And do not they use the English words _drawback_ and _budget_?
We imitate Cobden and the English democracy!
Do not they parody Bentinck and the British aristocracy?
We borrow from perfidious Albion the doctrine of liberty.
Do not they borrow from her the sophisms of protection?
We follow the commercial impulse of Bordeaux and the South.
Do not they serve the greed of Lille, and the manufacturing North?
We favor the secret designs of the ministry, which desires to turn public attention away from the protective policy.
Do not they favor the views of the Custom House officers, who gain more than anybody else by this protective _regime_?
So you see that if we did not ignore this war of epithets, we should not be without weapons.
But that is not the point in issue.
The question which I shall not lose sight of is this:
_Which is better for the working-cla.s.ses, to be free or not to be free to purchase from abroad?_
Workmen, they say to you, "If you are free to buy from abroad these things which you now make yourselves, you will no longer make them. You will be without work, without wages, and without bread. It is then for your own good that your liberty be restricted."
This objection recurs in all forms. They say, for instance, "If we clothe ourselves with English cloth, if we make our plowshares with English iron, if we cut our bread with English knives, if we wipe our hands with English napkins, what will become of the French workmen--what will become of the _national labor_?"
Tell me, workmen, if a man stood on the pier at Boulogne, and said to every Englishman who landed: If you will give me those English boots, I will give you this French hat; or, if you will let me have this English horse, I will let you have this French carriage; or, Are you willing to exchange this Birmingham machine for this Paris clock? or, again, Does it suit you to barter your Newcastle coal for this Champagne wine? I ask you whether, supposing this man makes his proposals with average judgment, it can be said that our _national labor_, taken as a whole, would be harmed by it?
Would it be more so if there were twenty of these people offering to exchange services at Boulogne instead of one; if a million barters were made instead of four; and if the intervention of merchants and money was called on to facilitate them and multiply them indefinitely?
Now, let one country buy of another at wholesale to sell again at retail, or at retail to sell again at wholesale, it will always be found, if the matter is followed out to the end, that _commerce consists of mutual barter of products for products, of services for services_.
If, then, _one barter_ does not injure the _national labor_, since it implies as much _national labor given_ as _foreign labor received_, a hundred million of them cannot hurt the country.
But, you will say, where is the advantage? The advantage consists in making a better use of the resources of each country, so that the same amount of labor gives more satisfaction and well-being everywhere.
There are some who employ singular tactics against you. They begin by admitting the superiority of freedom over the prohibitive system, doubtless in order that they may not have to defend themselves on that ground.
Next they remark that in going from one system to another there will be some _displacement_ of labor.
Then they dilate upon the sufferings which, according to themselves, this _displacement_ must cause. They exaggerate and amplify them; they make of them the princ.i.p.al subject of discussion; they present them as the exclusive and definite result of reform, and thus try to enlist you under the standard of monopoly.
These tactics have been employed in the service of all abuses, and I must frankly admit one thing, that it always embarra.s.ses even the friends of those reforms which are most useful to the people. You will understand why.
When an abuse exists, everything arranges itself upon it.
Human existences connect themselves with it, others with these, then still others, and this forms a great edifice.
Do you raise your hand against it? Each one protests; and notice this particularly, those persons who protest always seem at the first glance to be right, because it is easier to show the disorder which must accompany the reform than the order which will follow it.
The friends of the abuse cite particular instances; they name the persons and their workmen who will be disturbed, while the poor devil of a reformer can only refer to the _general good_, which must insensibly diffuse itself among the ma.s.ses. This does not have the effect which the other has.
Thus, supposing it is a question of abolishing slavery. "Unhappy people," they say to the colored men, "who will feed you? The master distributes floggings, but he also distributes rations."
It is not seen that it is not the master who feeds the slave, but his own labor which feeds both himself and master.
When the convents of Spain were reformed, they said to the beggars, "Where will you find broth and clothing? The Abbot is your providence.
Is it not very convenient to apply to him?"
And the beggars said: "That is true. If the Abbot goes, we see what we lose, but we do not see what will come in its place."
They do not notice that if the convents gave alms they lived on alms, so that the people had to give them more than they could receive back.
Thus, workmen, a monopoly imperceptibly puts taxes on your shoulders, and then furnishes you work with the proceeds.
Your false friends say to you: If there was no monopoly, who would furnish you work?
You answer: This is true, this is true. The labor which the monopolists procure us is certain. The promises of liberty are uncertain.
For you do not see that they first take money from you, and then give you back a _part_ of it for your labor.
Do you ask who will furnish you work? Why, you will give each other work. With the money which will no longer be taken from you, the shoemaker will dress better, and will make work for the tailor. The tailor will have new shoes oftener, and keep the shoemaker employed. So it will be with all occupations.
They say that with freedom there will be fewer workmen in the mines and the mills.
I do not believe it. But if this does happen, it is _necessarily_ because there will be more labor freely in the open air.
For if, as they say, these mines and spinning mills can be sustained only by the aid of taxes imposed on _everybody_ for their benefit, these taxes once abolished, _everybody_ will be more comfortably off, and it is the comfort of all which feeds the labor of each one.
Excuse me if I linger at this demonstration. I have so great a desire to see you on the side of liberty.
In France, capital invested in manufactures yields, I suppose, five per cent. profit. But here is Mondor, who has one hundred thousand francs invested in a manufactory, on which he loses five per cent. The difference between the loss and gain is ten thousand francs. What do they do? They a.s.sess upon you a little tax of ten thousand francs, which is given to Mondor, and you do not notice it, for it is very skillfully disguised. It is not the tax gatherer who comes to ask you your part of the tax, but you pay it to Mondor, the manufacturer, every time you buy your hatchets, your trowels, and your planes. Then they say to you: If you do not pay this tax, Mondor can work no longer, and his employes, John and James, will be without labor. If this tax was remitted, would you not get work yourselves, and on your own account too?
And, then, be easy, when Mondor has no longer this soft method of obtaining his profit by a tax, he will use his wits to turn his loss into a gain, and John and James will not be dismissed. Then all will be profit _for all_.
You will persist, perhaps, saying: "We understand that after the reform there will be in general more work than before, but in the meanwhile John and James will be on the street."
To which I answer:
First. When employment changes its place only to increase, the man who has two arms and a heart is not long on the street.
Second. There is nothing to hinder the State from reserving some of its funds to avoid stoppages of labor in the transition, which I do not myself believe will occur.
Third. Finally, if to get out of a rut and get into a condition which is better for all, and which is certainly more just, it is absolutely necessary to brave a few painful moments, the workmen are ready, or I know them ill. G.o.d grant that it may be the same with employers.
Well, because you are workmen, are you not intelligent and moral? It seems that your pretended friends forget it. It is surprising that they discuss such a subject before you, speaking of wages and interests, without once p.r.o.nouncing the word _justice_. They know, however, full well that the situation is _unjust_. Why, then, have they not the courage to tell you so, and say, "Workmen, an iniquity prevails in the country, but it is of advantage to you and it must be sustained." Why?
Because they know that you would answer, No.