him! He -delighted in calculating the advantages which, through his restored -intercourse with his fellow-men, he was able to derive from his own -vigorous exertions. He happened to break both his arms, and was landed -in poverty and misery. The journalists who were witnesses of that misery -said, "See to what this liberty of making exchanges has reduced him! -Verily, he was less to be pitied when he lived alone." "What!" said -the physician, "do you make no allowance for his broken arms? Has that -accident nothing to do with his present unhappy state? His misfortune -arises from his having lost the use of his hands, and not from his -having been cured of his leprosy. He would have been a fitter subject -for your compassion had he been lame, and leprous into the bargain." - -_Post hoc, ergo propter hoc_. Beware of that sophism. - - - - -IX. THE PREMIUM THEFT. - -This little book of Sophisms is found to be too theoretical, scientific, -and metaphysical. Be it so. Let us try the effect of a more trivial and -hackneyed, or, if you will, a ruder style. Convinced that the public is -duped in this matter of protection, I have endeavoured to prove it. But -if outcry is preferred to argument, let us vociferate, - - "King Midas has a snout, and asses' ears."* - - * "_Auriculas asini Mida rex habet_."--Persius, sat. i. The - line as given in the text is from Dryden's translation.-- - Translator. - -A burst of plain speaking has more effect frequently than the most -polished circumlocution. You remember Oronte, and the difficulty which -the _Misanthrope_ had in convincing him of his folly.* - -Alceste. On s'expose a jouer un mauvais personnage. - -Oronte. Est-ce que vous voulez me declarer par la que j'ai tort de -vouloir.... - -Alceste. Je ne dis pas cela. - -Mais.... - -Oronte. Est-ce que j'ecris mal? - -Alceste. Je ne dis pas cela. - -Mais enfin.... - -Oronte. Mais ne puis-je savoir ce que dans mon sonnet?... - -Alceste. Franchement, il est bon a mettre au Cabinet. - -To speak plainly, Good Public! _you are robbed_. This is speaking -bluntly, but the thing is very evident. (_C'est cru, mais c'est clair_). - -The words _theft, to steal, robbery_, may appear ugly words to many -people. I ask such people, as Harpagon asks Elise,** "Is it the word or -the thing which frightens you?" - - * See Moliere's play of The Misanthrope.--Translator. - - ** See Moliere's play of Oevare.--Translator. - -"Whoever has possessed himself fraudulently of a thing which does not -belong to him is guilty of theft." (C. Pen., art. 379.) - -To steal: To take by stealth or by force. (_Dictionnaire de -l'Academie_.) - -Thief: He who exacts more than is due to him. (75.) - -Now, does the monopolist, who, by a law of his own making, obliges me to -pay him 20 francs for what I could get elsewhere for 15, not take from -me fraudulently 5 francs which belonged to me? - -Does he not take them by stealth or by force? - -Does he not exact more than is due to him? - -He takes, purloins, exacts, it may be said; but not by stealth or by -force, which are the characteristics of theft. - -When our bulletins de contributions have included in them 5 francs for -the premium which the monopolist takes, exacts, or abstracts, what can -be more stealthy for the unsuspecting? And for those who are not dupes, -and who do suspect, what savours more of force, seeing that on the first -refusal the tax-gather's bailiff is at the door? - -But let monopolists take courage. Premium thefts, tariff thefts, if they -violate equity as much as theft a l'Americaine, do not violate the law; -on the contrary, they are perpetrated according to law; and if they are -worse than common thefts, they do not come under the cognizance of _la -correctionnelle_. - -Besides, right or wrong, we are all robbed or robbers in this business. -The author of this volume might very well cry "Stop thief!" when he -buys; and with equal reason he might have that cry addressed to him when -he sells;* and if he is in a situation different from that of many of -his countrymen, the difference consists in this, that he knows that he -loses more than he gains by the game, and they don't know it. If they -knew it, the game would soon be given up. - - * Possessing some landed property, on which he lives, he - belongs to the protected class. This circumstance should - disarm criticism. It shows that if he uses hard words, they - are directed against the thing itself, and not against men's - intentions or motives. - -Nor do I boast of being the first to give the thing its right name. Adam -Smith said, sixty years ago, that "when manufacturers hold meetings, we -may be sure a plot is hatching against the pockets of the public." Can -we be surprised at this, when the public winks at it? - -Well, then, suppose a meeting of manufacturers deliberating formally, -under the title of _conseils generaux_. What takes place, and what is -resolved upon? - -Here is an abridged report of one of their meetings:-- - -"Shipowner: Our merchant shipping is at the lowest ebb. (Dissent) That -is not to be wondered at. I cannot construct ships without iron. I can -buy it in the market of the world at 10 francs; but by law the French -ironmaster forces me to pay him 15 francs, which takes 5 francs out of -my pocket. I demand liberty to purchase iron wherever I see proper. - -"Ironmaster: In the market of the world I find freights at 20 francs. By -law I am obliged to pay the French shipowner 30; he takes 10 francs out -of my pocket. He robs me, and I rob him; all quite right. - -"Statesman: The shipowner has arrived at a hasty conclusion. Let us -cultivate union as regards that which constitutes our strength. If we -give up a single point of the theory of protection, the whole theory -falls to the ground. - -"Shipowner: For us shipowners protection has been a failure. I repeat -that the merchant marine is at its lowest ebb. - -"Shipmaster: Well, let us raise the _surtaxe_, and let the shipowner who -now exacts 30 francs from the public for his freight, charge 40. - -"A Minister: The government will make all the use they can of the -beautiful mechanism of the _surtaxe_; but I fear that will not be -sufficient. - -"A Government Functionary: You are all very easily frightened. Does the -tariff alone protect you? and do you lay taxation out of account? If -the consumer is kind and benevolent, the taxpayer is not less so. Let -us heap taxes upon him, and the shipowner will be satisfied. I propose -a premium of five francs to be levied from the public taxpayers, to be -handed over to the shipbuilder for each ton of iron he shall employ. - -"Confused voices: Agreed! agreed! An agriculturist: Three francs premium -upon the hectolitre of corn for me! A manufacturer: Two francs premium -on the yard of cloth for me! etc., etc. - -"The President: This then is what we have agreed upon. Our session has -instituted a system of _premiums_, and it will be to our eternal honour. -What branch of industry can possibly henceforth be a loser, since we -have two means, and both so very simple, of converting our losses into -gains--the tariff and the premium? The sitting is adjourned." - -I really think some supernatural vision must have foreshadowed to me in -a dream the near approach of the premium (who knows but I may have -first suggested the idea to M. Dupin?) when six months ago I wrote these -words:-- - -"It appears evident to me that protection, without changing its nature -or the effects which it produces, might take the form of a direct tax, -levied by the state, and distributed in premiums of indemnification -among privileged branches of industry." - -And after comparing a protective duty to a premium, I added, "I confess -candidly my preference for the last system. It seems to me juster, more -economical, and more fair. Juster, because if society desires to make -presents to some of its members, all ought to bear the expense; -more economical, because it would save a great deal in the cost of -collection, and do away with many of the trammels with which trade is -hampered; more fair, because the public would see clearly the nature of -the operation, and act accordingly."* - - * _Sophismes Economiques_, first series, ch. v. _ante_. - -Since the occasion presents itself to us so opportunely, let us study -this system of _plunder by premium_; for all we say of it applies -equally to the system of plunder by tariff; and as the latter is a -little better concealed, the direct may help us to detect and expose -the indirect system of cheating. The mind will thus be led from what is -simple to what is more complicated. - -But it may be asked, Is there not a species of theft which is more -simple still? Undoubtedly; there is _highway robbery_, which wants only -to be legalized, and made a monopoly of, or, in the language of the -present day, _organized_. - -I have been reading what follows in a book of travels:-- - -"When we reached the kingdom of A., all branches of industry declared -themselves in a state of suffering. Agriculture groaned, manufactures -complained, trade murmured, the shipping interest grumbled, and the -government were at a loss what to do. First of all, the idea was to lay -a pretty smart tax on all the malcontents, and afterwards to divide the -proceeds among them after retaining its own quota; this would have been -on the principle of the Spanish lottery. There are a thousand of you, -and the State takes a piastre from each; then by sleight of hand, it -conveys away 250 piastres, and divides the remaining 750 in larger and -smaller proportions among the ticket-holders. The gallant Hidalgo who -gets three-fourths of a piastre, forgetting that he had contributed a -whole piastre, cannot conceal his delight, and rushes off to spend his -fifteen reals at the alehouse. This is very much the same thing as -we see taking place in France. But the government had overrated the -stupidity of the population when it endeavoured to make them accept such -a species of protection, and at length it lighted upon the following -expedient. - -"The country was covered with a network of highroads. The government -had these roads accurately measured; and then it announced to the -agriculturist, 'All that you can steal from travellers between these two -points is yours; let that serve as a _premium_ for your protection and -encouragement.' Afterwards it assigned to each manufacturer, to each -shipowner, a certain portion of road, to be made available for their -profit, according to this formula:-- - - Dono tibi et concedo Virtutem et puissantiam Yolandi, - Pillandi, - Derobandi, - Filoutandi, - Et escroqtiiindi, - Impune per totam istam Viam." - -Now it has come to pass that the natives of the kingdom of A. have -become so habituated to this system, that they take into account only -what they are enabled to steal, not what is stolen from them, being so -determined to regard pillage only from the standpoint of the thief, that -they look upon the sum total of individual thefts as a national gain, -and refuse to abandon a system of protection, without which they say no -branch of industry could support itself. - -You demur to this. It is not possible, you exclaim, that a whole people -should be led to ascribe a redundancy of wealth to mutual robbery. - -And why not? We see that this conviction pervades France, and that -we are constantly organizing and improving the system of _reciprocal -robbery_ under the respectable names of premiums and protective tariffs. - -We must not, however, be guilty of exaggeration. As regards the mode of -levying, and other collateral circumstances, the system adopted in the -kingdom of A. may be worse than ours; but we must at the same time admit -that, as regards the principle and its necessary consequences, there is -not an atom of difference between these two species of theft; which are -both organized by law for the purpose of supplementing the profits of -particular branches of industry. - -Remark also, that if _highway robbery_ presents some inconveniences in -its actual perpetration, it has likewise some advantages which we do not -find in _robbery by tariff_. - -For example, it is possible to make an equitable division among all the -producers. It is not so in the case of customs duties. The latter are -incapable of protecting certain classes of society, such as artisans, -shopkeepers, men of letters, lawyers, soldiers, labourers, etc. - -It is true that the robbery by premium assumes an infinite number of -shapes, and in this respect is not inferior to highway robbery; but, on -the other hand, it leads frequently to results so whimsical and awkward -that the natives of the kingdom of A. may well laugh at us. - -What the victim of a highway robbery loses, the thief gains, and the -articles stolen remain in the country. But under the system of robbery -by premium, what the tax exacts from the Frenchman is conferred -frequently on the Chinese, on the Hottentots, on the Caffres, etc., and -here is the way in which this takes place: - -A piece of cloth, we shall suppose, is worth 100 francs at Bordeaux. It -cannot be sold below that price without a loss. It is impossible to sell -it above that price because the competition of merchants prevents the -price rising. In these circumstances, if a Frenchman desires to have the -cloth, he must pay 100 francs, or want it. But if it is an Englishman -who wants the cloth, the government steps in, and says to the merchant, -"Sell your cloth, and we will get you 20 francs from the taxpayers." The -merchant who could not get more than 100 francs for his cloth, sells it -to the Englishman for 80. This sum, added to the 20 francs produced by -the premium theft, makes all square. This is exactly the same case as if -the taxpayers had given 20 francs to the Englishmen, upon condition of -his buying French cloth at 20 francs discount, at 20 francs below the -cost of production, at 20 francs below what it has cost ourselves. The -robbery by premium, then, has this peculiarity, that the people robbed -are resident in the country which tolerates it, while the people who -profit by the robbery are scattered over the world. - -Verily, it is marvellous that people should persist in maintaining that -_all which an individual steals from the masses is a general gain_. -Perpetual motion, the philosopher's stone, the quadrature of the circle, -are antiquated problems; but the theory of _progress by plunder_ is -still held in honour. _A priori_, we should have thought that, of all -imaginable puerilities, it was the least likely to survive. - -Some people will say, You are partisans, then, of the _laissez -passer?_--economists of the school of Smith and Say? You do not desire -the organization of labour. Yes, gentlemen, organize labour as much as -you choose, but have the goodness not to organize theft. - -Another, and a more numerous, set keep repeating, premiums, tariffs, all -that has been exaggerated. We should use them without abusing them. A -judicious liberty, combined with a moderate protection, that is -what discreet and practical men desire. Let us steer clear of fixed -principles and inflexible rules. - -This is precisely what the traveller tells us takes place in the kingdom -of A. "Highway robbery," say the sages, "is neither good nor bad in -itself; that depends upon circumstances. All we are concerned with is -to weigh things, and see our functionaries well paid for the work of -weighing. It may be that we have given too great latitude to pillage; -perhaps we have not given enough. Let us examine and balance the -accounts of each man employed in the work of pillage. To those who do -not earn enough, let us assign a larger portion of the road. To those -who gain too much, we must limit the days or months of pillage." - -Those who talk in this way gain a great reputation for moderation, -prudence, and good sense. They never aspire to the highest offices in -the state. - -Those who say, Repress all injustice, whether on a greater or a smaller -scale, suffer no dishonesty, to however small an extent, are marked down -for _ideologues_, idle dreamers, who keep repeating over and over again -the same thing. The people, moreover, find their arguments too clear, -and why should they be expected to believe what is so easily understood? - - - - -X. THE TAXGATHERER. - -Jacques Bonhomme, a Vinedresser. - -M. Lasouche, Taxgatherer. - -L.: You have secured twenty tuns of wine? - -J.: Yes; by dint of my own skill and labour. - -L.: Have the goodness to deliver up to me six of the best. - -J.: Six tuns out of twenty! Good Heaven! you are going to ruin me. And, -please, Sir, for what purpose do you intend them? - -L.: The first will be handed over to the creditors of the State. When -people have debts, the least thing they can do is to pay interest upon -them. - -J.: And what becomes of the capital? - -L.: That is too long a story to tell you at present. One part used to be -converted into cartridges, which emitted the most beautiful smoke in the -world. Another went to pay the men who had got crippled in foreign wars. -Then, when this expenditure brought invasion upon us, our polite friend, -the enemy, was unwilling to take leave of us without carrying away some -of our money as a _soutenir_, and this money had to be borrowed. - -J.: And what benefit do I derive from this now? - -L.: The satisfaction of saying-- - - Que je suis fier d'etre Francais - Quand je regarde la colonne! - -J.: And the humiliation of leaving to my heirs an estate burdened with -a perpetual rent-charge. Still, it is necessary to pay one's debts, -whatever foolish use is made of the proceeds. So much for the disposal -of one tun; but what about the five others? - -L.: One goes to support the public service, the civil list, the judges -who protect your property when your neighbour wishes wrongfully to -appropriate it, the gendarmes who protect you from robbers when you are -asleep, the cantonnier who maintains the highways, the cure who baptizes -your children, the schoolmaster who educates them, and, lastly, your -humble servant, who cannot be expected to work exactly for nothing. - -J.: All right; service for service is quite fair, and I have nothing to -say against it. I should like quite as well, no doubt, to deal directly -with the rector and the schoolmaster on my own account; but I don't -stand upon that. This accounts for the second tun--but we have still -other four to account for. - -L.: Would you consider two tuns as more than your fair contribution to -the expense of the army and navy? - -J.: Alas! that is a small affair, compared with what the two services -have cost me already, for they have deprived me of two sons whom I -dearly loved. - -L.: It is necessary to maintain the balance of power. - -J.: And would that balance not be quite as well maintained if the -European powers were to reduce their forces by one-half or three --fourths? We should preserve our children and our money. All that is -requisite is to come to a common understanding. - -L.: Yes; but they don't understand one another. - -J.: It is that which fills me with astonishment, for they suffer from it -in common. - -L.: It is partly your own doing, Jacques Bonhomme. - -J.: You are joking, Mr Taxgatherer. Have I any voice in the matter? - -L.: Whom did you vote for as deputy? - -J.: A brave general officer, who will soon be a marshal, if God spares -him. - -L.: And upon what does the gallant general live? - -J.: Upon my six tuns, I should think. - -L.: What would happen to him if he voted a reduction of the army, and of -your contingent? - -J.: Instead of being made a marshal, he would be forced to retire. - -L.: Do you understand now that you have yourself.... - -J.: Let us pass on to the fifth tun, if you please. - -L.: That goes to Algeria. - -J.: To Algeria! And yet they tell us that all the Mussulmans are -wine-haters, barbarians as they are! I have often inquired whether it -is their ignorance of claret which has made them infidels, or their -infidelity which has made them ignorant of claret. And then, what -service do they render me in return for this nectar which has cost me so -much toil? - -L.: None at all; nor is the wine destined for the Mussulman, but for -good Christians who spend their lives in Barbary. - -J.: And what service do they render me? - -L.: They make _razzias_, and suffer from them in their turn; they kill -and are killed; they are seized with dysentery and sent to the hospital; -they make harbours and roads, build villages, and people them with -Maltese, Italians, Spaniards, and Swiss, who live upon your wine; for -another supply of which, I can tell you, I will soon come back to you. - -J.: Good gracious! that is too much. I shall give you a flat refusal A -vinedresser who could be guilty of such folly would be sent to Bicetre. -To make roads over Mount Atlas--good Heavens! when I can scarcely -leave my house for want of roads! To form harbours in Barbary, when the -Garonne is silted up! To carry off my children whom I love, and send -them to torment the Kabyles! To make me pay for houses, seed, and -cattle, to be handed over to Greeks and Maltese, when we have so many -poor people to provide for at home! - -L.: The poor! Just so; they rid the country of the _trop plein_, and -prevent a redundant population. - -J.: And we are to send after them to Algeria the capital on which they -could live at home! - -L.: But then you are laying the foundations of a great empire, you -carry civilization into Africa, thus crowning your country with immortal -glory. - -J.: You are a poet, Mr Taxgatherer. I am a plain vinedresser, and I -refuse your demand. - -L.: But think, that in the course of some thousands of years, your -present advances will be recouped and repaid a hundredfold to your -descendants. The men who direct the enterprise assure us that it will be -so. - -J.: In the meantime, in order to defray the expense, they ask me first -of all for one cask of wine, then for two, then for three, and now I am -taxed by the tun! I persist in my refusal. - -L.: Your refusal comes too late. Your _representative_ has stipulated -for the whole quantity I demand. - -J.: Too true. Cursed weakness on my part! Surely, in making him my -proxy, I was guilty of a piece of folly; for what is there in common -between a general officer and a poor vinedresser? - -L.: Oh, yes; there is something in common, namely, the wine, which he -has voted to himself in your name. - -J.: You may well laugh at me, Mr Taxgatherer, for I richly deserve it. -But be reasonable. Leave me at least the sixth tun. You have already -secured payment of the interest of the debt, and provided for the civil -list and the public service, besides perpetuating the war in Africa. -What more would you have? - -L.: It is needless to higgle with me. Communicate your views to Monsieur -le General, your representative. For the present, he has voted away your -vintage. - -J.: Confound the fellow! But tell me what you intend to make of this -last cask, the best of my whole stock? Stay, taste this wine. How ripe, -mellow, and full-bodied it is! - -L.: Excellent! delicious! It will suit Mons. D., the cloth-manufacturer, -admirably. - -J.: Mons. D., the cloth-manufacturer? What do you mean? - -L.: That he will reap the benefit. - -J.: How? What? I'll be hanged if I understand you! - -L.: Don't you know that Mons. D. has set on foot a grand undertaking, -which will prove most useful to the country, but which, when everything -is taken into account, causes each year a considerable pecuniary loss? - -J.: I am sorry to hear it, but what can I do? - -L.: The Chamber has come to the conclusion that, if this state of things -continues, Mons. D. will be under the necessity of either working -more profitably, or of shutting up his manufacturing establishment -altogether. - -J.: But what have these losing speculations of Mons. D. to do with my -wine? - -L.: The Chamber has found out that, by making over to Mons. D. some wine -taken from your cellar, some corn taken from your neighbour's granaries, -some money kept off the workmen's wages, the losses of that enterprising -patriot may be converted into profits. - -J.: The recipe is as infallible as it is ingenious. But, zounds! -it is awfully iniquitous. Mons. D., forsooth, is to make up his losses -by laying hold of my wine? - -L.: Not exactly of the wine, but of its price. This is what we -denominate _premiums of encouragement_, or bounties. Don't you see the -great service you are rendering to the country? - -J.: You mean to Mons. D.? - -L.: To the country. Mons. D. assures us that his manufacture prospers -in consequence of this arrangement, and in this way he considers the -country is enriched. He said so the other day in the Chamber, of which -he is a member. - -J.: This is a wretched quibble! A speculator enters into a losing trade, -and dissipates his capital; and then he extorts from me and from my -neighbours wine and corn of sufficient value, not only to repair his -losses, but afford him a profit, and this is represented as a gain to -the country at large. - -L.: Your representative having come to this conclusion, you have nothing -more to do but to deliver up to me the six tuns of wine which I demand, -and sell the remaining fourteen tuns to the best advantage. - -J.: That is my business. - -L.: It will be unfortunate if you do not realize a large price - -J.: I will think of it. - -L.: The higher price will enable you to procure more of other things. - -J.: I am aware of that, Sir. - -L.: In the first place, if you purchase iron to renew your ploughs and -your spades, the law decrees that you must pay the ironmaster double -what the commodity is worth. - -J.: Yes, this is very consolatory. - -L.: Then you have need of coal, of butchers' meat, of cloth, of oil, of -wool, of sugar; and for each of these commodities the law makes you pay -double. - -J.: It is horrible, frightful, abominable! - -L.: Why should you indulge in complaints? You yourself, through your -representative... - -J.: Say nothing more of my representative. I am singularly represented, -it is true. But they will not impose upon me a second time. I shall be -represented by a good and honest peasant. - -L.: Bah! you will re-elect the gallant General. - -J.: Shall I re-elect him, to divide my wine among Africans and -manufacturers? - -L.: I tell you, you will re-elect him. - -J,: This is too much. I am free to re-elect him or not, as I choose. - -L.: But you will so choose. - -J.: Let him come forward again, and he will find whom he has to deal -with. - -L.: Well, we shall see. Farewell. I carry away your six tuns of wine, to -be distributed as your friend, the General, has determined. - - - - -XI. THE UTOPIAN FREE-TRADER. - -"If I were but one of His Majesty's ministers!... - -"Well, what would you do?" - -"I should begin by--by--faith, by being very much at a loss. For it is -clear I could only be a minister in consequence of having the majority -in my favour; I could only have the majority in my favour by securing -the popular suffrage; and I could attain that end, honestly at least, -only by governing in accordance with public opinion. If I should attempt -to carry out my own opinions, I should no longer have the majority; and -if I lost the favour of the majority, I should be no longer one of His -Majesty's ministers." - -"But suppose yourself already a minister, and that you experience no -opposition from the majority, what would you do?" - -"I should inquire on what side _justice_ lay." - -"And then?" - -"I should inquire on what side _utility_ lay." - -"And then?" - -"I should inquire whether justice and utility were in harmony, or ran -counter to one another." - -"And if you found they were not in harmony?" - - "Je dirais au roi Philippe: - Reprenez votre portefeuille. - La rime n'est pas riche et le style en est vieux; - Mais ne voyez-vous pas que cela vaut bien mieux, - Que ces transactions dont le bon sens murmure, - Et que l'honnetete parle la toute pure." - -"But if you found that the just and the useful were one and the same -thing?" - -"Then I should go straight forward." - -"True; but to realize utility by means of justice, a third thing is -needed." - -"What?" - -"Possibility." - -"You granted me that." - -"When?" - -"Just now." - -"How?" - -"In assuming that I had the majority on my side." - -"A most dangerous concession, I fear; for it implies that the majority -see clearly what is just, see clearly what is useful, and see clearly -that both are in perfect harmony." - -"And if they see clearly all this, good results will work themselves -out, so to speak, of their own accord." - -"You always bring me back to this, that no reform is possible apart from -the progress of general intelligence." - -"Assuming this progress, every needed reform will infallibly follow." - -"True; but this presupposed progress is a work of time. Suppose it -accomplished, what would you do? I am anxious to see you actually and -practically at work." - -"I should begin by reducing the rate of postage to a penny." - -"I have heard you speak of a halfpenny."* - - * See chap. xii. of _Sophismes_, second series, _post_. - -"Yes, but as I have other reforms in view, I should proceed prudently, -in the first instance, to avoid any risk of a deficit." - -"Fine prudence, to be sure! You have already landed yourself in a -deficit of 30 millions of francs." - -"Then I should reduce the salt-tax to 10 francs." - -"Good. Then you land yourself in a deficit of other thirty millions. You -have doubtless invented a new tax?" - -"Heaven forbid! And besides, I do not flatter myself with possessing an -inventive genius." - -"It will be very necessary, however.... Ah! I see. What was I thinking -of? You intend simply to reduce the expenditure. I did not think of -that." - -"You are not singular. I shall come to that; but for the present, that -is not the resource on which I depend." - -"What! you are to diminish the revenue without reducing the expenditure, -and withal avoid a deficit!" - -"Yes; by diminishing other taxes at the same time." - -(Here the interlocutor, raising the forefinger of the right hand to his -forehead, tossed his head, as if beating about for ideas.) - -"By my faith! a most ingenious process. I pay over 100 francs to the -Treasury; you relieve me to the extent of 5 francs upon salt, and 5 -francs upon postages; and in order that the Treasury may still receive -100 francs, you relieve me to the extent of 10 francs on some other -tax." - -"Exactly; I see you understand what I mean." - -"The thing seems so strange that I am not quite sure that I even heard -you distinctly." - -"I repeat, I balance one _degrevement_ by another." - -"Well, I happen to have a few minutes to spare, and I should like much -to hear you explain this paradox." - -"Here is the whole mystery. I know a tax which costs the taxpayer 20 -francs, and of which not one farthing ever reaches the Treasury. I -relieve you of one-half, and I see that the other half finds its way to -the _Hotel des Finances_." - -"Truly you are an unrivalled financier. And what tax, pray, do I pay -which does not reach the Treasury?" - -"How much does this coat cost you?" - -"100 francs." - -"And if you procured the cloth from Verviers, how much would it cost -you?" - -"80 francs." - -"Why, then, did you not order it from Verviers?" - -"Because that is forbidden." - -"And why is it forbidden?" - -"In order that the coat may cost 100 instead of 80 francs." - -"This prohibition, then, costs you 20 francs." - -"Undoubtedly." - -"And where do these 20 francs go to?" - -"Where should they go to, but into the pocket of the -cloth-manufacturer?" - -"Well, then, give me 10 francs for the Treasury, I will abrogate the -prohibition, and you will still be a gainer of 10 francs." - -"Oh! I begin to follow you. The account with the Treasury will then -stand thus: The revenue loses 5 francs upon salt, and 5 upon postages, -and gains 10 francs upon cloth. The one balances the other." - -"And your own account stands thus: You gain 5 francs upon salt, 5 francs -upon postages, and 10 francs upon cloth." - -"Total, 20 francs. I like your plan; but what comes of the poor -cloth-manufacturer?" - -"Oh! I have not lost sight of him. I manage to give him compensation -likewise by means of _degrevements_ which are profitable to the revenue; -and what I have done for you as regards cloth, I do for him as regards -wool, coals, machinery, etc., so that he is enabled to reduce his price -without being a loser." - -"But are you sure that the one will balance the other?" - -"The balance will be in his favour. The 20 francs which I enable you to -gain upon cloth, will be augmented by the amount I enable you to save -upon corn, meat, fuel, etc. This will amount to a large sum; and -a similar saving will be realized by each of your 35 millions of -fellow-countrymen. In this way, you will find the means of consuming -all the cloth produced at Verviers and Elbeuf. The nation will be better -clothed; that is all." - -"I shall think over it; for all this, I confess, confuses my head -somewhat." - -"After all, as regards clothing, the main consideration is to -be clothed. Your limbs are your own, and not the property of the -manufacturer. To protect them from the cold is your business and not -his! If the law takes his part against you, the law is unjust; and we -have been reasoning hitherto on the hypothesis that what is unjust is -injurious." - -"Perhaps I make too free with you; but I beg you to complete the -explanation of your financial plan." - -"I shall have a new law of Customs." - -"In two volumes folio?" - -"No, in two articles." - -"For once, then, we may dispense with repeating the famous axiom, 'No -one is supposed to be ignorant of the law'--_Nul n'est cerne ignorer la -loi_; which is a fiction. Let us see, then, your proposed tariff." - -"Here it is: - -"'Art. 1st.--All imported merchandise shall pay a duty of 5 per cent. -_ad valorem_.'" - -"Even raw materials?" - -"Except those which are destitute of value." - -"But they are all possessed of value, less or more." - -"In that case they must pay duty, less or more." - -"How do you suppose that our manufacturers can compete with foreign -manufacturers who have their raw materials free?" - -"The expenditure of the State being given, if we shut up this source of -revenue, we must open another. That will not do away with the relative -inferiority of our manufactures, and we shall have an additional staff -of officials to create and to pay for." - -"True. I reason as if the problem were to do away with taxation, and not -to substitute one tax for another. I shall think over it. What is your -second article?" - -"'Art. 2d.--All merchandise exported shall pay a duty of 5 per cent, _ad -valorem_.'" - -"Good gracious! Monsieur l'Utopiste. You are going to get yourself -pelted, and, if necessary, I myself will cast the first stone." - -"We have taken for granted that the majority are enlightened." - -"Enlightened! Can you maintain that export duties will not be onerous?" - -"All taxes are onerous; but this will be less so than others." - -"The carnival justifies many eccentricities. Please to render plausible, -if that be possible, this new paradox." - -"How much do you pay for this wine?" - -"One franc the litre." - -"How much would you have paid for it outside the barrier?" - -"Half a franc." - -"What is the reason of this difference?" - -"Ask the octroi, which has imposed a tax of half a franc upon it." - -"And who established the octroi?" - -"The Commune of Paris, to enable them to pave and light the streets." - -"It resolves itself, then, into an import duty. But if the neighbouring -communes had erected the octroi for their profit, what would have been -the consequence?" - -"I should not the less have paid one franc for wine worth half a franc, -and the other half franc would have gone to pave and light Montmartre -and the Batignoles." - -"So that, in effect, it is the consumer who pays the tax." - -"That is beyond all doubt." - -"Then, in imposing an export duty, you make the foreigner contribute to -your expenditure." - -"Pardon me, that is _unjust_." - -"Why? Before any commodity can be produced in a country, we must -presuppose as existing in that country education, security, roads, which -are all things that cost money. Why then should not the foreigner -bear the charges necessary to the production of the commodity of which -ultimately he is the consumer?" - -"That is contrary to received ideas." - -"Not in the least. The last buyer must bear the whole cost of -production, direct and indirect." - -"It is in vain that you argue on this subject. It is self-evident that -such a measure would paralyze trade, and shut all markets against us." - -"This is a mistake. If you paid this tax over and above all others, you -might be right. But if the 100 millions levied by this means relieved -the taxpayer to a corresponding extent of other burdens, you would -reappear in the foreign market with all your advantages, and even -with greater advantages, if this tax shall have given rise to less -complication and expense." - -"I shall think over it. And now that we have put salt, postages, and -customs duties on a new footing, does this end your projected reform?" - -"On the contrary, we are only beginning." - -"Pray give me some account of your other utopian schemes." - -"We have already given up 60 millions of francs on salt and postages. -The Customhouse affords compensation, but it gives also something far -more precious." - -"And what is that, if you please?" - -"International relations founded on justice, and a probability of peace -nearly equal to a certainty. I disband the army." - -"The whole army?" - -"Excepting the special arms, which will be recruited voluntarily like -all other professions. You thus see the conscription abolished." - -"Be pleased, Sir, to use the word recruitment." - -"Ah! I had forgotten; how easy it is in some countries to perpetuate and -hand down the most unpopular things by changing their names!" - -"Thus, _droits reunis_ have become _contributions indirectes_." - -"And _gendarmes_ have taken the name of _gardes municipaux_." - -"In short, you would disarm the country on the faith of a utopian -theory." - -"I said that I should disband the army--not that I would disarm the -country. On the contrary, I intend to give it invincible force." - -"And how can you give consistency to this mass of contradictions?" - -"I should call upon all citizens to take part in the service." - -"It would be well worth while to dispense with the services of some of -them, in order to enrol all." - -"You surely have not made me a minister in order to leave things as -they are. On my accession to power, I should say, like Richelieu, 'State -maxims are changed.' And my first maxim, the one I should employ as the -basis of my administration, would be this: Every citizen must prepare -for two things--to provide for his own subsistence, and to defend his -country." - -"It appears to me, at first sight, that there is some show of common -sense in what you say." - -"Consequently, I should base the law of national defence on these two -enactments: - -"'Art. 1st.--Every able-bodied citizen shall remain _sous les drapeaux_ -for four years--namely, from 21 to 25--for the purpose of receiving -military instruction.'" - -"A fine economy, truly! You disband four hundred thousand soldiers to -create ten millions." - -"Listen to my second article: - -"'Art. 2d.--Unless it is proved that at 21 years of age he knows -perfectly the platoon drill.'" - -"Nor do I stop here. It is certain that in order to get quit of four -years' service, there would be a terrible emulation among our youth to -learn the _par le flanc droit and the charge en douze temps_. The idea -is whimsical." - -"It is better than that. For without bringing families to grief, without -encroaching on equality, would it not secure to the country, in a simple -and inexpensive manner, 10 millions of defenders capable of setting at -defiance all the standing armies of the world?" - -"Really, if I were not on my guard, I should end with taking a serious -interest in your conceits." - -_Utopian free-trader getting excited_. "Thank Heaven! here is my Budget -relieved of 200 millions. I suppress the octroi. I remodel indirect -contributions. I..." - -"Oh! Monsieur l'Utopiste!" - -_Utopian free-trader getting more and more excited_. "I should proclaim -freedom of worship, freedom of teaching, and new resources. I would buy -up the railways, pay off the public debtr and starve out stockjobbers." - -"Monsieur l'Utopiste!" - -"Set free from a multiplicity of cares, I should concentrate all -the powers of government in the repression of fraud, and in the -administration of prompt and cheap justice; I.... - -"Monsieur l'Utopiste, you undertake too many things; the nation will not -support you!" - -"You have granted me a majority." - -"I withdraw it." - -"Be it so. Then I am no longer a minister, and my projects will continue -to be what they were--_Utopias_." - - - - -XII. THE SALT-TAX, RATES OF POSTAGE, AND CUSTOMHOUSE DUTIES. - -We expected some time ago to see our representative machinery produce -an article quite new, the manufacture of which had not as yet been -attempted--namely, _the relief of the taxpayer_. - -All was expectation. The experiment was interesting, as well as new. The -motion of the machine disturbed nobody. In this respect, its performance -was admirable, no matter at what time, in what place, or under what -circumstances it was set agoing. - -But as regarded those reforms which were to simplify, equalize, and -lighten the public burdens, no one has yet been able to find out what -has been accomplished. - -It was said: You shall soon see; wait a little; this popular result -involves the labours of four sessions. The year 1842 gave us railways; -1846 is to give us the reduction of the salt-tax and of the rates of -postage; in 1850 we are to have a reformation of the tariff and of -indirect taxation. The fourth session is to be the jubilee of the -taxpayer. - -Men were full of hope, for everything seemed to favour the experiment. -The _Moniteur_ had announced that the revenue would go on increasing -every quarter, and what better use could be made of these unlooked-for -returns than to give the villager a little more salt to his _eau tiede_, -and an additional letter now and then from the battle-field, where his -son was risking his life? - -But what has happened? Like the two preparations of sugar which are said -to hinder each other from crystallizing, or the Kilkenny cats, which -fought so desperately that nothing remained of them but their tails, the -two promised reforms have swallowed up each other. Nothing remains of -them but the tails; that is to say, we have _projets de lois, exposes -des motifs_, reports, statistical returns, and schedules, in which we -have the comfort of seeing our sufferings philanthropically appreciated -and homeopathically reckoned up. But as to the reforms themselves, they -have not crystallized. Nothing has come out of the crucible, and the -experiment has been a failure. - -The chemists will by-and-by come before the jury and explain the causes -of the breakdown. - -One will say, "I proposed a postal reform; but the Chamber wished first -of all to rid us of the salt-tax, and I gave it up." - -Another will say, "I voted for doing away with the salt-tax, but the -Minister had proposed a postal reform, and my vote went for nothing." - -And the jury, finding these reasons satisfactory, will begin the -experiment of new on the same data, and remit the work to the same -chemists. - -This proves that it would be well for us, notwithstanding the sources -from which it is derived, to adopt the practice introduced half a -century ago on the other side of the Channel, of prosecuting only one -reform at a time. It is slow, it is wearisome; but it leads to some -result. - -Here we have a dozen reforms on the anvil at the same time. They hustle -one another, like the ghosts at the Gate of Oblivion, where no one -enters. - - "Ohime! che lasso I - Una a la volta, per carita." - -Here is what Jacques Bonhomme said, in a dialogue with John Bull, and it -is worth being reported:-- - -Jacques Bonhomme, John Bull. - -Jacques Bonhomme: Oh! who will deliver me from this hurricane of -reforms? My head is in a whirl. A new one seems to be invented every -day: university reform, financial reform, sanitary reform, parliamentary -reform, electoral reform, commercial reform, social reform, and, last of -all, comes postal reform! - -John Bull: As regards the last, it is so easy and so useful, as we have -found by experience, that I venture to give you some advice upon the -subject. - -Jacques: We are told that postal reform has turned out ill in England, -and that the Exchequer has lost half a million. - -John: And has benefited the public by ten times that sum. - -Jacques: No doubt of that. - -John: We have every sign by which the public satisfaction can be -testified. The nation, following the lead of Sir Robert Peel and -Lord John Russell, have given Rowland Hill, in true British fashion, -substantial marks of the public gratitude. Even the poorer classes -testify their satisfaction by sealing their letters with wafers bearing -this inscription: "Public gratitude for postal reform." The leaders -of the Anti-Corn-Law League have proclaimed aloud in their place in -Parliament that without cheap postage thirty years would have been -required to accomplish their great undertaking, which had for object the -removal of duties on the food of the poor. The officers of the Board of -Trade have declared it unfortunate that the English coin does not admit -of a still greater reduction! What more proofs would you have? - -Jacques: But the Treasury? - -John: Do not the Treasury and the public sail in the same boat? - -Jacques: Not quite. And then, is it quite clear that our postal system -has need to be reformed? - -John: That is the question. Let us see how matters now stand. What is -done with the letters that are put into the post-office? - -Jacques: The routine is very simple. The postmaster opens the letter-box -at a certain hour, and takes out of it, say, a hundred letters. - -John: And then? - -Jacques: Then he inspects them one by one. With a geographical table -before him, and a letter-weigher in his hand, he assigns each letter to -its proper category, according to weight and distance. There are only -eleven postal zones or districts, and as many degrees of weight. - -John: That constitutes simply 121 combinations for each letter. - -Jacques: Yes; and we must double that number, because the letter may, or -may not, belong to the _service rural_. - -John: There are, then, 24,200 things to be inquired into with reference -to every hundred letters. And how does the postmaster then proceed? - -Jacques: He marks the weight on one corner of the letter, and the -postage in the middle of the address, by a hieroglyphic agreed upon at -headquarters. - -John: And then? - -Jacques: He stamps the letters, and arranges them in ten parcels -corresponding with the other post-offices with which he is in -communication. He adds up the total postages of the ten parcels. - -John: And then? - -Jacques: Then he enters the ten sums in a register, with counterfoils. - -John: And then? - -Jacques: Then he writes a letter to each of his ten correspondent -postmasters, telling them with what sums he debits them. - -John: And if the letters are prepaid? - -Jacques: Then, I grant you, the service becomes somewhat complicated. -He must in that case receive the letter, weigh it, and consign it to its -proper category as before, receive payment and give change, select the -appropriate stamp among thirty others, mark on the letter its number, -weight, and postage; transcribe the full address, first in one register, -then in a second, then in a third, then on a detached slip; wrap up the -letter in the slip; send the whole, well secured by a string, to the -correspondent postmaster; and enter each of these details in a -dozen columns, selected from fifty other columns, which indicate the -letter-bag in which prepaid letters are put. - -John: And all this for forty centimes (4d.)! - -Jacques: Yes, on an average. - -John: I see now that the despatch of letters is simple enough. Let us -see now what takes place on their arrival. - -Jacques: The postmaster opens the post-bag. - -John: And then? - -Jacques: He reads the ten invoices of his correspondents. - -John: And after that? - -Jacques: He compares the totals of the invoices with the totals brought -out by each of the ten parcels of letters. - -John: And after that? - -Jacques: He brings the whole to a grand total to find out with what sum, -_en bloc_, he is to debit each letter-carrier. - -John: And after that? - -Jacques: After that, with a table of distances and letter-weigher in -hand, he verifies or rectifies the postage of each letter. - -John: And after that? - -Jacques: He enters in register after register, and in column after -column, the greater or less results he has found. - -John: And after that? - -Jacques: He puts himself in communication with the ten postmasters, his -correspondents, to advise them of errors of 10 or 20 centimes (a penny -or twopence). - -John: And then? - -Jacques: He collects and arranges all the letters he has received, to -hand them to the postman. - -John: And after that? - -Jacques: He states the total postages that each postman is charged with. - -John: And after that? - -Jacques: The postman verifies, or discusses, the signification of the -hieroglyphics. The postman finally advances the amount, and sets out. - -John: Go on. - -Jacques: The postman goes to the party to whom a letter is addressed, -and knocks at the door. A servant opens. There are six letters for -that address. The postages are added up, separately at first, then -altogether. They amount to 2 francs 70 centimes (2s. 3d.). - -John: Go on. - -Jacques: The servant goes in search of his master. The latter proceeds -to verify the hieroglyphics. He mistakes the threes for twos and the -nines for fours. He has doubts about the weights and distances. In -short, he has to ask the postman to walk upstairs, and on the way he -tries to find out the signatures of the letters, thinking it may be -prudent to refuse some of them. - -John: Go on. - -Jacques: The postman when he has got upstairs pleads the cause of -the post-office. They argue, they examine, they weigh, they calculate -distances--at length the party agrees to receive five of the letters, -and refuses one. - -John: Go on. - -Jacques: What remains is to pay the postage. The servant is sent to the -grocer for change. After a delay of twenty minutes he returns, and -the postman is at length set free, and rushes from door to door, to go -through the same ceremony at each. - -John: Go on. - -Jacques: He returns to the post-office. He counts and recounts with the -postmaster. He returns the letters refused, and gets repayment of -his advances for these. He reports the objections of the parties with -reference to weight and distance. - -John: Go on. - -Jacques: The postmaster has to refer to the registers, letter-bags, and -special slips, in order to make up an account of the letters which have -been refused. - -John: Go on, if you please. - -Jacques: I am thankful I am not a postmaster. We now come to accounts in -dozens and scores at the end of the month; to contrivances invented not -only to establish, but to check and control a minute responsibility, -involving a total of 50 millions of francs, made up of postages -amounting on an average to 43 centimes each (less than 4d.), and of -116 millions of letters, each of which may belong to one or other of 242 -categories. - -John: A very complicated simplicity truly! The man who has resolved this -problem must have a hundred times more genius than your Mons. Piron or -our Rowland Hill. - -Jacques: Well, you seem to laugh at our system. Would you explain yours -to me? - -John: In England, the government causes to be sold all over the country, -wherever it is judged useful, stamps, envelopes, and covers at a penny -apiece. - -Jacques: And after that? - -John: You write your letter, fold it, put it in the envelope, and throw -it into the post-office. - -Jacques: And after that? - -John: "After that"--why, that is the whole affair. We have nothing to do -with distances, bulletins, registers, control, or accounting; we have -no money to give or to receive, and no concern with hieroglyphics, -discussions, interpretations, etc., etc. - -Jacques: Truly this is very simple. But is it not too much so? An infant -might understand it. But such reforms as you describe stifle the genius -of great administrators. For my own part, I stick to the French mode -of going to work. And then your _uniform rate_ has the greatest of all -faults. It is unjust. - -John: How so? - -Jacques: Because it is unjust to charge as much for a letter addressed -to the immediate neighbourhood, as for one which you carry three hundred -miles. - -John: At all events you will allow that the injustice goes no further -than to the extent of a penny. - -Jacques: No matter--it is still injustice. - -John: Besides, the injustice, which at the outside cannot extend beyond -a penny in any particular case, disappears when you take into account -the entire correspondence of any individual citizen who sends his -letters sometimes to a great distance and sometimes to places in the -immediate vicinity. - -Jacques: I adhere to my opinion. The injustice is lessened--infinitely -lessened, if you will; it is inappreciable, infinitesimal, homoeopathic; -but it exists. - -John: Does your government make you pay dearer for an ounce of tobacco -which you buy in the Rue de Clichy than for the same quantity retailed -on the Quai d'Orsay? - -Jacques: What connexion is there between the two subjects of comparison? - -John: In the one case as in the other, the cost of transport must be -taken into account. Mathematically, it would be just that each pinch of -snuff should be dearer in the Rue de Clichy than on the Quai d'Orsay by -the millionth part of a farthing. - -Jacques: True; I don't dispute that it may be so. - -John: Let me add, that your postal system is just only in appearance. -Two houses stand side by side, but one of them happens to be within, -and the other just outside, the zone or postal district. The one pays a -penny more than the other, just equal to the entire postage in England. -You see, then, that with you injustice is committed on a much greater -scale than with us. - -Jacques: That is so. My objection does not amount to much; but the loss -of revenue still remains to be taken into account. - -Here I ceased to listen to the two interlocutors. It turned out, -however, that Jacques Bonhomme was entirely converted; for some days -afterwards, the Report of M. Vuitry having made its appearance, Jacques -wrote the following letter to that honourable legislator:-- - -"J. Bonhomme to M. de Vuitry, Deputy, Reporter of the Commission charged -to examine the _projet de loi_ relative to the Postage of Letters. - -"Monsieur,--Although I am not ignorant of the extreme discredit into -which one falls by making oneself the advocate of an absolute theory, I -think it my duty not to abandon the cause of a uniform rate of postage, -reduced to simple remuneration for the service actually rendered. - -"My addressing myself to you will no doubt be regarded as a good joke. -On the one side appears a heated brain, a closet-reformer, who talks -of overturning an entire system all at once and without any gradual -transition; a dreamer, who has never, perhaps, cast his eye on that mass -of laws, ordinances, tables, schedules, and statistical details which -accompany your report,--in a word, a theorist. On the other appears a -grave, prudent, moderate-minded legislator, who has weighed, compared, -and shown due respect for the various interests involved, who has -rejected all systems, or, which comes to the same thing, has constructed -a system of his own, borrowed from all the others. The issue of such a -struggle cannot be doubtful. - -"Nevertheless, as long as the question is pending, every one has a right -to state his opinions. I know that mine are sufficiently decided to -expose me to ridicule. All I can expect from the reader of this letter -is not to throw ridicule away (if, indeed, there be room for ridicule), -before, in place of after, having heard my reasons. - -"For I, too, can appeal to experience. A great people has made the -experiment. What has been the result? We cannot deny that that people is -knowing in such matters, and that its opinion is entitled to weight. - -"Very well, there is not a man in England whose voice is not in favour -of postal reform. Witness the subscription which has been opened for a -testimonial to Mr Rowland Hill. Witness the manner in which John Bull -testifies his gratitude. Witness the oft-repeated declaration of the -Anti-Corn-Law League: - -'Without the penny postage we should never have had developed that -public opinion which has overturned the system of protection." All -this is confirmed by what we read in a work emanating from an official -source:-- - -"' The rates of postage should be regulated, not with a view to revenue, -but for the sole purpose of covering the expense.' - -"To which Mr Macgregor adds:-- - -"'It is true that the rate having come down to our smallest coin, we -cannot lower it further, although it does yield some revenue. But this -source of revenue, which will go on constantly increasing, must be -employed to improve the service, and to develop our system of mail -steamers all over the world.' - -"This brings me to examine the leading idea of the commission, which -is, on the other hand, that the rate of postage should be a source of -revenue to government. - -"This idea runs through your entire report, and I allow that, under -the influence of this prejudice, you could arrive at nothing great or -comprehensive, and you are fortunate if, in trying to reconcile the two -systems, you have not fallen into the errors and drawbacks of both. - -"The first question we have to consider is this: Is the correspondence -which passes between individual citizens a proper subject of taxation? - -"I shall not fall back on abstract principles, or remind you that the -very essence of society being the communication of ideas, the object -of every government, should be to facilitate and not impede this -communication. - -"Let us look to actual facts. - -"The total length of our highways and departmental and country roads -extends to a million of kilometres (625,000 miles). Supposing that each -has cost 100,000 francs (L4000), this makes a capital of 100 milliards -(L4,000,000,000) expended by the State to facilitate the transport of -passengers and goods. - -"Now, put the question, if one of your honourable colleagues asked leave -of the Chamber to bring in a bill thus conceived: - -"'From and after 1st January next, the Government will levy upon all -travellers a tax sufficient not only to cover the expense of maintaining -the highways, but to bring back to the Exchequer four or five times the -amount of that expense.... - -"Would you not feel such a proposal to be anti-social and monstrous? - -"How is it that this consideration of profits, nay, of simple -remuneration, never presents itself to our minds when the question -regards the circulation of commodities, and yet appears so natural when -the question regards the circulation of ideas? - -"Perhaps it is the result of habit. If we had a postal system to create, -it would most assuredly appear monstrous to establish it on a principle -of revenue. - -"And yet remark that oppression is more glaring in this case than in the -other. - -"When Government has opened a new road it forces no one to make use of -it (It would do so undoubtedly if the use of the road were taxed.) But -while the Post-office regulations continue to be enforced, no one can -send a letter through any other channel, were it to his own mother. - -"The rate of postage, then, in principle, ought to be remunerative, and, -for the same reason, uniform. - -"If we set out with this idea, what marvellous beauty, facility, and -simplicity does not the reform I am advocating present! - -"Here is the whole thing nearly put into the form of a law. - -"'Article 1. From and after 1st January next there will be exposed to -sale, in every place where the Government judges it expedient, stamped -envelopes and covers, at the price of a halfpenny or a penny. - -"'2. Every letter put into one of these envelopes, and not exceeding the -weight of half an ounce, every newspaper or print put into one of these -covers, and not exceeding the weight of... will be transmitted, and -delivered without cost at its address. - -"'3. All Post-office accounting is entirely suppressed. - -"'4. All pains and penalties with reference to the conveyance of letters -are abolished.' - -"That is very simple, I admit--much too simple; and I anticipate a host -of objections. - -"That the system I propose may be attended with drawbacks is not the -question; but whether yours is not attended with more. - -"In sober earnest, can the two (except as regards revenue) be put in -comparison for a moment? - -"Examine both. Compare them as regards facility, convenience, despatch, -simplicity, order, economy, justice, equality, multiplication of -transactions, public satisfaction, moral and intellectual development, -civilizing tendency; and tell me honestly if it is possible to hesitate -a moment. - -"I shall not stop to enlarge on each of these considerations--I give you -the headings of twelve chapters, which I leave blank, persuaded that no -one can fill them up better than yourself. - -"But since there is one objection--namely, revenue--I must say a word on -that head. - -"You have constructed a table in order to show that even at twopence the -revenue would suffer a loss of L880,000. - -"At a penny, the loss Would be L1,120,000, and at a halfpenny, of -L1,320,000; hypotheses so frightful that you do not even formulate them -in detail. - -"But allow me to say that the figures in your report dance about with a -little too much freedom. In all your tables, in all your calculations, -you have the tacit reservation of _coteris paribus_. You assume that the -cost will be the same under a simple as under a complicated system of -administration--the same number of letters with the present average -postage of 4 1/2d. as with the uniform rate of twopence. You confine -yourself to this rule of three: if 87 millions of letters at 4d. yield -so much, then at 2d. the same number will yield so much; admitting, -nevertheless, certain distinctions when they militate against our -proposed reform. - -"In order to estimate the real sacrifice of revenue, we must, first of -all, calculate the economy in the service which will be effected; then -in what proportion the amount of correspondence will be augmented. We -take this last datum solely into account, because we cannot suppose -that the saving of cost which will be realized will not be met by an -increased personnel rendered necessary by a more extended service. - -"Undoubtedly, it is impossible to fix the exact amount of increase in -the circulation of letters which the reduction of postage would cause, -but in such matters a reasonable analogy has always been admitted. - -"You yourself admit that in England a reduction of seven-eighths in the -rate has caused an increase of correspondence to the extent of 360 per -cent. - -"Here, the lowering to 5 centimes (a halfpenny) of the rate which is at -present at an average of something less than 4 1/2d., would constitute -likewise a reduction of seven-eighths. We may therefore be allowed to -expect the same result--that is to say, 417 millions of letters, in -place of 116 millions. - -"But let us count on 300 millions. - -"Is there any exaggeration in assuming that with a rate of postage one -half less, we shall reach an average of 8 letters to each inhabitant -when in England they have reached 13. - -Now 300 millions of letters, at 5 centimes, give, 15 - -100 millions of journals and prints, at 5 centimes, give 5 - -The present expense (which may diminish) is. - -31 Deducting for mail steamers,....5 - -There remains for despatches, travellers, and money parcels,....26 - -Net product,......2 - -At present the net product is.....19 - -"Now I ask whether the Government, which makes a positive sacrifice -of 800 millions (L32,000,000) per annum in order to facilitate the -gratuitous transport of passengers, should not make a negative sacrifice -of 17 millions, in order not to make a gain upon the transmission and -circulation of ideas? - -"But the Treasury, I am aware, has its own habits, and with whatever -complacence it sees its receipts increase, it feels proportional -disappointment in seeing them diminished by a single farthing. It seems -to be provided with those admirable valves which in the human frame -allow the blood to flow in one direction, but prevent its return. Be it -so. The Treasury is perhaps a little too old for us to quicken its pace. -We have no hope, therefore, that it will give in to us. But what will -be said if I, Jacques Bonhomme, show it a way which is simple, easy, -convenient, and essentially practical, of doing a great service to the -country without its costing a single farthing? - -"The Post-office yields a gross return to the Treasury of.....50 -millions - -Total yield of these three services, 280 millions. - -"Now, bring down postages to the uniform rate of 5 centimes (a -halfpenny). - -"Lower the salt-tax to 10 francs (8s.) the hundredweight, as the Chamber -has already voted. - -"Give me power to modify the customs tariff in such a way that I shall -be peremptorily prohibited from increasing any duty, but that I may -lower duties at pleasure. - -"And I, Jacques Bonhomme, guarantee you a revenue, not of 280 millions, -but of 300 millions. Two hundred French bankers will be my sureties, -and all I ask for my reward is as much as these three taxes will produce -over and above 300 millions. - -"Is it necessary for me to enumerate the advantages of my proposal? - -"1. The people will receive all the advantage resulting from cheapness -in the price of an article of the first necessity--salt. - -"2. Fathers will be able to write to their sons, and mothers to their -daughters. Nor will men's affections and sentiments, and the endearments -of love and friendship, be stemmed and driven back into their hearts, as -at present, by the hand of the tax-gatherer. - -"3. To carry a letter from one friend to another will no longer be -inscribed in our code as a crime. - -"4. Trade will revive with liberty, and our merchant shipping will -recover from its humiliation. - -"5. The Treasury will gain at first twenty millions, afterwards it will -gain all that shall accrue to the revenue from other sources through the -saving realized by each citizen on salt, postages, and other things, the -duties on which have been lowered. - -"If my proposal is rejected, what am I to conclude? Provided the bankers -I represent offer sufficient security, under what pretext can my -proposal be refused acceptance? It is impossible to invoke the -equilibrium of budgets. It would indeed be upset, but upset in such a -way that the receipts should exceed the expenses. This is no affair of -theory, of system, of statistics, of probability, of conjecture; it is -an offer, an offer like that of a company which solicits the concession -of a line of railway. The Treasury tells me what it derives from -postages, salt-tax, and customs. I offer to give it more. The objection, -then, cannot come from the Treasury. I offer to reduce the tariff of -salt, postages, and customs; I engage not to raise it; the objection, -then, cannot come from the taxpayers. From whom does it come, then? -From monopolists? It remains to be seen whether their voice shall be -permitted in France to drown the voice of the Government and the people. -To assure us of this, I beg you to transmit my proposal to the Council -of Ministers. Jacques Bonhomme. - -"P.S.--Here is the text of my offer:-- - -"I, Jacques Bonhomme, representing a company of bankers and capitalists, -ready to give all guarantees and deposit whatever security may be -necessary. - -"Having learnt that the Government derives only 280 millions of francs -from customs duties, postages, and salt-tax, by means of the duties at -present fixed; - -"I offer to give the Government 300 millions from the gross produce of -these three sources of revenue; - -"And this while reducing the salt-tax from 30fr. to l0fr.; - -"Reducing the rate of postage from 42 1/2 centimes, at an average, to a -uniform rate of from 5 to 10 centimes, - -"On the single condition that I am permitted not to raise (which will -be formally prohibited), but to lower as much as I please the duties of -customs. Jacques Bonhomme." - -"You are a fool," said I to Jacques Bonhomme, when he read me his -letter. "You can do nothing with moderation. The other day you cried out -against the hurricane of reforms, and here I find you demanding three, -making one of them the condition of the other two. You will ruin -yourself." - -"Be quiet," said he, "I have made all my calculations; I only wish they -may be accepted. But they will not be accepted." Upon this we parted, -our heads full, his of figures, mine of reflections which I forbear to -inflict upon the reader. - - - - -XIII. PROTECTION; OR, THE THREE CITY MAGISTRATES. Demonstration in Four -Tableaux. - -Scene I.--House of Master Peter.--Window looking out on a fine -park.--Three gentlemen seated near a good fire. - -Peter: Bravo! Nothing like a good fire after a good dinner. It does feel -so comfortable. But, alas! how many honest folks, like the Boi d'Yvetot, - - "Soufflent, faute de bois, - Dans leurs doigts." - -Miserable creatures! A charitable thought has just come into my head. -You see these fine trees; I am about to fell them, and distribute the -timber among the poor. - -Paul and John: What! gratis? - -Peter: Not exactly. My good works would soon have an end were I to -dissipate my fortune. I estimate my park as worth L1000. By cutting down -the trees I shall pocket a good sum. - -Paul: Wrong. Your wood as it stands is worth more than that of the -neighbouring forests, for it renders you services which they cannot -render. When cut down it will be only good for firewood, like any other, -and will not bring a penny more the load. - -Peter: Oh! oh! Mr Theorist, you forget that I am a practical man. My -reputation as a speculator is sufficiently well established, I believe, -to prevent me from being taken for a noodle. Do you imagine I am going -to amuse myself by selling my timber at the price of float-wood? - -Paul: It would seem so. - -Peter: Simpleton! And what if I can hinder float-wood from being brought -into Paris? - -Paul: That alters the case. But how can you manage it? - -Peter: Here is the whole secret. You know that float-wood, on entering -the city, pays 5d. the load. To-morrow, I induce the commune to raise -the duty to L4, L8, L12,--in short, sufficiently high to prevent the -entry of a single log. Now, do you follow me? If the good people are -not to die of cold, they have no alternative but to come to my woodyard. -They will bid against each other for my wood, and I will sell it for a -high price; and this act of charity, successfully carried out, will put -me in a situation to do other acts of charity. - -Paul: A fine invention, truly! It suggests to me another of the same -kind. - -John: And what is that? Is philanthropy to be again brought into play? - -Paul: How do you like this Normandy butter? - -John: Excellent. - -Paul: Hitherto I have thought it passable. But do you not find that it -takes you by the throat? I could make better butter in Paris. I shall -have four or five hundred cows, and distribute milk, butter, and cheese -among the poor. - -Peter and John: What! in charity? - -Paul: Bah! let us put charity always in the foreground. It is so fine a -figure that its very mask is a good passport. I shall give my butter to -the people, and they will give me their money. Is that what is called -selling? - -John: No; not according to the Bourgeois Gentilhomme. But, call it what -you please, you will ruin yourself. How can Paris ever compete with -Normandy in dairy produce? - -Paul: I shall be able to save the cost of carriage. - -John: Be it so. Still, while paying that cost, the Normans can beat the -Parisians. - -Paul: To give a man something at a lower price--is that what you call -beating him? - -John: It is the usual phrase; and you will always find yourself beaten. - -Paul: Yes; as Don Quixote was beaten. The blows will fall upon Sancho. -John, my friend, you forget the octroi. - -John: The octroi! What has that to do with your butter? - -Paul: To-morrow, I shall demand _protection_, and induce the commune to -prohibit butter being brought into Paris from Normandy and Brittany. The -people must then either dispense with it, or purchase mine, and at my -own price, too. - -John: Upon my honour, gentlemen, your philanthropy has quite made a -convert of me. - - "On apprend a hurler, dit l'autre, avec les loups." - -My mind is made up. I shall not be thought unworthy of my colleagues. -Peter, this sparkling fire has inflamed your soul. Paul, this butter has -lubricated the springs of your intelligence. I, too, feel stimulated by -this piece of powdered pork; and tomorrow I shall vote, and cause to -be voted, the exclusion of swine, dead and alive. That done, I shall -construct superb sheds in the heart of Paris, - - "Pour l'animal immonde aux Hebreux defendu." - -I shall become a pig-driver and pork-butcher. Let us see how the good -people of Paris can avoid coming to provide themselves at my shop. - -Peter: Softly, my good friends; if you enhance the price of butter and -salt meat to such an extent, you cut down beforehand the profit I expect -from my wood. - -Paul: And my speculation will be no longer so wondrously profitable, if -I am overcharged for my firewood and bacon. - -John: And I, what shall I gain by overcharging you for my sausages, if -you overcharge me for my faggots and bread and butter? - -Peter: Very well, don't let us quarrel Let us rather put our heads -together and make reciprocal concessions. Moreover, it is not good to -consult one's self-interest exclusively--we must exercise humanity, and -see that the people do not want fuel. - -Paul: Very right; and it is proper that the people should have butter to -their bread. - -John: Undoubtedly; and a bit of bacon for the pot. - -All: Three cheers for charity; three cheers for philanthropy; and -to-morrow we take the octroi by assault. - -Peter: Ah! I forgot. One word more; it is essential. My good friends, in -this age of egotism the world is distrustful, and the purest intentions -are often misunderstood. Paul, you take the part of pleading for the -wood; John will do the same for the butter; and I shall devote myself to -the home-bred pig. It is necessary to prevent malignant suspicions. - -Paul and John (leaving): Upon my word, that is a clever fellow. - - -Scene II.--Council Chamber. - -Paul: _Mes chers collegues_, Every day there are brought to Paris great -masses of firewood, which drain away large sums of money. At this rate, -we shall all be ruined in three years, and what will become of the -poorer classes? (Cheers) We must prohibit foreign timber. I don't speak -for myself, for all the wood I possess would not make a tooth-pick. In -what I mean to say, then, I am entirely free from any personal interest -or bias. (Hear, hear) But here is my friend Peter, who possesses a park, -and he will guarantee an adequate supply of fuel to our fellow-citizens, -who will no longer be dependent on the charcoal-burners of the Yonne. -Have you ever turned your attention to the risk which we run of dying -of cold, if the proprietors of forests abroad should take it into their -heads to send no more firewood to Paris? Let us put a prohibition, then, -on bringing in wood. By this means we shall put a stop to the draining -away of our money, create an independent interest charged with -supplying the city with firewood, and open up to workmen a new source of -employment and remuneration. (Cheers) - -John: I support the proposal of my honourable friend, the preceding -speaker, which is at once so philanthropic, and, as he himself has -explained, so entirely disinterested. It is indeed high time that we -should put an end to this insolent _laissez passer_, which has brought -immoderate competition into our markets, and to such an extent that -there is no province which possesses any special facility for providing -us with a product, be it what it may, which does not immediately -inundate us, undersell us, and bring ruin on the Parisian workman. It -is the duty of Government to equalize the conditions of production by -duties wisely adapted to each case, so as not to allow to enter from -without anything which is not dearer than in Paris, and so relieve us -from an unequal struggle. How, for example, can we possibly produce milk -and butter in Paris, with Brittany and Normandy at our door? Remember, -gentlemen, that the agriculturists of Brittany have cheaper land, a more -abundant supply of hay, and manual labour on more advantageous terms. - -Does not common sense tell us that we must equalize the conditions by -a protective octroi tariff? I demand that the duty on milk and butter -should be raised by 1000 per cent., and still higher if necessary. The -workman's breakfast will cost a little more, but see to what extent his -wages will be raised! We shall see rising around us cow-houses, dairies, -and barrel chums, and the foundations laid of new sources of industry. -Not that I have any interest in this proposition. I am not a cowfeeder, -nor have I any wish to be so. The sole motive which actuates me is a -wish to be useful to the working classes. (Applause.) - -Peter: I am delighted to see in this assembly statesmen so pure, -so enlightened, and so devoted to the best interests of the people. -(Cheers) I admire their disinterestedness, and I cannot do better than -imitate the noble example which has been set me. I give their motions -my support, and I shall only add another, for prohibiting the entry into -Paris of the pigs of Poitou. I have no desire, I assure you, to become -a pig-driver or a pork-butcher. In that case I should have made it a -matter of conscience to be silent. But is it not shameful, gentlemen, -that we should be the tributaries of the peasants of Poitou, who have -the audacity to come into our own market and take possession of a branch -of industry which we ourselves have no means of carrying on? and who, -after having inundated us with their hams and sausages, take perhaps -nothing from us in return? At all events, who will tell us that the -balance of trade is not in their favour, and that we are not obliged to -pay them a tribute in hard cash? Is it not evident that if the industry -of Poitou were transplanted to Paris, it would open up a steady demand -for Parisian labour? And then, gentlemen, is it not very possible, as M. -Lestiboudois has so well remarked, that we may be buying the salt pork -of Poitou, not with our incomes, but with our capital? Where will -that land us? Let us not suffer, then, that rivals who are at once -avaricious, greedy, and perfidious, should come here to undersell -us, and put it out of our power to provide ourselves with the same -commodities. Gentlemen, Paris has reposed in you her confidence; it is -for you to justify that confidence. The people are without employment; -it is for you to create employment for them; and if salt pork shall cost -them a somewhat higher price, we have, at least, the consciousness of -having sacrificed our own interests to those of the masses, as every -good magistrate ought to do. (Loud and long-continued cheers.) - -A Voice: I have heard much talk of the poor; but under pretext of -affording them employment, you begin by depriving them of what is more -valuable than employment itself, namely, butter, firewood, and meat. - -Peter, Paul, and John: Vote, vote! Down with Utopian dreamers, -theorists, generalizers! Vote, vote! (_The three motions are carried._) - - -Scene III.--Twenty years afterwards. - -Son: Father, make up your mind; we must leave Paris. Nobody can any -longer live there--no work, and everything dear. - -Father: You don't know, my son, how much it costs one to leave the place -where he was born. - -Son: The worst thing of all is to perish from want. - -Father: Go you, then, and search for a more hospitable country. For -myself, I will not leave the place where are the graves of your mother, -and of your brothers and sisters. I long to obtain with them that repose -which has been denied me in this city of desolation. - -Son: Courage, father; we shall find employment somewhere else--in -Poitou, or Normandy, or Brittany. It is said that all the manufactures -of Paris are being removed by degrees to these distant provinces. - -Father: And naturally so. Not being able to sell firewood and -provisions, the people of these provinces have ceased to produce them -beyond what their own wants call for. The time and capital at their -disposal are devoted to making for themselves those articles with which -we were in use to furnish them. - -Son: Just as at Paris they have given up the manufacture of elegant -dress and furniture, and betaken themselves to the planting of trees, -and the rearing of pigs and cows. Although still young, I have lived -to see vast warehouses, sumptuous quarters of the city, and quays once -teeming with life and animation on the banks of the Seine, turned into -meadows and copses. - -Father: While towns are spread over the provinces, Paris is turned into -green fields. What a deplorable revolution! And this terrible calamity -has been brought upon us by three magistrates, backed by public -ignorance. - -Son: Pray relate to me the history of this change. - -Father: It is short and simple. Under pretext of planting in Paris three -new branches of industry, and by this means giving employment to the -working classes, these men got the commune to prohibit the entry into -Paris of firewood, butter, and meat. They claimed for themselves the -right of providing for their fellow-citizens. These commodities rose at -first to exorbitant prices. No one earned enough to procure them, and -the limited number of those who could procure them spent all their -income on them, and had no longer the means of buying anything else. A -check was thus given to all other branches of industry and production, -and all the more quickly that the provinces no longer afforded a market. -Poverty, death, and emigration then began to depopulate Paris. - -Son: And when is this to stop? - -Father: When Paris has become a forest and a prairie. - -Son: The three magistrates must have made a large fortune? - -Father: At first they realized enormous profits, but at length they fell -into the common poverty. - -Son: How did that happen? - -Father: Look at that ruin. That was a magnificent man-sion-house -surrounded with a beautiful park. If Paris had continued to progress, -Master Peter would have realized more interest than his entire capital -now amounts to. - -Son: How can that be, seeing he has got rid of competition? - -Father: Competition in selling has disappeared, but competition in -buying has disappeared also, and will continue every day to disappear -more and more until Paris becomes a bare field, and until the copses of -Master Peter have no more value than the copses of an equal extent of -land in the Forest of Bondy. It is thus that monopoly, like every other -system of injustice, carries in itself its own punishment. - -Son: That appears to me not very clear, but the decadence of Paris is -an incontestable fact. Is there no means, then, of counteracting this -singular measure that Peter and his colleagues got adopted twenty years -ago? - -Father: I am going to tell you a secret. I remain in Paris on purpose. I -shall call in the people to my assistance. It rests with them to replace -the octroi on its ancient basis, and get quit of that fatal principle -which was engrafted on it, and which still vegetates there like a -parasitical fungus. - -Son: You must succeed in this at once. - -Father: On the contrary, the work will be difficult and laborious. -Peter, Paul, and John understand one another marvellously. They will do -anything rather than allow firewood, butter, and butchers' meat to -enter Paris. They have on their side the people, who see clearly the -employment which these three protected branches of industry afford. -They know well to what extent the cowfeeders and wood-merchants give -employment to labour; but they have by no means the same exact idea of -the labour which would be developed in the open air of liberty. - -Son: If that is all, you will soon enlighten them. - -Father: At your age, my son, no doubts arise. If I write, the people -will not read; for, to support their miserable existence, they have not -much time at their disposal. If I speak, the magistrates will shut -my mouth. The people, therefore, will long remain under their fatal -mistake. Political parties, whose hopes are founded on popular passions, -will set themselves, not to dissipate their prejudices, but to make -merchandise of them. I shall have to combat at one and the same time the -great men of the day, the people, and their leaders. In truth, I see a -frightful storm ready to burst over the head of the bold man who shall -venture to protest against an iniquity so deeply rooted in this country. - -Son: You will have truth and justice on your side. - -Father: And they will have force and calumny on theirs. Were I but young -again! but age and suffering have exhausted my strength. - -Son: Very well, father; what strength remains to you, devote to the -service of the country. Begin this work of enfranchisement, and leave to -me the care of finishing it. - -Scene IV.--The Agitation. - -Jacques Bonhomme: Parisians, let us insist upon a reform of the octroi -duties; let us demand that they be instantly brought down to the -former rate. Let every citizen be free to buy his firewood, butter, and -butchers' meat where he sees fit. - -The People: Vive, vive la Liberte! - -Peter: Parisians, don't allow yourselves to be seduced by that word, -liberty. What good can result from liberty to purchase if you want the -means--in other words, if you are out of employment? Can Paris produce -firewood as cheaply as the Forest of Bondy? meat as cheaply as Poitou? -butter as cheaply as Normandy? If you open your gates freely to these -rival products, what will become of the cowfeeders, woodcutters, and -pork-butchers? They cannot dispense with protection. - -The People: Vive, vive la Protection! - -Jacques Bonhomme: Protection! but who protects you workmen? Do you not -compete with one another? Let the wood-merchants, then, be subject to -competition in their turn. They ought not to have right by law to raise -the price of firewood, unless the rate of wages is also raised by law. -Are you no longer in love with equality? - -The People: Vive, vive l'Egalite! - -Peter: Don't listen to these agitators. We have, it is true, raised the -price of firewood, butchers' meat, and butter; but we have done so for -the express purpose of being enabled to give good wages to the workmen. -We are actuated by motives of charity. - -The People: Vive, vive la Charite! - -Jacques Bonhomme. Cause the rate of wages to be raised by the octroi, if -you can, or cease by the same means to raise the prices of commodities. -We Parisians ask for no charity--we demand justice. - -The People: Vive, vive la Justice! - -Peter: It is precisely the high price of commodities which will lead, -_par ricochet_, to a rise of wages. - -The People: Vive, vive la Cherte! - -Jacques Bonhomme: If butter is dear, it is not because you pay high -wages to the workmen, it is not even because you make exorbitant -profits; it is solely because Paris is ill-adapted for that branch of -industry; it is because you wish to make in the town what should be made -in the country, and in the country what should be made in the town. -The people have not more employment--only they have employment of a -different kind. They have no higher wages; while they can no longer buy -commodities as cheaply as formerly. - -The People: Vive, vive le Bon Marche! - -Peter: This man seduces you with fine words. Let us place the question -before you in all its simplicity. Is it, or is it not, true, that if we -admit firewood, meat, and butter freely or at a lower duty, our markets -will be inundated? Believe me there is no other means of preserving -ourselves from this new species of invasion but to keep the door shut, -and so maintain the prices of commodities by rendering them artificially -rare. - -Some Voices in the Crowd: Vive, vive la Rarete! - -Jacques Bonhomme: Let us bring the question to the simple test of truth. -You cannot divide among the people of Paris commodities which are not -in Paris. If there be less meat, less firewood, less butter, the share -falling to each will be smaller. Now there must be less if we prohibit -what should be allowed to enter the city. Parisians, abundance for each -of you can be secured only by general abundance. - -The People: Vive, vive l'Abondance! - -Peter: It is in vain that this man tries to persuade you that it is your -interest to be subjected to unbridled competition. - -The People: A bas, a bas la Concurrence! - -Jacques Bonhomme: It is in vain that this man tries to make you fall in -love with restriction. - -The People: A bas, a bas la Restriction! - -Peter: I declare, for my own part, if you deprive the poor cowfeeders -and pig-drivers of their daily bread, I can no longer be answerable for -public order. Workmen, distrust that man. He is the agent of perfidious -Normandy, and derives his inspiration from the provinces. He is a -traitor; down with him! (The people preserve silence.) - -Jacques Bonhomme: Parisians, what I have told you to-day, - -I told you twenty years ago, when Peter set himself to work the octroi -for his own profit and to your detriment. I am not, then, the agent of -Normandy. Hang me up, if you will, but that will not make oppression -anything else than oppression. Friends, it is not Jacques or Peter that -you must put an end to, but liberty if you fear it, or restriction if it -does you harm. - -The People: Hang nobody, and set everybody free. - - - - -XIV. SOMETHING ELSE. - -"What is restriction?" - -"It is partial prohibition." - -"What is prohibition?" - -"Absolute restriction." - -"So that what holds true of the one, holds true of the other?" - -"Yes; the difference is only one of degree. There is between them the -same relation as there is between a circle and the arc of a circle." - -"Then, if prohibition is bad, restriction cannot be good?" - -"No more than the arc can be correct if the circle is irregular." - -"What is the name which is common to restriction and prohibition?" - -"Protection." - -"What is the definitive effect of protection?" - -"To exact from men _a greater amount of labour for the same result_." - -"Why are men attached to the system of protection?" - -"Because as liberty enables us to obtain the same result with less -labour, this apparent diminution of employment frightens them." - -"Why do you say apparent?" - -"Because _all labour saved can be applied to something else_." - -"To what?" - -"That I cannot specify, nor is there any need to specify it." - -"Why?" - -"Because if the sum of satisfactions which the country at present enjoys -could be obtained with one-tenth less labour, no one can enumerate the -new enjoyments which men would desire to obtain from the labour left -disposable. One man would desire to be better clothed, another better -fed, another better educated, another better amused." - -"Explain to me the mechanism and the effects of protection." - -"That is not an easy matter. Before entering on consideration of the -more complicated cases, we must study it in a very simple one." - -"Take as simple a case as you choose." - -"You remember how Robinson Crusoe managed to make a plank when he had no -saw." - -"Yes; he felled a tree, and then, cutting the trunk right and left with -his hatchet, he reduced it to the thickness of a board." - -"And that cost him much labour?" - -"Fifteen whole days' work." - -"And what did he live on during that time?" - -"He had provisions." - -"What happened to the hatchet?" - -"It was blunted by the work." - -"Yes; but you perhaps do not know this: that at the moment when Robinson -was beginning the work he perceived a plank thrown by the tide upon the -seashore." - -"Happy accident! he of course ran to appropriate it?" - -"That was his first impulse; but he stopped short, and began to reason -thus with himself:-- - -"'If I appropriate this plank, it will cost me only the trouble of -carrying it, and the time needed to descend and remount the cliff. - -"'But if I form a plank with my hatchet, first of all, it will procure -me fifteen days' employment; then my hatchet will get blunt, which will -furnish me with the additional employment of sharpening it; then I -shall consume my stock of provisions, which will be a third source of -employment in replacing them. Now, _labour is wealth_. It is clear that -I should ruin myself by appropriating the shipwrecked plank. I must -protect my _personal labour_; and, now that I think of it, I can even -increase that labour by throwing back the other plank into the sea.'" - -"But this reasoning was absurd." - -"No doubt. It is nevertheless the reasoning of every nation which -protects itself by prohibition. It throws back the plank which is -offered it in exchange for a small amount of labour in order to exert -a greater amount of labour. It is not in the labour of the Customhouse -officials that it discovers a gain. That gain is represented by the -pains which Robinson takes to render back to the waves the gift which -they had offered him. Consider the nation as a collective being, and -you will not find between its reasoning and that of Robinson an atom of -difference." - -"Did Robinson not see that he could devote the time saved to _something -else?_" - -"What else?" - -"As long as a man has wants to satisfy and time at his disposal, there -is always something to be done. I am not bound to specify the kind of -labour he would in such a case undertake." - -"I see clearly what labour he could have escaped." - -"And I maintain that Robinson, with incredible blindness, confounded the -labour with its result, the end with the means, and I am going to prove -to you..." - -"There is no need. Here we have the system of restriction or prohibition -in its simplest form. If it appear to you absurd when so put, it is -because the two capacities of producer and consumer are in this case -mixed up in the same individual." - -"Let us pass on, therefore, to a more complicated example." - -"With all my heart. Some time afterwards, Robinson having met with -Friday, they united their labour in a common work. In the morning they -hunted for six hours, and brought home four baskets of game. In the -evening they worked in the garden for six hours, and obtained four -baskets of vegetables. - -"One day a canoe touched at the island. A good-looking foreigner -landed, and was admitted to the table of our two recluses. He tasted and -commended very much the produce of the garden, and before taking leave -of his entertainers, spoke as follows:-- - -"'Generous islanders, I inhabit a country where game is much more -plentiful than here, but where horticulture is quite unknown. It would -be an easy matter to bring you every evening four baskets of game, if -you would give me in exchange two baskets of vegetables.' - -"At these words Robinson and Friday retired to consult, and the argument -that passed is too interesting not to be reported _in extenso_. - -"Friday: What do you think of it? - -"Robinson: If we close with the proposal, we are ruined. - -"F.: Are you sure of that? Let us consider. - -"R.: The case is clear. Crushed by competition, our hunting as a branch -of industry is annihilated. - -"F.: What matters it, if we have the game? - -"R.: Theory! it will no longer be the product of our labour. - -"F.: I beg your pardon, sir; for in order to have game we must part with -vegetables. - -"R.: Then, what shall we gain? - -"F.:. The four baskets of game cost us six hours' work. The foreigner -gives us them in exchange for two baskets of vegetables, which cost us -only three hours' work. This places three hours at our disposal. - -"R.: Say, rather, which are substracted from our exertions. In this will -consist our loss. _Labour is wealth_, and if we lose a fourth part of -our time, we shall be less rich by a fourth. - -"F.: You are greatly mistaken, my good friend. We shall have as much -game, and the same quantity of vegetables, and three hours at our -disposal into the bargain. This is progress, or there is no such thing -in-the world. - -"R.: You lose yourself in generalities! What should we make of these -three hours? - -"F.: We would do _something else_. - -"R.: Ah! I understand you. You cannot come to particulars. Something -else, something else--this is easily said. - -"F.: We can fish, we can ornament our cottage, we can read the Bible. - -"R.: Utopia! Is there any certainty that we should do either the one or -the other? - -"F.: Very well, if we have no wants to satisfy we can rest. Is repose -nothing? - -"R.: But while we repose we may die of hunger. - -"F.: My dear friend, you have got into a vicious circle. I speak of -a repose which will subtract nothing from our supply of game and -vegetables. You always forget that by means of our _foreign trade_ -nine hours' labour will give us the same quantity of provisions that we -obtain at present with twelve. - -"R: It is very evident, Friday, that you have not been educated in -Europe, and that you have never read the _Moniteur Industriel_. If you -had, it would have taught you this: that all time saved is sheer loss. -The important thing is not to eat or consume, but to work. All that -we consume, if it is not the direct produce of our labour, goes for -nothing. Do you want to know whether you are rich? Never consider the -satisfactions you enjoy, but the labour you undergo. This is what -the _Moniteur Industriel_ would teach you. For myself, who have no -pretensions to be a theorist, the only thing I look at is the loss of -our hunting. - -"F.: What a strange conglomeration of ideas! but... - -"R.: I will have no buts. Moreover, there are political reasons for -rejecting the interested offers of the perfidious foreigner. - -"F.: Political reasons! - -"R.: Yes, he only makes us these offers because they are advantageous to -him. - -"F.: So much the better, since they are for our advantage likewise. - -"R.: Then by this traffic we should place ourselves in a situation of -dependence upon him. - -"F.: And he would place himself in dependence on us. We should have need -of his game, and he of our vegetables, and we should live on terms of -friendship. - -"R.: System! Do you want me to shut your mouth? - -"F.: We shall see about that. I have as yet heard no good reason. - -"R.: Suppose the foreigner learns to cultivate a garden, and that his -island should prove more fertile than ours. Do you see the consequence? - -"F.: Yes; our relations with the foreigner would cease. He would send us -no more vegetables, since he could have them at home with less labour. -He would take no more game from us, since we should have nothing to give -him in exchange, and we should then be in precisely the situation that -you wish us in now. - -"R.: Improvident savage! You don't see that after having annihilated our -hunting by inundating us with game, he would annihilate our gardening by -inundating us with vegetables. - -"F.: But this would only last till we were in a situation to give him -_something else_; that is to say, until we found something else which we -could produce with economy of labour for ourselves. - -"R. Something else, something else! You always come back to that. You -are at sea, my good friend Friday; there is nothing practical in your -views." - -"The debate was long prolonged, and, as often happens, each remained -wedded to his own opinion. But Robinson possessing a great ascendant -over Friday, his opinion prevailed, and when the foreigner arrived to -demand a reply, Robinson said to him-- - -"' Stranger, in order to induce us to accept your proposal, we must be -assured of two things: - -"' The first is, that your island is no better stocked with game than -ours, for we want to fight only with _equal weapons_. - -"' The second is, that you will lose by the bargain. For, as in every -exchange there is necessarily a gaining and a losing party, we should be -dupes, if you were not the loser. What have you got to say?' - -"' Nothing,' replied the foreigner; and, bursting out a-laugh-ing, he -regained his canoe." - -"The story would not be amiss, if Robinson were not made to argue so -very absurdly." - -"He does not argue more absurdly than the committee of the Rue -Hauteville." - -"Oh! the case is very different. Sometimes you suppose one man, and -sometimes (which comes to the same thing) two men working in company. -That does not tally with the actual state of things. The division of -labour and the intervention of merchants and money change the state of -the question very much." - -"That may complicate transactions, but does not change their nature." - -"What! you want to compare modern commerce with a system of barter." - -"Trade is nothing but a multiplicity of barters. Barter is in its own -nature identical with commerce, just as labour on a small scale is -identical with labour on a great scale, or as the law of gravitation -which moves an atom is identical with that same law of gravitation which -moves a world." - -"So, according to you, these arguments, which are so untenable in -the mouth of Robinson, are equally untenable when urged by our -protectionists." - -"Yes; only the error is better concealed under a complication of -circumstances." - -"Then, pray, let us have an example taken from the present order of -things." - -"With pleasure. In France, owing to the exigencies of climate and -habits, cloth is a useful thing. Is the essential thing to _make it_, or -to _get it?_" - -"A very sensible question, truly! In order to have it, you must make -it." - -"Not necessarily. To have it, some one must make it, that is certain; -but it is not at all necessary that the same person or the same country -which consumes it should also produce it. You have not made that stuff -which clothes you so well. France does not produce the coffee on which -our citizens breakfast." - -"But I buy my cloth, and France her coffee." - -"Exactly so; and with what?" - -"With money." - -"But neither you nor France produce the material of money." - -"We buy it." - -"With what?" - -"With our products, which are sent to Peru." - -"It is then, in fact, your labour which you exchange for cloth, and -French labour which is exchanged for coffee." - -"Undoubtedly." - -"It is not absolutely necessary, therefore, to manufacture what you -consume." - -"No; if we manufacture something else which we give in exchange." - -"In other words, France has two means of procuring a given quantity of -cloth. The first is to make it; the second is to make something else, -and to exchange this something else with the foreigner for cloth. Of -these two means, which is the best?" - -"I don't very well know." - -"Is it not that which, _for a determinate amount of labour, obtains the -greater quantity of cloth?_" - -"It seems so." - -"And which is best for a nation, to have the choice between these two -means, or that the law should prohibit one of them, on the chance of -stumbling on the better of the two?" - -"It appears to me that it is better for the nation to have the choice, -inasmuch as in such matters it invariably chooses right." - -"The law, which prohibits the importation of foreign cloth, decides, -then, that if France wishes to have cloth, she must make it in kind, -and that she is prohibited from making the something else with which she -could purchase foreign cloth." - -"True." - -"And as the law obliges us to make the cloth, and forbids our making the -something else, precisely because that something else would exact less -labour (but for which reason the law would not interfere with it) the -law virtually decrees that for a determinate amount of labour, France -shall only have one yard of cloth, when for the same amount of labour -she might have two yards, by applying that labour to something else!" -"But the question recurs, 'What else?" - -"And my question recurs, 'What does it signify?' Having the choice, she -will only make the something else to such an extent as there may be a -demand for it." - -"That is possible; but I cannot divest myself of the idea that the -foreigner will send us his cloth, and not take from us the something -else, in which case we would be entrapped. At all events, this is the -objection even from your own point of view. You allow that France could -make this something else to exchange for cloth, with a less expenditure -of labour than if she had made the cloth itself?" - -"Undoubtedly." - -"There would, then, be a certain amount of her labour rendered inert?" - -"Yes; but without her being less well provided with clothes, a little -circumstance which makes all the difference. Robinson lost sight of -this, and our protectionists either do not see it, or pretend not to -see it. The shipwrecked plank rendered fifteen days of Robinson's labour -inert, in as far as that labour was applied to making a plank, but it -did not deprive him of it. Discriminate, then, between these two kinds -of diminished labour--the diminution which has for effect privation, -and that which has for its cause satisfaction. These two things are very -different, and if you mix them up, you reason as Robinson did. In the -most complicated, as in the most simple cases, the sophism consists in -this: _Judging of the utility of labour by its duration and intensity, -and not by its results_; which gives rise to this economic policy: _To -reduce the results of labour for the purpose of augmenting its duration -and intensity_." * - - * See ch. ii. and iii. of _Sophimes_, first series; and - _Harmonies Economiques_, ch. vi. - - - - -XV. THE LITTLE ARSENAL OF THE FREE-TRADER. - -If any one tells you that there are no absolute principles, no -inflexible rules; that prohibition may be bad and yet that restriction -may be good, - -Reply: "Restriction prohibits all that it hinders from being imported.": - -If any one says that agriculture is the nursing-mother of the country, - -Reply: "What nourishes the country is not exactly agriculture, but -corn." - -If any one tells you that the basis of the food of the people is -agriculture, - -Reply: "The basis of the people's food is corn. This is the reason why -a law which gives us, by agricultural labour, two quarters of corn, when -we could have obtained four quarters without such labour, and by means -of labour applied to manufactures, is a law not for feeding, but for -starving the people." If any one remarks that restriction upon the -importation of foreign corn gives rise to a more extensive culture, and -consequently to increased home production, - -Reply: "It induces men to sow grain on comparatively barren and -ungrateful soils. To milk a cow and go on milking her, puts a little -more into the pail, for it is difficult to say when you will come to the -last drop. But that drop costs dear." - -If any one tells you that when bread is dear, the agriculturist, having -become rich, enriches the manufacturer, - -Reply: "Bread is dear when it is scarce, and then men are poor, or, if -you like it better, they become rich _starvelings_." - -If you are further told that when bread gets dearer, wages rise, Reply -by pointing out that, in April 1847, five-sixths of our workmen were -receiving charity, - -If you are told that the wages of labour should rise with the increased -price of provisions, - -Reply: "This is as much as to say that in a ship without provisions, -everybody will have as much biscuit as if the vessel were fully -victualled." - -If you are told that it is necessary to secure a good price to the man -who sells corn, - -Reply: "That in that case it is also necessary to secure good wages to -the man who buys it." - -If it is said that the proprietors, who make the laws, have raised the -price of bread, without taking thought about wages, because they know -that when bread rises, wages naturally rise, Reply: "Upon the same -principle, when the workmen come to make the laws, don't blame them -if they fix a high rate of wages without busying themselves about -protecting corn, because they know that when wages rise, provisions -naturally rise also." - -If you are asked what, then, is to be done? - -Reply: "Be just to everybody." - -If you are told that it is essential that every great country should -produce iron, - -Reply: "What is essential is, that every great country should have -iron." - -If you are told that it is indispensable that every great country should -produce cloth, - -Reply: "The indispensable thing is, that the citizens of every great -country should have cloth." - -If it be said that labour is wealth, - -Reply: "This is not true." - -And, by way of improvement, add: "Phlebotomy is not health, and the -proof of it is that bleeding is resorted to for the purpose of restoring -health." - -If it is said: "To force men to cultivate rocks, and extract an ounce -of iron from a hundredweight of ore, is to increase their labour and -consequently their wealth," - -Reply: "To force men to dig wells by prohibiting them from taking water -from the brook, is to increase their _useless labour_, but not their -wealth." - -If you are told that the sun gives you his heat and light without -remuneration, - -Reply: "So much the better for me, for it costs me nothing to see -clearly." - -And if you are answered that industry in general loses what would have -been paid for artificial light, - -Rejoin; "No; for having paid nothing to the sun, what he saves me -enables me to buy clothes, furniture, and candles." - -In the same way, if you are told that these rascally English possess -capital which is dormant, - -Reply: "So much the better for us; they will not make us pay interest -for it." - -If it is said: "These perfidious English find coal and iron in the same -pit," - -Reply: "So much the better for us; they will charge us nothing for -bringing them together." - -If you are told that the Swiss have rich pasturages, which cost little: - -Reply: "The advantage is ours, for they will demand a smaller amount -of our labour in return for giving an impetus to our agriculture, and -supplying us with provisions." - -If they tell you that the lands of the Crimea have no value, and pay no -taxes, - -Reply: "The profit is ours, who buy corn free from such charges." - -If they tell you that the serfs of Poland work without wages, - -Reply: "The misfortune is theirs and the profit is ours, since their -labour does not enter into the price of the corn which their masters -sell us." - -Finally, if they tell you that other nations have many advantages over -us, - -Reply: "By means of exchange, they are forced to allow us to participate -in these advantages." - -If they tell you that under free-trade we are about to be inundated with -bread, _bouf a la mode_, coal, and winter clothing, Reply: "In that case -we shall be neither hungry nor thirsty." - -If they ask how we are to pay for these things? - -Reply: "Don't let that disquiet you. If we are inundated, it is a sign -we have the means of paying for the inundation; and if we have not the -means of paying, we shall not be inundated." - -If any one says: I should approve of free-trade, if the foreigner, in -sending us his products, would take our products in exchange; but he -carries off our money, - -Reply: "Neither money nor coffee grows in the fields of Beauce, nor are -they turned out by the workshops of Elbeuf. So far as we are concerned, -to pay the foreigner with money is the same thing as paying him with -coffee." - -If they bid you eat butcher's meat, - -Reply: "Allow it to be imported." - -If they say to you, in the words of the _Presse_, "When one has not the -means to buy bread, he is forced to buy beef," Reply: "This is advice -quite as judicious as that given by M. Vautour to his tenant: - - "'Quand on n'a pas de quoi payer son terme, - Il faut avoir une maison a soi.'" - -If, again, they say to you, in the words of _La Presse_, "The government -should teach the people how and why they must eat beef," - -Reply: "The government has only to allow the beef to be imported, and -the most civilized people in the world will know how to use it without -being taught by a master." - -If they tell you that the government should know everything, and foresee -everything, in order to direct the people, and that the people have -simply to allow themselves to be led, Reply by asking: "Is there a state -apart from the people? is there a human foresight apart from humanity? -Archimedes might repeat every day of his life, 'With a fulcrum and lever -I can move the world;' but he never did move it, for want of a fulcrum -and lever. The lever of the state is the nation; and nothing can be more -foolish than to found so many hopes upon the state, which is simply -to take for granted the existence of collective science and foresight, -after having set out with the assumption of individual imbecility and -improvidence." - -If any one says, "I ask no favour, but only such a duty on bread and -meat as shall compensate the heavy taxes to which I am subjected; only a -small duty equal to what the taxes add to the cost price of my corn," - -Reply: "A thousand pardons; but I also pay taxes. If, then, the -protection which you vote in your own favour has the effect of burdening -me as a purchaser of corn with exactly your share of the taxes, your -modest demand amounts to nothing less than establishing this arrangement -as formulated by you: - -Seeing that the public charges are heavy, I, as a seller of corn, am -to pay nothing, and you my neighbour, as a buyer of corn, are to -pay double, viz., your own share and mine into the bargain.' Mr -Corn-merchant, my good friend, you may have force at your command, but -assuredly you have not reason on your side." - -If any one says to you, "It is, however, exceedingly hard upon me, who -pay taxes, to have to compete in my own market with the foreigner, who -pays none, - -Reply: - -"1st, In the first place, it is not your market, but our market. I who -live upon corn and pay for it, should surely be taken into account. - -"2d, Few foreigners at the present day are exempt from taxes. - -"3d, If the taxes you vote yield you in roads, canals, security, etc., -more than they cost you, you are not justified in repelling, at my -expense, the competition of foreigners, who, if they do not pay taxes, -have not the advantages you enjoy in roads, canals, and security. You -might as well say, 'I demand a compensating duty because I have finer -clothes, stronger horses, and better ploughs than the hard-working -peasant of Russia.' - -"4th, If the tax does not repay you for what it costs, don't vote it. - -"5th, In short, after having voted the tax, do you wish to get free from -it? Try to frame a law which will throw it on the foreigner. But your -tariff makes your share of it fall upon me, who have already my own -burden to bear." - -If any one says, "For the Russians free-trade is necessary to enable -them to exchange their products with advantage," (Opinion de M. Thiers -dans les Bureaux, April 1847), - -Reply: "Liberty is necessary everywhere, and for the same reason." - -If you are told, "Each country has its wants, and we must be guided by -that in what we do." (M. Thiers), - -Reply: "Each country acts thus of its own accord, if you don't throw -obstacles in the way." - -If they tell you, "We have no sheet-iron, and we must allow it to be -imported," (M. Thiers), - -Reply: "Many thanks." - -If you are told, "We have no freights for our merchant shipping. -The want of return cargoes prevents our shipping from competing with -foreigners," (M. Thiers), - -Reply: "When a country wishes to have everything produced at home, there -can be no freights either for exports or imports. It is just as absurd -to desire to have a mercantile marine under a system of prohibition, as -it would be to have carts when there is nothing to carry." - -If you are told that assuming protection to be unjust, everything has -been arranged on that footing; capital has been embarked; rights have -been acquired; and the system cannot be changed without suffering to -individuals and classes, - -Reply: "All injustice is profitable to somebody (except, perhaps, -restriction, which in the long run benefits no one). To argue from the -derangement which the cessation of injustice may occasion to the man who -profits by it, is as much as to say that a system of injustice, for no -other reason than that it has had a temporary existence, ought to exist -for ever." - - - - -XVI. THE RIGHT HAND AND THE LEFT. - -Report Addressed to the King. - -Sire, - -When we observe these free-trade advocates boldly-disseminating their -doctrines, and maintaining that the right of buying and selling is -implied in the right of property (as has been urged by M. Billault -in the true style of a special pleader), we may be permitted to feel -serious alarm as to the fate of our national labour; for what would -Frenchmen make of their heads and their hands were they left to their -own resources? - -The administration which you have honoured with your confidence has -turned its attention to this grave state of things, and has sought -in its wisdom to discover a species of _protection_ which may be -substituted for that which appears to be getting out of repute. They -propose a _law to prohibit your faithful SUBJECTS FROM USING THEIR RIGHT -HANDS_. - -Sire, we beseech you not to do us the injustice of supposing that we -have adopted lightly and without due deliberation a measure which at -first sight may appear somewhat whimsical. A profound study of the -system of protection has taught us this syllogism, upon which the whole -doctrine reposes: - -The more men work, the richer they become; - -The more difficulties there are to be overcome, the more work; - -Ergo, the more difficulties there are to be overcome, the richer they -become. - -In fact, what is protection, if it is not an ingenious application -of this reasoning--reasoning so close and conclusive as to balk the -subtlety of M. Billault himself? - -Let us personify the country, and regard it as a collective being with -thirty millions of mouths, and, as a natural consequence, with sixty -millions of hands. Here is a man who makes a French clock, which he can -exchange in Belgium for ten hundredweights of iron. But we tell him to -make the iron himself. He replies, "I cannot, it would occupy too much -of my time; I should produce only five hundredweights of iron during the -time I am occupied in making a clock." Utopian dreamer, we reply, that -is the very reason why we forbid you to make the clock, and order you to -make the iron. Don't you see we are providing employment for you? - -Sire, it cannot have escaped your sagacity that this is exactly the same -thing in effect as if we were to say to the country, "Work with your -left hand, and not with the right." - -To create obstacles in order to furnish labour with an opportunity of -developing itself, was the principle of the old system of restriction, -and it is the principle likewise of the new system which is now being -inaugurated. Sire, to regulate industry in this way is not to innovate, -but to persevere. - -As regards the efficiency of the measure, it is incontestable. It is -difficult, much more difficult than one would suppose, to do with the -left hand what we have been accustomed to do with the right. You will -be convinced of this, Sire, if you will condescend to make trial of our -system in a process which must be familiar to you; as, for example, in -shuffling a pack of cards. For this reason, we flatter ourselves that we -are opening to labour an unlimited career. - -When workmen in all departments of industry are thus confined to the use -of the left hand, we may figure to ourselves, Sire, the immense number -of people that will be wanted to supply the present consumption, -assuming it to continue invariable, as we always do when we compare two -different systems of production with one another. So prodigious a demand -for manual labour cannot fail to induce a great rise of wages, and -pauperism will disappear as if by enchantment. - -Sire, your paternal heart will rejoice to think that this new law of -ours will extend its benefits to that interesting part of the community -whose destinies engage all your solicitude. What is the present destiny -of women in France? The bolder and more hardy sex drives them insensibly -out of every department of industry. - -Formerly, they had the resource of the lottery offices. These offices -have been shut up by a pitiless philanthropy, and on what pretext? "To -save the money of the poor." Alas! the poor man never obtained for a -piece of money enjoyments as sweet and innocent as those afforded by the -mysterious urn of fortune. Deprived of all the enjoyments of life, when -he, fortnight after fortnight, put a day's wages on the _quaterne_, how -many delicious hours did he afford his family! Hope was always present -at his fireside. The garret was peopled with illusions. The wife hoped -to rival her neighbours in her style of living; the son saw himself the -drum-major of a regiment; and the daughter fancied herself led to the -altar by her betrothed. - - "C'est quelque chose encor que de faire un beau reve!" - -The lottery was the poetry of the poor, and we have lost it. - -The lottery gone, what means have we of providing for our _protegees?_ -Tobacco-shops and the post-office. - -Tobacco, all right; its use progresses, thanks to the _distinguees_ -habits, which august examples have skilfully introduced among our -fashionable youth. - -The post-office!... We shall say nothing of it, as we mean to make it -the subject of a special report. - -Except, then, the sale of tobacco, what employment remains for your -female subjects? Embroidery, network, and sewing,--melancholy resources, -which the barbarous science of mechanics goes on limiting more and more. - -But the moment your new law comes into operation, the moment right hands -are amputated or tied up, the face of everything will be changed. -Twenty times, thirty times, a greater number of embroiderers, polishers, -laundresses, seamstresses, milliners, shirtmakers, will not be -sufficient to supply the wants of the kingdom, always assuming, as -before, the consumption to be the same. - -This assumption may very likely be disputed by some cold theorists, for -dress and everything else will then be dearer. The same thing may be -said of the iron which we extract from our own mines, compared with -the iron we could obtain in exchange for our wines. This argument, -therefore, does not tell more against gaucherie than against protection, -for this very dearness is the effect and the sign of an excess of work -and exertion, which is precisely the basis upon which, in both cases, we -contend that the prosperity of the working classes is founded. - -Yes, we shall be favoured soon with a touching picture of the prosperity -of the millinery business. What movement! What activity! What life! -Every dress will occupy a hundred fingers, instead of ten. No young -woman will be idle, and we have no need, Sire, to indicate to your -perspicacity the moral consequences of this great revolution. Not only -will there be more young women employed, but each of them will earn -more, for they will be unable to supply the demand; and if competition -shall again show itself, it will not be among the seamstresses who make -the dresses, but among the fine ladies who wear them. - -You must see then, Sire, that our proposal is not only in strict -conformity with the economic traditions of the government, but is in -itself essentially moral and popular. - -To appreciate its effects, let us suppose the law passed and in -operation,--let us transport ourselves in imagination into the -future,--and assume the new system to have been in operation for -twenty years. Idleness is banished from the country; ease and concord, -contentment and morality, have, with employment, been introduced into -every family--no more poverty, no more vice. The left hand being very -visible in all work, employment will be abundant, and the remuneration -adequate. Everything is arranged on this footing, and the workshops in -consequence are full. If, in such circumstances, Sire, Utopian dreamers -were all at once to agitate for the right hand being again set free, -would they not throw the whole country into alarm? Would such a -pretended reform not overturn the whole existing state of things? Then -our system must be good, since it could not be put an end to without -universal suffering. - -And yet we confess we have the melancholy presentiment (so great is -human perversity) that some day there will be formed an association for -right-hand freedom. - -We think that already we hear the free Dexterities, assembled in the -Salle Montesquieu, holding this language:-- - -"Good people, you think yourselves richer because the use of one of -your hands has been denied you; you take account only of the additional -employment which that brings you. But consider also the high prices -which result from it, and the forced diminution of consumption. That -measure has not made capital more abundant, and capital is the fund from -which wages are paid. The streams which flow from that great reservoir -are directed towards other channels; but their volume is not enlarged; -and the ultimate effect, as far as the nation at large is concerned, is -the loss of all that wealth which millions of right hands could produce, -compared with what is now produced by an equal number of left hands. -At the risk of some inevitable derangements, then, let us form an -association, and enforce our right to work with both hands." - -Fortunately, Sire, an association has been formed in defence of -left-hand labour, and the Sinistristes will have no difficulty in -demolishing all these generalities, suppositions, abstractions, -reveries, and utopias. They have only to exhume the Moniteur Industriel -for 1846, and they will find ready-made arguments against freedom Of -trade, which refute so admirably all that has been urged in favour of -right-hand liberty that it is only necessary to substitute the one word -for the other. - -"The Parisian free-trade league has no doubt of securing the concurrence -of the workmen. But the workmen are no longer men who can be led by the -nose. They have their eyes open, and they know political economy -better than our professors. Free trade, they say, will deprive us of -employment, and labour is our wealth. With employment, with abundant -employment, the price of commodities never places them beyond our reach. -Without employment, were bread at a halfpenny a pound, the workman would -die of hunger. Now your doctrines, instead of increasing the present -amount of employment, would diminish it, that is to say, would reduce us -to poverty. - -"When there are too many commodities in the market, their price falls, -no doubt. But as wages always fall when commodities are cheap, the -result is that, instead of being in a situation to purchase more, we are -no longer able to buy anything. It is when commodities are cheap that -the workman is worst off." - -It will not be amiss for the Sinistristes to intermingle some menaces -with their theories. Here is a model for them:--"What! you desire to -substitute right-hand for left-hand labour, and thus force down, or -perhaps annihilate wages, the sole resource of the great bulk of the -nation! - -"And, at a time when a deficient harvest is imposing painful privations -on the workman, you wish to disquiet him as to his future, and render -him more accessible to bad advice, and more ready to abandon that wise -line of conduct which has hitherto distinguished him." - -After such conclusive reasoning as this, we entertain a confident hope, -Sire, that if the battle is once begun, the left hand will come off -victorious. - -Perhaps an association may be formed for the purpose of inquiring -whether the right hand and the left are not both wrong, and whether a -third hand cannot be found to conciliate everybody. - -After having depicted the Dexteristes as seduced by the apparent -liberality of a principle, the soundness of which experience has not -yet verified and the Sinistristes as maintaining the position they have -gained, they go on to say:-- - -"We deny that there is any third position which it is possible to take -up in the midst of the battle! Is it not evident that the workmen have -to defend themselves at one and the same time against those who desire -to change nothing in the present situation, because they find their -account in it, and against those who dream of an economic revolution of -which they have calculated neither the direction nor the extent?" - -We cannot, however, conceal from your Majesty that our project has a -vulnerable side; for it may be said that twenty years hence left hands -will be as skilful as right hands are at present, and that then -you could no longer trust to gaucherie for an increase of national -employment. - -To that we reply, that according to the most learned physicians the left -side of the body has a natural feebleness, which is quite reassuring as -regards the labour of the future. - -Should your Majesty consent to pass the measure now proposed, a great -principle will be established: All wealth proceeds from the intensity -of labour. It will be easy for us to extend and vary the applications of -this principle. We may decree, for example, that it shall no longer be -permissible to work but with the foot; for this is no more impossible -(as we have seen) than to extract iron from the mud of the Seine. You -see then, Sire, that the means of increasing national labour can never -fail. And after all has been tried, we have still the practically -ex-haustless resource of amputation. - -To conclude, Sire, if this report were not intended for publicity, -we should take the liberty of soliciting your attention to the great -influence which measures of this kind are calculated to confer on men -in power. But that is a matter which we must reserve for a private -audience. - - - - -XVII. DOMINATION BY LABOUR. - -"In the same way that in time of war we attain the mastery by -superiority in arms, do we not, in time of peace, arrive at domination -by superiority in labour?" - -This is a question of the highest interest at a time when no doubt seems -to be entertained that in the field of industry, as in the field of -battle, the stronger crushes the weaker. - -To arrive at this conclusion, we must have discovered between the labour -which is applied to commodities and the violence exercised upon men, a -melancholy and discouraging analogy; for why should these two kinds -of operations be thought identical in their effects, if they are -essentially different in their own nature? - -And if it be true that in industry, as in war, predominance is the -necessary result of superiority, what have we to do with progress or -with social economy, seeing that we inhabit a world where everything -has been so arranged by Providence that one and the same effect--namely, -oppression--proceeds necessarily from two opposite principles? - -With reference to England's new policy of commercial freedom, many -persons make this objection, which has, I am convinced, taken possession -of the most candid minds among us: "Is England doing anything else than -pursuing the same end by different means. Does she not always aspire at -universal supremacy? Assured of her superiority in capital and labour, -does she not invite free competition in order to stifle Continental -industry, and so put herself in a situation to reign as a sovereign, -having conquered the privilege of feeding and clothing the population -she has ruined?" - -It would not be difficult to demonstrate that these alarms are -chimerical; that our alleged inferiority is much exaggerated; that -our great branches of industry not only maintain their ground, but are -actually developed under the action of external competition, and that -the infallible effect of such competition is to bring about an increase -of general consumption, capable of absorbing both home and foreign -products. - -At present, I desire to make a direct answer to the objection, leaving -it all the advantage of the ground chosen by the objectors. Keeping out -of view for the present the special case of England and France, I shall -inquire in a general way whether, when, by its superiority in one branch -of industry, a nation comes to outrival and put down a similar branch of -industry existing among another people, the former has advanced one step -towards domination, or the latter towards dependence; in' other words, -whether both nations do not gain by the operation, and whether it is not -the nation which is outrivalled that gains the most. - -If we saw in a product nothing more than an opportunity of bestowing -labour, the alarms of the protectionists would undoubtedly be -well-founded. Were we to consider iron, for example, only in its -relations with ironmasters, we might be led to fear that the competition -of a country where it is the gratuitous gift of nature would extinguish -the furnaces of another country where both ore and fuel are scarce. - -But is this a complete view of the subject? Has iron relations only with -those who make it? Has it no relations with those who use it? Is its -sole and ultimate destination to be produced? And if it is useful, not -on account of the labour to which it gives employment, but on account -of the qualities it possesses, of the numerous purposes to which its -durability and malleability adapt it, does it not follow that the -foreigner cannot reduce its price, even so far as to render its -production at home unprofitable, without doing us more good in this last -respect, than harm in the other? - -Pray consider how many things there are which foreigners, by reason -of the natural advantages by which they are surrounded, prevent our -producing directly, and with reference to which we are placed in reality -in the hypothetical position we have been examining with reference to -iron. We produce at home neither tea, coffee, gold, nor silver. Is our -industry _en masse_ diminished in consequence? No; only in order to -create the counter-value of these imported commodities, in order to -acquire them by means of exchange, we detach from our national labour -a portion less great than would be required to produce these things -ourselves. More labour thus remains to be devoted to the procuring of -other enjoyments. We are so much the richer and so much the stronger. -All that external competition can do, even in cases where it puts an end -absolutely to a determinate branch of industry, is to economize -labour, and increase our productive power. Is this, in the case of the -foreigner, the road to domination! - -If we should find in France a gold mine, it does not follow that it -would be for our interest to work it. Nay, it is certain that the -enterprise would be neglected if each ounce of gold absorbed more of our -labour than an ounce of gold purchased abroad with cloth. In this case -we should do better to find our mines in our workshops. And what is true -of gold is true of iron. - -The illusion proceeds from our failure to see one thing, which is, that -foreign superiority never puts a stop to national industry, except under -a determinate form, and under that form only renders it superfluous by -placing at our disposal the result of the very labour thus superseded. -If men lived in diving-bells under water, and had to provide themselves -with air by means of a pump, this would be a great source of employment. -To throw obstacles in the way of such employment, as long as men were -left in this condition would be to inflict upon them a frightful injury. -But if the labour ceases because the necessity for its exertion -no longer exists, because men are placed in a medium where air is -introduced into their lungs without effort, then the loss of that -labour is not to be regretted, except in the eyes of men who obstinately -persist in seeing in labour nothing but labour in the abstract. - -It is exactly this kind of labour which machinery, commercial freedom, -progress of every kind, gradually supersedes; not useful labour, but -labour become superfluous, without object, and without result. On the -contrary, protection sets that sort of useless labour to work; it places -us again under water, to bring the air-pump into play; it forces us to -apply for gold to the inaccessible national mine, rather than to -the national workshops. All the effect is expressed by the words, -depredation of forces. - -It will be understood that I am speaking here of general effects, not -of the temporary inconvenience which is always caused by the transition -from a bad system to a good one. A momentary derangement accompanies -necessarily all progress. This may be a reason for making the transition -gently and gradually. It is no reason for putting a stop systematically -to all progress, still less for misunderstanding it. - -Industry is often represented as a struggle. That is not a true -representation of it, or only true when we confine ourselves to the -consideration of each branch of industry in its effects upon similar -branches, regarding them both in thought apart from the interests of the -rest of mankind. But there is always something else to be considered, -namely, the effects upon consumption, and upon general prosperity. - -It is an error to apply to trade, as is but too often done, phrases -which are applicable to war. - -In war the stronger overcomes the weaker. - -In industry the stronger imparts force to the weaker. This entirely does -away with the analogy. - -Let the English be as powerful and skilful as they are represented, let -them be possessed of as large an amount of capital, and have as great -a command of the two great agents of production, iron and fuel, as they -are supposed to have; all this simply means cheapness. And who gains by -the cheapness of products? The man who buys them. - -It is not in their power to annihilate any part whatever of our national -labour. All they can do is to render it superfluous in the production of -what is acquired by exchange, to furnish us with air without the aid of -the pump, to enlarge in this way our disposable forces, and so render -their alleged domination as much more impossible as their superiority -becomes more incontestable. - -Thus, by a rigorous and consoling demonstration, we arrive at this -conclusion, that labour and violence, which are so opposite in their -nature, are not less so in their effects. - -All we are called upon to do is to distinguish between labour -annihilated, and labour economized. - -To have less iron because we work less, and to have less iron although -we work less, are things not only different, but opposed to each other. -The protectionists confound them; we do not. That is all. - -We may be very certain of one thing, that if the English employ a large -amount of activity, labour, capital, intelligence, and natural forces, -it is not done for show. It is done in order to procure a multitude of -enjoyments in exchange for their products. They most certainly expect -to receive at least as much as they give. _What they produce at home is -destined to pay for what they purchase abroad_. If they inundate us with -their products, it is because they expect to be inundated with ours in -return. That being so, the best means of having much for ourselves is -to be free to choose between these two modes of acquisition, immediate -production, and mediate production. British Machiavelism cannot force us -to make a wrong choice. - -Let us give up, then, the puerility of applying to industrial -competition phrases applicable to war,--a way of speaking which is -only specious when applied to competition between two rival trades. The -moment we come to take into account the effect produced on the general -prosperity, the analogy disappears. - -In a battle, every one who is killed diminishes by so much the strength -of the army. In industry, a workshop is shut up only when what it -produced is obtained by the public from another source and in greater -abundance. Figure a state of things where for one man killed on the spot -two should rise up full of life and vigour. Were such a state of things -possible, war would no longer merit its name. - -This, however, is the distinctive character of what is so absurdly -called industrial war. - -Let the Belgians and the English lower the price of their iron ever -so much; let them, if they will, send it to us for nothing; this -might extinguish some of our blast-furnaces; but immediately, and as -a necessary consequence of this very cheapness, there would rise up a -thousand other branches of industry more profitable than the one which -had been superseded. - -We arrive, then, at the conclusion that domination by labour is -impossible, and a contradiction in terms, seeing that all superiority -which manifests itself among a people means cheapness, and tends only to -impart force to all other nations. Let us banish, then, from political -economy all terms borrowed from the military vocabulary: to fight with -equal weapons, to conquer, to crush, to stifle, to be beaten, invasion, -tribute, etc. What do such phrases mean? Squeeze them, and you obtain -nothing... Yes, you do obtain something; for from such words proceed -absurd errors, and fatal and pestilent prejudices. Such phrases tend to -arrest the fusion of nations, are inimical to their peaceful, universal, -and indissoluble alliance, and retard the progress of the human race. - -THE END. - - - - - - - - -End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of Economic Sophisms, by Frederic Bastiat - -*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK ECONOMIC SOPHISMS *** - -***** This file should be named 44145.txt or 44145.zip ***** -This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: - http://www.gutenberg.org/4/4/1/4/44145/ - -Produced by David Widger - -Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions -will be renamed. - -Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no -one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation -(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without -permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, -set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to -copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to -protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark. Project -Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you -charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission. If you -do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the -rules is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose -such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and -research. They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do -practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks. Redistribution is -subject to the trademark license, especially commercial -redistribution. - - - -*** START: FULL LICENSE *** - -THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE -PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK - -To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free -distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work -(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project -Gutenberg-tm License available with this file or online at - www.gutenberg.org/license. - - -Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works - -1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to -and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property -(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all -the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy -all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession. -If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the -terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or -entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8. - -1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be -used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who -agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few -things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See -paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement -and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic -works. See paragraph 1.E below. - -1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation" -or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the -collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an -individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are -located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from -copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative -works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg -are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project -Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by -freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of -this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with -the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by -keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project -Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others. - -1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern -what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in -a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check -the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement -before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or -creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project -Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning -the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United -States. - -1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: - -1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate -access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently -whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the -phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project -Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, -copied or distributed: - -This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with -almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or -re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included -with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org - -1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived -from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is -posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied -and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees -or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work -with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the -work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 -through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the -Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or -1.E.9. - -1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted -with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution -must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional -terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked -to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the -permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work. - -1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm -License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this -work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. - -1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this -electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without -prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with -active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project -Gutenberg-tm License. - -1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, -compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any -word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or -distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than -"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version -posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org), -you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a -copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon -request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other -form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm -License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. - -1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, -performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works -unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing -access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided -that - -- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from - the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method - you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is - owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he - has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the - Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments - must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you - prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax - returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and - sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the - address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to - the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation." - -- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies - you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he - does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm - License. You must require such a user to return or - destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium - and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of - Project Gutenberg-tm works. - -- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any - money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the - electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days - of receipt of the work. - -- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free - distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. - -1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set -forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from -both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael -Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the -Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. - -1.F. - -1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable -effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread -public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm -collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic -works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain -"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or -corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual -property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a -computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by -your equipment. - -1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right -of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project -Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all -liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal -fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT -LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE -PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE -TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE -LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR -INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH -DAMAGE. - -1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a -defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can -receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a -written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you -received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with -your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with -the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a -refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity -providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to -receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy -is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further -opportunities to fix the problem. - -1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth -in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO OTHER -WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO -WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. - -1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied -warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. -If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the -law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be -interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by -the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any -provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions. - -1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the -trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone -providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance -with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, -promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works, -harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, -that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do -or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm -work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any -Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause. - - -Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm - -Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of -electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers -including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists -because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from -people in all walks of life. - -Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the -assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's -goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will -remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure -and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations. -To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation -and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 -and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org - - -Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive -Foundation - -The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit -501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the -state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal -Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification -number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg -Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent -permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. - -The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S. -Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered -throughout numerous locations. Its business office is located at 809 -North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email -contact links and up to date contact information can be found at the -Foundation's web site and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact - -For additional contact information: - Dr. Gregory B. Newby - Chief Executive and Director - gbnewby@pglaf.org - -Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg -Literary Archive Foundation - -Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide -spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of -increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be -freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest -array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations -($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt -status with the IRS. - -The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating -charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United -States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a -considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up -with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations -where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To -SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any -particular state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate - -While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we -have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition -against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who -approach us with offers to donate. - -International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make -any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from -outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. - -Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation -methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other -ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. -To donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate - - -Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic -works. - -Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm -concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared -with anyone. For forty years, he produced and distributed Project -Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support. - -Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed -editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S. -unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily -keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition. - -Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility: - - www.gutenberg.org - -This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, -including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to -subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. - diff --git a/old/44145.zip b/old/44145.zip Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index ec6561e..0000000 --- a/old/44145.zip +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/readme.htm b/old/readme.htm deleted file mode 100644 index 6a1904d..0000000 --- a/old/readme.htm +++ /dev/null @@ -1,13 +0,0 @@ -<!DOCTYPE html> -<html lang="en"> -<head> - <meta charset="utf-8"> -</head> -<body> -<div> -Versions of this book's files up to October 2024 are here.<br> -More recent changes, if any, are reflected in the GitHub repository: -<a href="https://github.com/gutenbergbooks/44145">https://github.com/gutenbergbooks/44145</a> -</div> -</body> -</html> |