Brian Carnell's Wiki

This page is read only. You can view the source, but not change it. Ask your administrator if you think this is wrong.
<html>
    <h1>
      PROTECTION and COMMUNISM
    </h1>
    <h4>
      From The French
    </h4>
    <p>
      <br />
    </p>
    <h2>
      By Frederic Bastiat.
    </h2>
    <p>
      <br />
    </p>
    <h4>
      With a Preface, by The Translator <br />
    </h4>
    <h5>
      London: <br /> John W. Parker And Son, West Strand
    </h5>
    <p>
      <br />
    </p>
    <h3>
      MDCCCLII.
    </h3>
    <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 class="toc">
      <a href="#link2H_4_0002"> PROTECTION AND COMMUNISM. </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>
      This translation will not, it is hoped, be unacceptable to the English
      reader, particularly at the present moment, when it is not improbable
      that, under certain circumstances, a great effort may be made in this
      country to restore Protection&mdash;or, should that wild attempt be
      considered impossible, to shift the public burdens in such a manner as to
      effect, as far as possible, the same purpose in favour of what is called
      the 'agricultural interest.' M. Bastiat's spirited little work is in the
      form of a letter, addressed to M. Thiers&mdash;the archenemy of
      free-trade, as he was of most propositions which had for their object the
      true happiness of France. The present was only one of a series of efforts
      made by M. Bastiat in favour of the cause of freedom of commerce; and the
      English reader has already had an opportunity of admiring the force of his
      arguments and the clearness of his style, in Mr. Porter's* admirable
      translation of <i>Popular Fallacies</i>, which is, indeed, a perfect
      armory of arguments for those 'who, although they may have a general
      impression favourable to Free-trade, have yet some fears as to the
      consequences that may follow its adoption.' What impression M. Bastiat may
      have produced on the public mind of France it is not easy to conjecture,
      or how far the recent violent changes in that country, presuming them to
      be at all permanent, may prove favourable to Free-trade or otherwise. But
      it is to be feared that there is an amount of prejudice and ignorance in
      France, among the mass of her people, more inveterate and more difficult
      to remove and enlighten than was the case in this country. However, seed
      thus sown cannot remain altogether without fruit, and the rapidity with
      which correct principles spread through a great community, under
      apparently most unfavourable circumstances, is such as frequently to
      astonish even those most convinced of the vast power of truth.
    </p>
<pre xml:space="preserve">
     * Secretary of the Board of Trade, and author of the
     <i>Progress of the Nation</i>.
</pre>
    <p>
      The real object of M. Bastiat is to expose the unsoundness and injustice
      of the system of Protection. He does this partly by a dexterous reference
      to the theory of Communism, and shows, with logical force and neat
      application, that the principles of the two are in truth the same. The
      parallel thus drawn, so far from being fanciful or strained, is capable of
      easy demonstration. But, in drawing it, M. Bastiat rather assumes than
      proves that Communism is itself wholly indefensible&mdash;that its
      establishment would be destructive of security and property, and,
      consequently, of society&mdash;in a word, that it is another term for
      robbery.
    </p>
    <p>
      This is true, and obviously so, of Communism, in its more extravagant
      form; and it is to this, of course, that M. Bastiat refers. But it cannot
      be denied that there are many modifications of the principle which embrace
      more or less truth, and which <i>appear</i> to offer a corrective to that
      excessive competition or pressure of numbers, the evils of which are
      patent, admitted, and deplored. That the specific remedy proposed is
      vicious, that it would quickly make matters much worse than they are, that
      it is, in fact, a fraud and a mockery, does not prevent it from being, and
      naturally, captivating to many who at present see no other way out of the
      difficulties and the struggles by which they are surrounded: and who are
      tempted to embrace it, not only as a relief to their present wants and
      anxieties, but because it would, in their opinion, entail other
      consequences, as connected with their social condition, particularly
      grateful to their feelings. We further admit that such sentiments&mdash;not
      in themselves irrational&mdash;founded on a legitimate desire for
      improvement, and entertained by large and important classes&mdash;are
      entitled to the most respectful consideration.
    </p>
    <p>
      Whether some considerable melioration in the condition of our labourers
      and artisans may not by degrees be effected by means of combined labour,
      or co-operation, and the principle of partnership, is no doubt one of the
      great questions to be solved by modern society, but it is much too wide a
      one to be entered upon, however cursorily, in this place. It is
      understood, however, that one of the most original and powerful thinkers
      within the domain of statistics is at the present moment engaged on this
      subject; and, if this be so, we shall no doubt, before long, be in the
      possession of views of extreme importance and interest.
    </p>
    <p>
      We have, with deep regret, to add that M. Bastiat died during the autumn
      of last year, after a long illness, in the south of Italy. By his death,
      not only France, but the world also, has sustained a loss.
    </p>
    <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>
      PROTECTION AND COMMUNISM.
    </h2>
    <h3>
      TO M. THIERS.
    </h3>
    <p>
      Sir,
    </p>
    <p>
      Do not be ungrateful to the revolution of February. It may have surprised,
      perhaps disturbed you, but it has also afforded you, whether as an author,
      an orator, or a practised statesman, some unexpected triumphs. Amidst
      these successes, there is one certainly of no usual character. We not long
      ago read in <i>La Presse</i>, 'The Association for the Protection of
      National Labour (the ancient Mimerel Club)* is about to address a circular
      to all its correspondents, to announce that a subscription is opened for
      the purpose of promoting in manufactories the circulation of M. Thiers's
      book upon Property. The association itself subscribes for 5000 copies.'
      Would that I had been present when this flattering announcement met your
      eyes. It should have made them sparkle with joy. We have good reason to
      say that the ways of Providence are as infallible as they are
      impenetrable. For if you will bear with me for a moment I will endeavour
      to prove that Protection, when fully developed, and pushed to its
      legitimate consequences, becomes Communism. It is sufficiently singular
      that a champion of Protection should discover that he is a promoter of
      Communism; but what is more extraordinary and more consoling still, is the
      fact that we find a powerful association, that was formed for the purpose
      of propagating theoretically and practically the principles of Communism
      (in the manner deemed most profitable to its members) now devoting the
      half of its resources to destroy the evil which it has done with the other
      half.
    </p>
<pre xml:space="preserve">
     * An association, Mr. Porter informs us, composed like that
     assembling (or that did assemble, for we are not quite sure
     whether it still exists,) at No. 17, New Bond Street,
     exclusively of producers, at least of the article sought to
     be protected, and therefore of persons who believe
     themselves to be interested in excluding from the home
     market the productions of others.
</pre>
    <p>
      I repeat it,&mdash;this is consoling. It assures us of the inevitable
      triumph of truth, since it shows us the real and first propagators of
      subversive doctrines, startled at their success, industriously correcting
      with the proper antidote the poison they had spread.
    </p>
    <p>
      This supposes, it is true, the identity of the principles of Communism and
      of Protection, and perhaps you do not admit this identity, though, to
      speak the truth, it seems to me impossible that you could have written
      four hundred pages upon Property without being struck by it. Perhaps you
      imagine that some efforts made in favour of commercial freedom, or rather
      of free trade, the impatience of a discussion without results, the ardour
      of the contest, and the keenness of the struggle, have made me view (what
      happens too often to all of us) the errors of my adversaries in
      exaggerated colours. But, beyond question, according to my idea, it
      requires but little effort to develop the principles you have been
      advocating into those of Communism. How can it be that our great
      manufacturers, landed proprietors, rich bankers, able statesmen, have
      become, without knowing or wishing it, the introducers, the very apostles
      of Communism in Prance? And why not, I would ask? There are numerous
      workmen fully convinced of the <i>right of labour</i>, and consequently
      Communists also without knowing or wishing it, and who would not
      acknowledge the title. The reason of this is, that amongst all classes
      interest biases the will, and the will, as Pascal says, is the chief
      element of our faith. Under another name, many of our working classes,
      very honest people be it observed, use Communism as they have always used
      it, namely, on the condition that the wealth of others should alone be
      liable to the law. But as soon as the principle, extending itself, would
      apply the same rule to their own property&mdash;oh! then Communism is held
      in detestation, and their former principles are rejected with loathing. To
      express surprise at this, is simply to confess ignorance of the human
      heart, its secret workings, and how strong its inclination is to practise
      self-deception.*
    </p>
<pre xml:space="preserve">
     * The truth of this is found on all occasions where the
     interests or the passions of men are concerned, and was
     rather amusingly shown in many ways when the free-trade
     measures of Sir R. Peel were being carried through. Then
     every interest desired free-trade, except with reference to
     the articles produced by itself.
</pre>
    <p>
      No, Sir; it is not the heat of controversy, which has betrayed me in
      seeing the doctrine of Protection in this light, for, on the contrary, it
      was because I saw it in this point of view before the struggle commenced
      that I am thus engaged. Believe me that to extend somewhat our foreign
      commerce&mdash;a consequential result which, however, is far from
      despicable&mdash;was never my governing motive; I believed, and I still
      believe, that property itself was concerned in the question; I believed,
      and I still believe, that our tariff of customs, owing to the principle
      which has given it birth, and the arguments by which it is defended, has
      made a breach in the very principle of property itself, through which all
      the rest of our legislation threatens to force itself. In considering this
      state of things, it seems to me that a Communism, the true effect and
      range of which, (I must say this to be just,) was not contemplated by its
      supporters, was on the point of overwhelming us. It seems to me that this
      particular species of Communism (for there are several kinds of it) flows
      logically from the arguments of the protectionists, and is involved when
      those arguments are pressed to their legitimate conclusion. It is upon
      this ground, therefore, that it seems to me of the utmost importance to
      meet the evil, for, fortified as it is by sophistical statements, and
      sanctioned by high authority, there is no hope of eradicating the error
      while such statements are permitted to take possession of and to distract
      the mind of the public. It is thus that we view the matter at Bordeaux,
      Paris, Marseilles, Lyons, and elsewhere, where we have organized the
      free-trade association. Commercial freedom, considered by itself, is
      without doubt a great blessing to the people; but if we had only this
      object in view, our body should have been named the <i>Association for
      Commercial Freedom</i>, or, more accurately, <i>for the Gradual Reform of
      the Tariffs</i>. But the word 'free-trade' implies the <i>free disposal of
      the produce of labour</i>, in other terms '<i>property</i>' and it is for
      this reason that we have preferred it. We knew, indeed, that the term
      would give rise to many difficulties. It affirmed a principle, and from
      that moment all the supporters of the opposite one ranged themselves
      against us. More than this, it was extremely objectionable, even to some
      of those who were the most disposed to second us, that is to say, to
      merchants and traders more engaged in reforming the Customs than in
      overthrowing Communism. Havre, while sympathizing with our views, refused
      to enlist under our banner. On all sides I was told, 'Let us obtain
      without loss of time some modification of our tariff, without publishing
      to the world our extreme pretensions.' I replied, 'If you have only that
      in view, exert your influence through your chambers of commerce.' To this
      they answered, 'The word free-trade frightens people, and retards our
      success.' Nothing is more true; but I would derive even from the terror
      inspired by this word my strongest arguments for its adoption. The more
      disliked it is, say I, the more it proves that the true notion of property
      is obscured. The doctrine of Protection has clouded ideas, and confused
      and false ideas have in their turn supported Protection. To obtain by
      surprise, or with the consent of the Government, an accidental
      amelioration of the tariff may modify an effect, but cannot destroy a
      cause. I retain, then, the word <i>Free-trade</i>, not in the mere spirit
      of opposition, but still, I admit, because of the obstacles it creates or
      encounters&mdash;obstacles which, while they betray the mischief at work,
      bear along with them the certain proof, that the very foundation of social
      order was threatened.
    </p>
    <p>
      It is not sufficient to indicate our views by a word; they should be
      defined. This has been done, and I here transcribe, as a programme, the
      first announcement or manifesto of this association.
    </p>
    <p>
      'When uniting for the defence of a great cause, the undersigned feel the
      necessity of declaring their creed: of proclaiming the <i>de-sign, the
      province, the means and the principles of their association</i>.
    </p>
    <p>
      'Exchange is a natural right, like property. Every one who has made or
      acquired any article should have the option either to apply it immediately
      to his own use, or to transfer it to any one, whomsoever he may be, who
      may consent to give him something he may prefer to it in exchange. To
      deprive him of this power when he makes no use of it contrary to public
      order or morality, and solely to gratify the convenience of another, is to
      legalise a robbery&mdash;to violate the principle of justice.
    </p>
    <p>
      'Again, it is to violate the conditions of social order&mdash;for what
      true social order can exist in the midst of a community, in which each
      individual interest, aided in this by law and public opinion, aims at
      success by the depression of all the others?
    </p>
    <p>
      'It is to disown that providential superintendence which presides over
      human affairs, and made manifest by the infinite variety of climates,
      seasons, natural advantages and resources, benefits which God has so
      unequally distributed among men to unite them by commercial intercourse in
      the ties of a common brotherhood.
    </p>
    <p>
      'It is to retard or counteract the development of public prosperity, since
      he who is not free to barter as he pleases, is not free to select his
      occupation, and is compelled to give an unnatural direction to his
      efforts, to his faculties, to his capital, and to those agents which
      nature has placed at his disposal.
    </p>
    <p>
      'In short, it is to imperil the peace of nations, for it disturbs the
      relations which unite them, and which render wars improbable in proportion
      as they would be burdensome.
    </p>
    <p>
      'The association has, then, for its object Free-trade.
    </p>
    <p>
      'The undersigned do not contest that society has the right to impose on
      merchandise, which crosses the frontier, custom dues to meet national
      expenses, provided they are determined by the consideration of the wants
      of the Treasury alone.
    </p>
    <p>
      'But as soon as a tax, losing its fiscal character, aims at the exclusion
      of foreign produce, to the detriment of the Treasury itself, in order to
      raise artificially the price of similar national products, and thus to
      levy contributions on the community for the advantage of a class, from
      that instant Protection, or rather robbery, displays itself, and <i>this</i>
      is the principle which the association proposes to eradicate from the
      public mind, and to expunge from our laws, independently of all
      reciprocity, and of the systems which prevail elsewhere.
    </p>
    <p>
      'Though this association has for its object the complete destruction of
      the system of protection, it does not follow that it requires or expects
      such a reformation to be accomplished in a day, as by the stroke of a
      wand. To return even from evil to good, from an artificial state of things
      to one more natural, calls for the exercise of much prudence and
      precaution. To carry out the details belongs to the supreme power&mdash;the
      province of the association is to propagate the principle, and to make it
      popular.
    </p>
    <p>
      'As to the means which the association may employ to accomplish its ends,
      it will never seek for any but what are legal and constitutional.
    </p>
    <p>
      'Finally, the association has nothing to do with party politics. It does
      not advocate any particular interest, class or section of the country. It
      embraces the cause of eternal justice, of peace, of union, of free
      intercourse, of brotherhood among all men&mdash;the cause of public weal,
      which is identical in every respect with that of the <i>public consumer</i>.'
    </p>
    <p>
      Is there a word in this programme which does not show an ardent wish to
      confirm and strengthen, or rather perhaps to re-establish, in the minds of
      men the idea of property, perverted, as it is, by the system of
      Protection? Is it not evident that the interest of commerce is made
      secondary to the interest of society generally? Remark that the tariff, in
      itself good or evil in the financial point of view, engages little of our
      attention. But, as soon as it acts <i>intentionally</i> with a view to
      Protection, that is to say, as soon as it develops the principle of;
      spoliation, and ignores, in fact, the right of property, we combat it, not
      as a tariff, but as a system. <i>It is there</i>, we say, that we must
      eradicate the principle from the public mind, in order to blot it from our
      laws.*
    </p>
<pre xml:space="preserve">
     * As Mr. Porter says, in one of his excellent notes on M.
     Bastiat's work on <i>Popular Fallacies</i>, 'The true history of
     all progress in regard to great questions, involving change
     in social policy, is here indicated by M. Bastiat. It is in
     vain that we look for such change through the enlightenment
     of what should be the governing bodies. In this respect, all
     legislative assemblies, whether called a Chamber of Deputies
     or a House of Commons, are truly representatives of the
     public mind, never placing themselves in advance, nor
     lagging much behind the general conviction. This is not,
     indeed, a new discovery, but we are much indebted to Mr.
     Cobden and the leading members of the Anti-Corn-Law League
     for having placed it in a point of view so prominent that it
     can no longer be mistaken. Hereafter, the course of action
     is perfectly clear upon all questions that require
     legislative sanction. This can only be obtained through the
     enlightenment of the constituency; but when such
     enlightenment has been accomplished&mdash;when those mainly
     interested in bringing about the change have once formed
     their opinion in its favour, the task is achieved.'
</pre>
    <p>
      It will be asked, no doubt, why, having in view a general principle of
      this importance, we have confined the struggle to the merits of a
      particular question.
    </p>
    <p>
      The reason of this, is simple. It is necessary to oppose association to
      association, to engage the interests of men, and thus draw volunteers into
      our ranks. We know well that the contest between the Protectionists and
      Free-traders cannot be prolonged without raising and finally settling all
      questions, moral, political, philosophical, and economical, connected with
      property. And since the Mimerel Club, in directing its efforts to one end,
      had weakened the principle of property, so we aimed at inspiring it with
      renewed vigour, in pursuing a course diametrically opposite.
    </p>
    <p>
      But what matters it what I may have said or thought at other times? What
      matters it that I have perceived, or thought that I have perceived, a
      certain connexion between Protection and Communism? The essential thing is
      to prove that this connexion exists, and I proceed to ascertain whether
      this be so.
    </p>
    <p>
      You no doubt remember the time when, with your usual ability, you drew
      from the lips of Monsieur Proudhon this celebrated declaration, 'Give me
      the right of labour, and I will abandon the right of property.' M.
      Proudhon does not conceal that, in his eyes, these two rights are
      incompatible.
    </p>
    <p>
      If property is incompatible with the right of labour, and if the right of
      labour is founded upon the same principle as Protection, what conclusion
      can we draw, but that Protection is itself incompatible with property? In
      geometry, we regard as an incontestable truth, that two things equal to a
      third are equal to each other.
    </p>
    <p>
      Now it happens that an eminent orator, M. Billault, has thought it right
      to support at the tribune the right of labour. This was not easy, in the
      face of the declaration which escaped from M. Proudhon. M. Billault
      understood very well, that to make the state interfere to weigh in the
      balance the fortunes, and equalize the conditions, of men, tends towards
      Communism; and what did he say to induce the National Assembly to violate
      property and the principles thereof? He told you with all simplicity that
      he asked you to do what, in effect, you already do by your tariff. His aim
      does not go beyond a somewhat more extended application of the doctrines
      now admitted by you, and applied in practice. Here are his words:&mdash;
    </p>
    <p>
      'Look at our custom-house tariff? By their prohibitions, their
      differential taxes, their premiums, their combinations of all kinds, it is
      society which aids, which supports, which retards or advances all the
      combinations of national labour; it not only holds the balance between
      French labour, which it protects, and foreign labour, but on the soil of
      France itself it is perpetually interfering between the different
      interests of the country. Listen to the perpetual complaints made by one
      class against another: see, for example, those who employ iron in their
      processes, complaining of the protection given to French iron over foreign
      iron; those who employ flax or cotton thread, protesting against the
      protection granted to French thread, in opposition to the introduction of
      foreign thread; and it is thus with all the others. Society (it ought to
      be said, the government) finds itself then forcibly mixed up with all
      these struggles, with all the perplexities connected with the regulation
      of labour; it is always actively interfering between them, directly and
      indirectly, and from the moment that the question of custom duties is
      broached, you will see that you will be, in spite of yourselves, forced to
      acknowledge the fact and its cause, and to take on yourself the protection
      of every interest.
    </p>
    <p>
      'The necessity which is thus imposed on the government to interfere in the
      question of labour, should not, then, be considered an objection to the
      debt which society owes to the poor workmen.'
    </p>
    <p>
      And you will remark well that in his arguments, M. Billault has not the
      least intention of being sarcastic. He is no Free-trader, intentionally
      disguised for the purpose of exposing the inconsistency of the
      Protectionists. No; M. Billault is himself a Protectionist, <i>bonâ fide</i>.
      He aims at equalizing our fortunes by law. With this view, he considers
      the action of the tariffs useful; and being met by an obstacle&mdash;the
      right of property&mdash;he leaps over it, as you do. The right of labour
      is then pointed out to him, which is a second step in the same direction.
      He again encounters the right of property, and again he leaps over it; but
      turning round, he is surprised to see you do not follow him. He asks the
      reason. If you reply&mdash;I admit in principle that the law may violate
      property, but I find it <i>inopportune</i> that this should be done under
      the particular form of the right of labour, M. Billault would understand
      you, and discuss with you the secondary question of expediency. But you
      raise up, in opposition to his views, the principle of property itself.
      This astonishes him; and he conceives that he is entitled to say to you&mdash;Do
      not act with inconsistency, and deny the right of labour on the ground of
      its infringement of the right of property, since you violate this latter
      right by your tariffs, whenever you find it convenient to do so. He might
      add, with some reason, by the protective tariffs you often violate the
      property of the poor for the advantage of the rich. By the right of
      labour, you would violate the property of the rich to the advantage of the
      poor. By what chance does it happen that your scruples stop short at the
      point they do?
    </p>
    <p>
      Between you and M. Billault there is only one point of difference. Both of
      you proceed in the same direction&mdash;that of Communism: only you have
      taken but one step, and he has taken two. On this account the advantage,
      in my eyes at least, is on your side; but you lose it on the ground of
      logic.
    </p>
    <p>
      For since you go along with him, though more slowly than he does, he is
      sufficiently well pleased to have you as his follower. This is an
      inconsistency which M. Bitlault has managed to avoid, but, alas! to fall
      himself also into a sad dilemma! M. Billault is too enlightened not to
      feel, indistinctly perhaps, the danger of each step that he takes in the
      path which ends in Communism. He does not assume the ridiculous position
      of the champion of property, at the very moment of violating it; but how
      does he justify himself? He calls to his aid the favourite axiom of all
      who can reconcile two irreconcilable things&mdash;<i>There are no fixed
      principles</i>. Property, Communism&mdash;let us take a little from both,
      according to circumstances.
    </p>
    <p>
      'To my mind, the pendulum of civilization which oscillates from the one
      principle to the other, according to the wants of the moment, but which
      always makes the greater progress if, after strongly inclining towards the
      absolute freedom of individual action, it fells back on the necessity of
      government interference.'
    </p>
    <p>
      There is, then, no such thing as truth in the world. No principles exist,
      since <i>the pendulum ought to oscillate from one principle to the other,
      according to the wants of the moment.</i> Oh! metaphor, to what a point
      thou wouldst bring us, if allowed!
    </p>
    <p>
      But as you have well said, in your place in the Assembly, one cannot
      discuss all parts of this subject at once, I will not at the present
      moment examine the system of Protection in the purely economic point of
      view. I do not inquire then whether, with regard to national wealth, it
      does more good than harm, or the reverse. The only point that I wish to
      prove is, that it is nothing else than a species of Communism. MM.
      Billault and Proudhon have commenced the proof, and I will try and
      complete it.
    </p>
    <p>
      And first, What is to be understood by Communism? There are several modes,
      if not of realizing community of goods, at least of trying to do so. M. de
      Lamartine has reckoned four. You think that there are a thousand, and I am
      of your opinion. However, I believe that all these could be reduced under
      three general heads, of which one only, according to me, is truly
      dangerous.
    </p>
    <p>
      First, it might occur to two or more men to combine their labour and their
      time. While they do not threaten the security, infringe the liberty, or
      usurp the property of others, neither directly nor indirectly, if they do
      any mischief, they do it to themselves. The tendency of such men will be
      always to attempt in remote places the realization of their dream. Whoever
      has reflected upon these matters knows these enthusiasts will probably
      perish from want, victims to their illusions. In our times, Communists of
      this description have given to their imaginary elysium the name of
      Icaria,* as if they had had a melancholy presentiment of the frightful end
      towards which they were hastening. We may lament over their blindness; we
      should try to rescue them if they were in a state to hear us, but society
      has nothing to fear from their chimeras.
    </p>
<pre xml:space="preserve">
     * This, as most of our readers are aware, is an imaginary
     country at the other side of the world, where a state of
     circumstances is supposed to exist productive of general
     happiness&mdash;moral and physical&mdash;to all. The chief creator of
     this modern Utopia, from which indeed the idea is
     confessedly taken, is M. Cabet, whose book was published
     during the year of the late revolution in France. It is
     meant to be a grave essay on possible things, but could only
     be considered so, we venture to think, in Paris, and only
     there in times of unusual excitement. The means by which M.
     Cabet and his followers suppose their peculiar society could
     be established and maintained, are beyond conception false,
     ludicrous, and puerile.

     M. Cabet was obliged to leave France for a grave offence,
     but found a refuge and no inconsiderable number of followers
     in America, where, by the side of much that is excellent and
     hopeful, flourishes, perhaps, under present circumstances,
     as a necessary parallel, many of the wild and exploded
     theories of the world.
</pre>
    <p>
      Another form of Communism, and decidedly the coarsest, is this: throw into
      a mass all the existing property, and then share it equally. It is
      spoliation becoming the dominant and universal law. It is the destruction,
      not only of property, but also of labour and of the springs of action
      which induce men to work. This same Communism is so violent, so absurd, so
      monstrous, that in truth I cannot believe it to be dangerous. I said this
      some time ago before a considerable assembly of electors, the great
      majority of whom belonged to the suffering classes. My words were received
      with loud murmurs.
    </p>
    <p>
      I expressed my surprise at it. 'What,' said they, 'dares M. Bastiat say
      that Communism is not dangerous? He is then a Communist! Well, we
      suspected as much, for Communists, Socialists, Economists, are all of the
      same order, as it is proved by the termination of the words.' I had some
      difficulty in recovering myself; but even this interruption proved the
      truth of my proposition. No, Communism is not dangerous, when it shows
      itself in its most naked form, that of pure and simple spoliation; it is
      not dangerous, because it excites horror.
    </p>
    <p>
      I hasten to say, that if Protection can be and ought to be likened to
      Communism, it is not that which I am about to attack.
    </p>
    <p>
      But Communism assumes a third form:&mdash;
    </p>
    <p>
      To make the state interfere to, let it take upon itself to adjust profits
      and to equalize men's possessions by taking from some, without their
      consent, to give to others without any return, to assume the task of
      putting things on an equality by robbery, assuredly is Communism to the
      fullest extent. It matters not what may be the means employed by the state
      with this object, no more than the sounding names with which they dignify
      this thought. Whether they pursue its realization by direct or indirect
      means, by restriction or by impost, by tariffs or by the right of labour;
      whether they call it by the watchword of equality, of mutual
      responsibility, of fraternity, that does not change the nature of things;
      the violation of property is not less robbery because it is accomplished
      with regularity, order, and system, and under the forms of law.
    </p>
    <p>
      I repeat that it is here, at this juncture, that Communism is really
      dangerous. Why? Because under this form we see it incessantly ready to
      taint everything. Behold the proof! One demands that the state should
      supply gratuitously to artisans, to labourers, the <i>instruments of
      labour</i>,* that is, to encourage them to take them from other artisans
      and labourers. Another wishes that the state should lend without interest;
      this could not be done without violating property. A third calls for
      gratuitous education to all degrees; gratuitous! that is to say, at the
      expense of the tax-payers.**
    </p>
<pre xml:space="preserve">
     * By this phrase we believe is meant much more than the
     English words might indicate&mdash;the supplying all the capital
     necessary to start the artisan in the world.

     ** We think, with Adam Smith and most others, that education
     and religious instruction may fairly and properly, if the
     occasion requires, be excepted from this rule, on the ground
     that as they are most beneficial to the whole of society&mdash;
     their effects not stopping short with the persons receiving
     the immediate benefits&mdash;'they may, without injustice, be
     defrayed by the general contribution of the whole society.'
     We by no means say, however, that this public support should
     supersede voluntary contribution.
</pre>
    <p>
      A fourth requires that the state should support the associations of
      workmen, the theatres, the artists, See. But the means necessary for such
      support is so much money taken from those who have legitimately made it. A
      fifth is dissatisfied unless the state artificially raises the price of a
      particular product for the benefit of those who sell it; but it is to the
      detriment of those who buy. Yes, under this form, there are very few
      people who at one time or an other would not be Communists. You are so
      yourself; M. Billault is; and I fear that in France we are all so in some
      degree. It seems that the intervention of the state reconciles us to
      robbery, in throwing the responsibility of it on all the world; that is to
      say, on no one; and it is thus that we sport with the wealth of others in
      perfect tranquillity of conscience. That honest M. Tourret, one of the
      most upright of men who ever sat upon the ministerial bench, did he not
      thus commence his statement in favour of the scheme for the advancement of
      public money for agricultural purposes? 'It is not sufficient to give
      instruction for the cultivation of the arts. We must also supply the
      instruments of labour.' After this preamble, he submits to the National
      Assembly a proposition, the first heading of which runs thus:&mdash;
    </p>
    <p>
      'First&mdash;There is opened, in the budget of 1849, in favour of the
      Minister of Agriculture and Commerce, a credit of ten millions, to meet
      advances to the proprietors and associations of proprietors of rural
      districts.' Confess that if this legislative language was rendered with
      exactness, it should have been:&mdash;
    </p>
    <p>
      'The Minister of Agriculture and Commerce is authorized, during the year
      1849, to take the sum of ten millions from the pocket of the labourers who
      are in great want of it, and <i>to whom it belongs</i>, to put it in the
      pocket of other labourers who are equally in want of it, and <i>to whom it
      does not belong</i>.'
    </p>
    <p>
      Is not this an act of Communism, and if made general, would it not
      constitute the system of Communism?
    </p>
    <p>
      The manufacturer, who would die sooner than steal a farthing, does not in
      the least scruple to make this request of the legislature&mdash;'Pass me a
      law which raises the price of my cloth, my iron, my coal, and enable me to
      overcharge my purchasers.' As the motive upon which he founds this demand
      is that he is not content with the profit, at which trade unfettered or
      free-trade would fix it, (which I affirm to be the same thing, whatever
      they may say,) so, on the other hand, as we are all dissatisfied with our
      profits, and disposed to call in the aid of the law, it is clear, at least
      to me, that if the legislature does not hasten to reply, 'That does not
      signify to us; we are not charged to violate property, but to protect it,'
      it is clear, I say, that we are in downright Communism. The machinery put
      in motion by the state to effect the object may differ from what we have
      indicated, but it has the same aim, and involves the same principle.
    </p>
    <p>
      Suppose I present myself at the bar of the National Assembly, and say, 'I
      exercise a trade, and I do not find that my profits are sufficient:
      consequently I pray you to pass a law authorizing the tax-collectors to
      levy, for my benefit, only one centime upon each French family,' If the
      legislature grants my request, this could only be taken as a single act of
      legal robbery, which does not at this point merit the name of Communism.
      But if all Frenchmen, one after the other, made the same request, and if
      the legislature examined them with the avowed object of realizing the
      equality of goods, it is in this principle, followed by its effects, that
      I see, and that you cannot help seeing, Communism.
    </p>
    <p>
      Whether, in order to realize its theory, the legislature employs
      custom-house officers or excise collectors, imposes direct or indirect
      taxes, encourages by protection or premiums, matters but little. Does it
      believe itself authorized to <i>take</i> and to <i>give</i> without
      compensation? Does it believe that its province is to regulate profits?
      Does it act in consequence of this belief? Do the mass of the public
      approve of it?&mdash;do they compel this species of action? If so, I say
      we are upon the descent which leads to Communism, whether we are conscious
      of it or not.
    </p>
    <p>
      And if they say to me, the state never acts thus in favour of any one, but
      only in favour of some classes, I would reply&mdash;Then it has found the
      means of making Communism even worse than it naturally is.
    </p>
    <p>
      I know, Sir, that some doubt is thrown on these conclusions by the aid of
      a ready confusion of ideas. Some administrative acts are quoted, very
      legitimate cases in their way, where the intervention of the state is as
      equitable as it is useful; then, establishing an apparent analogy between
      these cases, and those against which I protest, they will attempt to place
      me in the wrong, and will say to me&mdash;'As you can only see Communism
      in Protection, so you ought to see it in every case where government
      interferes.'
    </p>
    <p>
      This is a trap into which I will not fall.
    </p>
    <p>
      This is why I am compelled to inquire what is the precise circumstance
      which impresses on state intervention the communistic character.
    </p>
    <p>
      What is the province of the state? What are the things which individuals
      ought to entrust to the Supreme Power? Which are those which they ought to
      reserve for private enterprise? To reply to these questions would require
      a dissertation on political economy. Fortunately I need not do this for
      the purpose of solving the problem before us.
    </p>
    <p>
      When men, in place of labouring for themselves individually, combine with
      others, that is to say, when they club together to execute any work, or to
      produce a result by an united exertion, I do not call that <i>Communism</i>,
      because I see nothing in this of its peculiar characteristic, <i>equalizing
      conditions by violent means</i>. The state <i>takes</i>, it is true, by
      taxes, but it <i>renders</i> service for them in return. It is a
      particular but legitimate form of that foundation of all society, <i>exchange</i>.
      I go still further. In intrusting a special service to be done by the
      state, it may be made beneficial, or otherwise, according to its nature
      and the mode in which it is effected. Beneficial, if by this means the
      service is made with superior perfection and economy, and the reverse on
      the opposite hypothesis: but in either case I do not perceive the
      principle of Communism. The proceeding in the first was attended with
      success; in the second, with failure, that is all; and if Communism is a
      mistake, it does not follow that every mistake is Communism.
    </p>
    <p>
      Political economists are in general very distrustful on the question of
      the intervention of government. They see in it inconveniences of all
      sorts, a discouragement of individual liberty, energy, foresight, and
      experience, which are the surest foundations of society. It often happens,
      then, that they have to resist this intervention. But it is not at all on
      the same ground and from the same motive which makes them repudiate
      Protection. Our opponents cannot, therefore, fairly turn any argument
      against us in consequence of our predilections, expressed, perhaps,
      without sufficient caution for the freedom of private enterprise, nor say,
      'It is not surprising that these people reject the system of Protection,
      for they reject the intervention of the state in everything.'
    </p>
    <p>
      First, it is not true that we reject it in everything: we admit that it is
      the province of the state to maintain order and security, to enforce
      regard for person and property, to repress fraud and violence. As to the
      services which partake, so to speak, of an industrial character, we have
      no other rule than this: that the state may take charge of these, if the
      result is a saving of labour to the mass of the people. But pray, in the
      calculation, take into account all the innumerable inconveniences of
      labour monopolized by the state.
    </p>
    <p>
      Secondly, I am obliged to repeat it, it is one thing to protest against
      any new interference on the part of the state on the ground that, when the
      calculation was made, it was found that it would be disadvantageous to do
      so, and that it would result in a national loss; and it is another thing
      to resist it because it is illegitimate, violent, unprincipled, and
      because it assigns to the government to do precisely what it is its proper
      duty to prevent and to punish. Now against the system called Protection
      these two species of objections may be urged, but it is against the
      principle last mentioned, fenced round as it is by legal forms, that
      incessant war should be waged.
    </p>
    <p>
      Thus, for example, men would submit to a municipal council the question of
      knowing whether it would be better that each family in a town should go
      and seek the water it requires at the distance of some quarter of a
      league, or whether it is more advantageous that the local authority should
      levy an assessment to bring the water to the marketplace. I should not
      have any objection in <i>principle</i> to enter into the examination of
      this question. The calculation of the advantages and inconveniences for
      all would be the sole element in the decision. One might be mistaken in
      the calculation, but the error, which in this instance may involve the
      loss of property, would not be a systematic violation of it.
    </p>
    <p>
      But when the mayor proposes to discourage one trade for the advantage of
      another, to prohibit boots for the advantage of the shoemaker, or
      something like it, then would I say to him, that in this instance he acts
      no longer on a calculation of advantages and inconveniences; he acts by
      means of an abuse of power, and a violent perversion of the public
      authority; I would say to him, 'You who are the depositary of power and of
      the public authority to chastise robbery, dare you apply that power and
      authority to protect it and render it systematic?'
    </p>
    <p>
      Should the idea of the mayor prevail, if I see, in consequence of this
      precedent all the trading classes of the village bestirring themselves, to
      ask for favours at the expense of each other&mdash;if in the midst of this
      tumult of unscrupulous attempts I see them confound even the notion of
      property, I must be allowed to assume that, to save it from destruction,
      the first thing to do is to point out what has been iniquitous in the
      measure, which formed the first link of the chain of these deplorable
      events.
    </p>
    <p>
      It would not be difficult, Sir, to find in your work passages which
      support my position and corroborate my views. To speak the truth, I might
      consult it almost by chance for this purpose. Thus, opening the book at
      hap-hazard, I would probably find a passage condemning, either expressly
      or by implication, the system of Protection&mdash;proof of the identity of
      this system in principle with Communism. Let me make the trial. At page
      283, I read:&mdash;
    </p>
    <p>
      'It is, then, a grave mistake to lay the blame upon competition, and not
      to have perceived that if the people are the producers, they are also the
      consumers, and that receiving less on one side,' (which I deny, and which
      you deny yourself some lines lower down,) 'paying less on the other, there
      remains then, for the advantage of all, the difference between a system
      which restrains human activity, and a system which places it in its proper
      course, and inspires it with ceaseless energy.'
    </p>
    <p>
      I defy you to say that this argument does not apply with equal force to
      foreign as to domestic competition. Let us try again. At page 325, we
      find:
    </p>
    <p>
      'Men either possess certain rights, or they do not. If they do&mdash;if
      these rights exist, they entail certain inevitable consequences....
    </p>
    <p>
      But more than this, they must be the same at all times; they are entire
      and absolute&mdash;past, present, and to come&mdash;in all seasons; and
      not only when it may please you to declare them to be, but when it may
      please the workmen to appeal to them.'
    </p>
    <p>
      Will you maintain that an iron-master has an undefined right to hinder me
      for ever from producing indirectly two hundredweight of iron in my
      manufactory, for the sake of producing one hundred-weight in a direct
      manner in his own? This right, also, I repeat, either exists, or it does
      not. If it does exist, it must be absolute at all times and in all
      seasons; not only when it may please you to declare it to be so, but when
      it may please the iron-masters to claim its protection.
    </p>
    <p>
      Let us again try our luck. At page 63, I read,&mdash;
    </p>
    <p>
      'Property does not exist, if I cannot <i>give</i> as well as <i>consume</i>
      it.'
    </p>
    <p>
      We say so likewise. 'Property does not exist, if I cannot <i>exchange</i>
      as well as <i>consume</i> it;' and permit me to add, that the <i>right of
      exchange</i> is at least as valuable, as important in a social point of
      view, as characteristic of property, as the <i>right of gift</i>. It is to
      be regretted, that in a work written for the purpose of examining property
      under all its aspects, you have thought it right to devote two chapters to
      an investigation of the latter right, which is in but little danger, and
      not a line to that of exchange, which is so boldly attacked, even under
      the shelter of the laws.
    </p>
    <p>
      Again, at page 47:&mdash;
    </p>
    <p>
      'Man has an absolute property in his person and in his faculties. He has a
      derivative one, less inherent in his nature, but not less sacred, in what
      these faculties may produce, which embraces all that can be called the
      wealth of this world, and which society is in the highest degree
      interested in protecting; for without this protection there would be no
      labour; without labour, no civilization, not even the necessaries of life&mdash;nothing
      but misery, robbery, and barbarism.'*
    </p>
<pre xml:space="preserve">
     * This is a happy exposure of the inconsistency of M.
     Thiers. But we have had recently, and in the sitting of the
     late National Assembly, a curious example of the perversion
     of his extraordinary powers, in the speeches, full of false
     brilliancy, to the legislature of France, in condemnation of
     the principles of Free-trade. His statements were coloured,
     or altogether without foundation; the examples which he
     adduced, when looked into, told against him, and his logic
     was puerile. Yet he found an attentive and a willing
     auditory. Indeed, the prejudices of the French on this
     subject, mixed up as they are with so many influences
     operating on their vanity, are still inveterate; and it was,
     as it always has been, M. Thiers's object to reflect
     faithfully the national mind. His aim never was the noble
     one of raising and enlightening the views of his countrymen,
     but simply to gain an influence over their minds, by
     encouraging and echoing their prejudices and keeping alive
     their passions.
</pre>
    <p>
      Well, Sir, let us make a comment, if you do not object, on this text.
    </p>
    <p>
      Like you, I see property at first in the free disposal of the person; then
      of the faculties; finally, of the produce of those faculties, which
      proves, I may say as a passing remark, that, from a certain point of view,
      Liberty and Property are identical.
    </p>
    <p>
      I dare hardly say, like you, that property in the produce of our faculties
      is less inherent in our nature than property in these faculties
      themselves. Strictly speaking, that may be true; but whether a man is
      debarred from exercising his faculties, or deprived of what they may
      produce, the result is the same, and that result is called <i>Slavery</i>.
      This is another proof of the identity of the nature of liberty and
      property. If I force a man to labour for my profit, that man is my slave.
      He is so still, if, leaving him personal liberty, I find means, by force
      or by fraud, to appropriate to myself the fruits of his labour. The first
      kind of oppression is the more brutal, the second the more subtle. As it
      has been remarked that free labour is more intelligent and productive, it
      may be surmised that the masters have said to themselves, 'Do not let us
      claim directly the powers of our slaves, but let us take possession of
      much richer booty&mdash;the produce of their faculties freely exercised,
      and let us give to this new form of servitude the engaging name of <i>Protection</i>.'
    </p>
    <p>
      You say, again, that society is interested in rendering property secure.
      We are agreed; only I go further than you; and if by <i>society</i> you
      mean <i>government</i>, I say that its only province as regards property
      is to guarantee it in the most ample manner; that if it tries to measure
      and distribute it by that very act, government, instead of guaranteeing,
      infringes it. This deserves examination.
    </p>
    <p>
      When a certain number of men, who cannot live without labour and without
      property, unite to support a <i>common authority</i>, they evidently
      desire to be able to labour, and to enjoy the fruits of their labour in
      all security, and not to place their faculties and their properties at the
      mercy of that authority. Even antecedent to all form of regular
      government, I do not believe that individuals could be properly deprived
      of the <i>right of defence</i>&mdash;the right of defending their persons,
      their faculties, and their possessions.
    </p>
    <p>
      Without pretending, in this place, to philosophise upon the origin and the
      extent of the rights of governments&mdash;a vast subject, well calculated
      to deter me&mdash;permit me to submit the following idea to you. It seems
      to me that the rights of the state can only be the reduction into method
      of personal rights <i>previously existing</i>. I cannot, for myself,
      conceive <i>collective right</i> which has not its root in <i>individual
      right</i>, and does not presume it. Then, in order to know if the state is
      legitimately invested with a right, it is incumbent on us to ask whether
      this right dwells in the individual in virtue of his being and
      independently of all government.
    </p>
    <p>
      It is upon this principle that I denied some time ago the right of labour.
      I said, since Peter has no right to take directly from Paul what Paul has
      acquired by his labour, there is no better foundation for this pretended
      right through the intervention of the state: for the state is but the <i>public
      authority</i> created by Peter and by Paul, at their expense, with a
      defined and clear object in view, but which never can render that just
      which is in itself not so. It is with the aid of this touchstone that I
      test the distinction between property secured and property controlled by
      the state. Why has the state the right to secure, even by force, every
      man's property? Because this right exists previously in the individual. No
      one can deny to individuals the <i>right of lawful defence</i>&mdash;the
      right of employing force, if necessary, to repel the injuries directed
      against their persons, their faculties, and their effects. It is conceived
      that this individual right, since it resides in all men, can assume the
      collective form, and justify the employment of public authority. And why
      has the state no right to <i>equalize</i> or apportion worldly wealth? <i>Because,
      in order to do so, it is necessary to rob some in order to gratify others</i>.
      Now, as none of the thirty-five millions of Frenchmen have the right to
      take by force, under the pretence of rendering fortunes more equal, it
      does not appear how they could invest public authority with this right.
    </p>
    <p>
      And remark, that the right of distributing* the wealth of individuals is
      destructive of the right which secures it. There are the savages. They
      have not yet formed a government; but each of them possesses the <i>right
      of lawful defence</i>. And it is easy to perceive that it is this right
      which will become the basis of legitimate public authority. If one of
      these savages has devoted his time, his strength, his intelligence to make
      a bow and arrows, and another wishes to take these from him, all the
      sympathies of the tribe will be on the side of the victim; and if the
      cause is submitted to the judgment of the elders, the robber will
      infallibly be condemned. From that there is but one step to the
      organization of public power. But I ask you&mdash;Is the province of this
      public power, at least its lawful province, to repress the act of him who
      defends his property in virtue of his abstract right, or the act of him
      who violates, contrary to that right, the property of another? It would be
      singular enough if public authority was based, not upon the rights of
      individuals, but upon their permanent and systematic violation! No; the
      author of the book before me could not support such a position. But it is
      scarcely enough that he could not support it; he ought perhaps to condemn
      it. It is scarcely enough to attack this gross and absurd Communism
      disseminated in low newspapers. It would perhaps have been better to have
      unveiled and rebuked that other and more audacious and subtle Communism,
      which, by the simple perversion of the just idea of the rights of
      government, insinuates itself into some branches of our legislation, and
      threatens to invade all.
    </p>
<pre xml:space="preserve">
     * It is not easy here, and in some other places, to convey
     the exact meaning without using circuitous language.
</pre>
    <p>
      For, Sir, it is quite incontestable that by the action of the tariffs&mdash;by
      means of Protection&mdash;governments realize this monstrous thing of
      which I have spoken so much. They abandon the right of lawful defence,
      previously existing in all men, the source and foundation of their own
      existence, to arrogate to themselves a <i>pretended right of equalizing
      the fortunes of all by means of robbery</i>, a right which, not existing
      before in any one, cannot therefore exist in the community.
    </p>
    <p>
      But to what purpose is it to insist upon these general ideas? Why should I
      show the absurdity of Communism, since you have done so yourself (except
      as to one of its aspects, and, as I think, practically the most
      threatening) much better than it was in my power to effect?
    </p>
    <p>
      Perhaps you will say to me that the principle of the system of Protection
      is not opposed to the principle of property. See, then, the means by which
      this system operates.
    </p>
    <p>
      These are two: by the aid of premiums or bounties, or by restriction.
    </p>
    <p>
      As to the first, that is evident. I defy any one to maintain that the end
      of the system of premiums, pushed to its legitimate conclusion, is not
      absolute Communism. Men work under protection of the public authority, as
      you say, charged to secure to each one his own&mdash;<i>suum cuique</i>.
      But in this instance the state, with the most philanthropic intentions in
      the world, undertakes a task altogether new and different, and, according
      to me, not only exclusive, but destructive of the first. It constitutes
      itself the judge of profits; it decides that this interest is not
      sufficiently remunerated, and that that is too much so; it stands as the
      distributor of fortunes, and makes, as M. Billault phrases it, the
      pendulum of civilization oscillate from the liberty of individual action
      to its opposite. Consequently it imposes upon the community at large a
      contribution for the purpose of making a present, under the name of
      premiums, to the exporters of a particular kind of produce. The pretext is
      to favour industry; it ought to say, <i>one</i> particular interest at the
      expense of <i>all</i> the others. I shall not stop to show that it
      stimulates the off-shoot at the expense of that branch which bears the
      fruit; but I ask you, on entering on this course, does it not justify
      every interest to come and claim a premium, if it can prove that the
      profits gained by it are not as much as those obtained by other interests?
      Is it not the duty of the state to listen, to entertain, to give ear to
      every demand, and to do justice between the applicants. I do not believe
      it; but those who do so, should have the courage to put their thoughts in
      this form, and to say&mdash;Government is not charged to render property
      secure, but to distribute it equally. In other words, there is no such
      thing as property.
    </p>
    <p>
      I only discuss here a question of principle. If I wished to investigate
      the subject of premiums for exportation, as shown in their economical
      effects, I could place them in the most ridiculous light, for they are
      nothing more than a gratuitous gift made by France to foreigners. It is
      not the seller who receives it, but the purchaser, in virtue of that law
      which you yourself have stated with regard to taxes; the consumer in the
      end supports all the charges, as he reaps all the advantages of
      production. Thus we are brought to the subject of premiums, one of the
      most mortifying and mystifying things possible. Some foreign governments
      have reasoned thus: 'If we raise our import duties to a figure equal to
      the premium paid by the tax-payers in France, it is clear that nothing
      will be changed as regards our consumers, for the net price will remain
      the same. The goods reduced by five francs on the French frontier, will
      pay five francs more at the German frontier; it is an infallible means of
      paying our public expenses out of the French Treasury.' But other
      governments, they assure me, have been more ingenious still. They have
      said to themselves, 'The premium given by France is properly a present she
      makes us; but if we raise the duty, no reason would exist why more of
      those particular goods should be imported than in past times; we ourselves
      place a limit on the generosity of these excellent French people; let us
      abolish, on the contrary, provisionally, these duties; let us encourage,
      for instance, an unusual introduction of cloths, since every yard brings
      with it an absolute gift.' In the first case, our premiums have gone to
      the foreign exchequer; in the second they have profited, but upon a larger
      scale, private individuals.
    </p>
    <p>
      Let us pass on to restriction.
    </p>
    <p>
      I am a workman&mdash;a joiner, for example&mdash;I have a little workshop,
      tools, some materials. All these things incontestably belong to me, for I
      have made them, or, which comes to the same thing, I have bought and paid
      for them. Still more, I have strong arms, some intelligence, and plenty of
      good will. On this foundation I endeavour to provide for my own wants and
      for those of my family. Remark, that I cannot directly produce anything
      which is useful to me, neither iron, nor wood, nor bread, nor wine, nor
      meat, nor stuffs, &amp;c., but I can produce the <i>value</i> of them.
      Finally, these things must, so to speak, circulate under another form,
      from my saw and my plane. It is my interest to receive honestly the
      largest possible quantity in exchange for the produce of my labour. I say
      honestly, because it is not my desire to infringe on the property or the
      liberty of any one. But I also demand that my own property and liberty be
      held equally inviolable. The other workmen and I, agreed upon this point,
      impose upon ourselves some sacrifices; we give up a portion of our labour
      to some men called public <i>functionaries</i>, because theirs is the
      special <i>function</i> to secure our labour and its produce from every
      injury that might befal either from within or from without.
    </p>
    <p>
      Matters being thus arranged, I prepare to put my intelligence, my arms, my
      saw, and plane into activity. Naturally my eyes are always fixed on those
      things necessary to my existence, and which it is my duty to produce
      indirectly in creating what is equal to them in <i>value</i>. The problem
      is, that I should produce them in the most advantageous manner possible.
      Consequently I look at <i>values</i> generally, or what, in other words,
      may be called the current or market price of articles. I am satisfied,
      judging from these materials in my possession, that my means for obtaining
      the largest quantity possible of fuel, for example, with the smallest
      possible quantity of labour, is to make a piece of furniture, to send it
      to a Belgian, who will give me in return some coal.
    </p>
    <p>
      But there is in France a workman who extracts coal from the earth. Now, it
      so happens that the officials, whom the miner and I <i>contribute</i> to
      pay for preserving to each of us his freedom of labour, and the free
      disposal of its produce (which is property), it so happens, I say, that
      these officials have become newly enlightened and assumed other duties.
      They have taken it into their heads to compare my labour with that of the
      miner. Consequently, they have forbidden me to warm myself with Belgian
      fuel: and when I go to the frontier with my piece of furniture to receive
      the coal, I find it prohibited from entering France, which comes to the
      same thing as if they prohibited my piece of furniture from going out. I
      then reason with myself&mdash;if we had never paid the government in order
      to save us the trouble of defending our own property, would the miner have
      had the right to go to the frontier to prohibit me from making an
      advantageous exchange, on the ground that it would be better for him that
      this exchange should not be effected? Assuredly not. If he had made so
      unjust an attempt, we would have joined issue on the spot, he, urged on by
      his unjust pretensions, I, strong in my right of legitimate defence.
    </p>
    <p>
      We have appointed and paid a public officer for the special purpose of
      preventing such contests. How does it happen, then, that I find the miner
      and him concurring in restraining my liberty and hampering my industry, in
      limiting the field of my exertions? If the public officer had taken my
      part, I might have conceived his right; he would have derived it from my
      own; for lawful defence is, indeed, a right. But on what principle should
      he aid the miner in his injustice? I learn, then, that the public officer
      has changed his nature. He is no longer a simple mortal invested with
      rights delegated to him by other men, who, consequently, possess them. No.
      He is a being superior to humanity, drawing his right from himself, and,
      amongst these rights, he arrogates to himself that of calculating our
      profits, of holding the balance between our various circumstances and
      conditions. It is very well, say I; in that case, I will overwhelm him
      with claims and demands, while I see a richer man than myself in the
      country. He will not listen to you, it may be said to me, for if he listen
      to you, he will be a Communist, and he takes good care not to forget that
      his duty is to secure properties, not to destroy them.
    </p>
    <p>
      What disorder, what confusion in facts; but what can you expect when there
      is such disorder and confusion in ideas? You may have resisted Communism
      vigorously in the abstract; but while at the same time you humour, and
      support, and foster it in that part of our legislation which it has
      tainted, your labours will be in vain. It is a poison, which, with your
      consent and approbation, has glided into all our laws and into our morals,
      and now you are indignant that it is followed by its natural consequences.
    </p>
    <p>
      Possibly, Sir, you will make me one concession; you will say to me,
      perhaps, the system of Protection rests on the principle of Communism. It
      is contrary to right, to property, to liberty; it throws the government
      out of its proper road, and invests it with arbitrary powers, which have
      no rational origin. All this is but too true; but the system of Protection
      is useful; without it the country, yielding to foreign competition, would
      be ruined.
    </p>
    <p>
      This would lead us to the examination of Protection in the economical
      point of view. Putting aside all consideration of justice, of right, of
      equity, of property, of liberty, we should have to resolve the question
      into one of pure utility, the money question, so to speak; but this, you
      will admit, does not properly fall within my subject. Take care that,
      availing yourself of expediency in order to justify your contempt of the
      principle of right is as if you said, 'Communism or spoliation, condemned
      by justice, can, nevertheless, be admitted as an expedient,' and you must
      admit that such an avowal is replete with danger.
    </p>
    <p>
      Without seeking to solve in this place the economical problem, allow me to
      make one assertion. I affirm that I have submitted to arithmetical
      calculation the advantages and the inconveniences of Protection, from the
      point of view of mere wealth, and putting aside all higher considerations.
      I affirm, moreover, that I have arrived at this result: that all
      restrictive measures produce one advantage and two inconveniences, or, if
      you will, one profit and two losses, each of these losses equal to the
      profit, from which results one pure distinct loss, which circumstance
      brings with it the encouraging conviction, that in this, as in many other
      things, and I dare say in all, expediency and justice agree.
    </p>
    <p>
      This is only an assertion, it is true, but it can be supported by proofs
      of mathematical accuracy.*
    </p>
<pre xml:space="preserve">
     * What M. Bastiat here asserts is unquestionably true. For
     it has often been shown, and may readily be shown, that the
     importation of foreign commodities, in the common course of
     traffic, never takes place except when it is, economically
     speaking, a national good, by causing the same amount of
     commodities to be obtained at a smaller cost of labour and
     capital to the country. To prohibit, therefore, this
     importation, or impose duties which prevent it, is to render
     the labour and capital of the country less efficient in
     production than they would otherwise be; and compel a waste
     of the difference between the labour and capital necessary
     for the home production of the commodity, and that which is
     required for producing the things with which it can be
     purchased from abroad. The amount of national loss thus
     occasioned is measured by the excess of the price at which
     the commodity is produced over that at which it could be
     imported. In the case of manufactured goods, the whole
     difference between the two prices is absorbed in
     indemnifying the producers for waste of labour, or of the
     capital which supports that labour. Those who are supposed
     to be benefited&mdash;namely, the makers of the protected
     article, (unless they form an exclusive company, and have a
     monopoly against their own countrymen, as well as against
     foreigners,) do not obtain higher profits than other people.
     All is sheer loss to the country as well as to the consumer.
     When the protected article is a product of agriculture&mdash;the
     waste of labour not being incurred on the whole produce, but
     only on what may be called the last instalment of it&mdash;the
     extra price is only in part an indemnity for waste, the
     remainder being a tax paid to the landlords.&mdash;J. S. Mill
</pre>
    <p>
      What causes public opinion to be led astray upon this point is this, that
      the profit produced by Protection is palpable&mdash;visible, as it were,
      to the naked eye, whilst of the two equal losses which it involves, one is
      distributed over the mass of society, and the existence of the other is
      only made apparent to the investigating and reflective mind.
    </p>
    <p>
      Without pretending to bring forward any proof of the matter here, I may be
      allowed, perhaps, to point out the basis on which it rests.
    </p>
    <p>
      Two products, A and B, have an original value in France, which I may
      denominate 50 and 40 respectively. Let us admit that A is not worth more
      than 40 in Belgium. This being supposed, if France is subjected to the
      protective system, she will have the enjoyment of A and B in the whole as
      the result of her efforts, a quantity equal to 90, for she will, on the
      above supposition, be compelled to produce A directly. If she is free, the
      result of her efforts, equal to 90, will be equal: 1st, to the production
      of B, which she will take to Belgium, in order to obtain A; 2ndly, to the
      production of another B for herself; 3rdly, to the production of C.
    </p>
    <p>
      It is that portion of disposable labour applied to the production of C in
      the second case, that is to say, creating new wealth equal to 10, without
      France being deprived either of A or of B, which makes all the difficulty.
      In the place of A put iron; in the place of B, wine, silk, and Parisian
      articles; in the place of C put some new product not now existing. You
      will always find that restriction is injurious to national prosperity.
    </p>
    <p>
      Do you wish to leave this dull algebra? So do I. To speak of facts,
      therefore, you will not deny that if the prohibitory system has contrived
      to do some good to the coal trade, it is only in raising the price of the
      coal. You will not, moreover, deny that this excess of price from 1822 to
      the present time has only occasioned a greater expense to all those who
      use this fuel&mdash;in other words, that it represents a loss. Can it be
      said that the producers of coal have received, besides the interest of
      their capital and the ordinary profits of trade, in consequence of the
      protection afforded them, an extra gain equivalent to that loss? It would
      be necessary that Protection, without losing those unjust and Communistic
      qualities which characterize it, should at least be <i>neuter</i> in the
      purely economic point of view. It would be necessary that it should at
      least have the merit of resembling simple robbery, which displaces wealth
      without destroying it. But you yourself affirm, at page 236, 'that the
      mines of Aveyron, Alais, Saint-Etienne, Creuzot, Anzin, the most
      celebrated of all, have not produced a revenue of four per cent, on the
      capital embarked in them.' It does not require Protection that capital in
      France should yield four per cent. Where, then, in this instance, is the
      profit to counterbalance the above-mentioned loss?
    </p>
    <p>
      This is not all. There is another national loss. Since by the relative
      rising of the price of fuel, all the consumers of coal have lost, they
      have been obliged to limit their expenses in proportion, and the whole of
      national labour has been necessarily discouraged to this extent. It is
      this loss which they never take into their calculation, because it does
      not strike their senses.
    </p>
    <p>
      Permit me to make another observation, which I am surprised has not struck
      people more. It is that Protection applied to agricultural produce shows
      itself in all its odious iniquity with regard to farmers, and injurious in
      the end to the landed proprietors themselves.
    </p>
    <p>
      Let us imagine an island in the South Seas where the soil has become the
      private property of a certain number of inhabitants.
    </p>
    <p>
      Let us imagine upon this appropriated and limited territory an
      agricultural population always increasing or having a tendency to
      increase.
    </p>
    <p>
      This last class will not be able to produce anything <i>directly</i> of
      what is indispensable to life. They will be compelled to give up their
      labour to those who have it in their power to offer in exchange
      maintenance, and also the materials for labour, corn, fruit, vegetables,
      meat, wool, flax, leather, wood, &amp;c.
    </p>
    <p>
      The interest of this class evidently is, that the market where these
      things are sold should be as extensive as possible. The more it finds
      itself surrounded by the greatest quantity of agricultural produce, the
      more of this it will receive for any given quantity of its own labour.
    </p>
    <p>
      Under a free system, a multitude of vessels would be seen seeking food and
      materials among the neighbouring islands and continents, in exchange for
      manufactured articles. The cultivators of the land will enjoy all the
      prosperity to which they have a right to pretend; a just balance will be
      maintained between the value of manufacturing labour and that of
      agricultural labour.
    </p>
    <p>
      But, in this situation, the landed proprietors of the island make this
      calculation&mdash;If we prevent the workmen labouring for the foreigners,
      and receiving from them in exchange subsistence and raw materials, they
      will be forced to turn to us. As their number continually increases, and
      as the competition which exists between them is always active, they will
      compete for that share of food and materials which we can dispose of,
      after deducting what we require for ourselves, and we cannot fail to sell
      our produce at a very high price. In other words, the balance in the
      relative value of their labour and of ours will be disturbed. We shall be
      able to command a greater share in the result of their labour. Let us,
      then, impose restrictions on that commerce which inconveniences us; and to
      enforce these restrictions, let us constitute a body of functionaries,
      which the workmen shall aid in paying.
    </p>
    <p>
      I ask you, would not this be the height of oppression, a flagrant
      violation of all liberty, of the first and the most sacred principles of
      property?
    </p>
    <p>
      However, observe well, that it would not perhaps be difficult for the
      landed proprietors to make this law received as a benefit by the labourer.
      They would say to the latter:
    </p>
    <p>
      'It is not for us, honest people, that we have made it, but for you. Our
      own interests touch us little; we only think of yours. Thanks to this wise
      measure, agriculture prospers; we proprietors shall become rich, which
      will, at the same time, put it in our power to support a great deal of
      labour, and to pay you good wages; without it, we shall be reduced to
      misery&mdash;and what will become of you? The island will be inundated
      with provisions and importations from abroad; your vessels will be always
      afloat&mdash;what a national calamity! Abundance, it is true, will reign
      all round you, but will you share in it? Do not imagine that your wages
      will keep up and be raised, because the foreigner will only augment the
      number of those who overwhelm you with their competition. Who can say that
      they will not take it into their heads to give you their produce for
      nothing? In this case, having neither labour nor wages, you will perish of
      want in the midst of abundance. Believe us; accept our regulations with
      gratitude. Increase and multiply. The produce which will remain in the
      island, over and above what is necessary for our own consumption, will be
      given to you in exchange for your labour, which by this means you will be
      always secure of. Above all, do not believe that the question now in
      debate is between you and us, or one in which your liberty and your
      property are at stake. Never listen to those who tell you so. Consider it
      as certain that the question is between you and the foreigner&mdash;this
      barbarous foreigner&mdash;and who evidently wishes to speculate upon you;
      making you perfidious proffers of intercourse, which you are free either
      to accept or to refuse.'
    </p>
    <p>
      It is not improbable that such a discourse, suitably seasoned with
      sophisms upon cash, the balance of trade, national labour, agriculture
      encouraged by the state, the prospect of a war, &amp;c., &amp;c., would
      obtain the greatest success, and that the oppressive decree would' obtain
      the sanction of the oppressed themselves, if they were consulted. This has
      been, and will be so again.*
    </p>
<pre xml:space="preserve">
     * The ease with which the body of the people&mdash;the consumers&mdash;
     are deceived by statements and arguments such as are given
     in the text is remarkable. The principal reason, perhaps,
     is, that men are disposed at first to regard themselves as
     producers rather than as consumers. They imagine that the
     advantages of Protection, if applied to their own case,
     would be incontestable; and, being unable consistently to
     deny that their neighbours are equally entitled to the same
     favour, a general clamour for Protection against foreign
     competition arises. While they fail to perceive the
     absurdity of universal Protection and its fallacy, or that
     it would be more for their interests to be able to dispose
     of a larger quantity of their productions, though perhaps at
     a reduced cost, than a smaller quantity in a market
     narrowed, as it must be, by the Protection which it
     receives.
</pre>
    <p>
      However, the true position of the case is now, we hope, firmly established
      in England, and this is chiefly due to the recent able, full, and free
      discussions which have resulted in our existing Free-trade system. And we
      confidently anticipate the day when the people of the Continent, and of
      America, will, through the same processes of reasoning and reflection, and
      influenced by our example, arrive at the same result as ourselves.
    </p>
    <p>
      But the prejudices of proprietors and labourers do not change the nature
      of things. The result will be, a population miserable, destitute,
      ignorant, ill-conditioned, thinned by want, illness, and vice. The result
      will then be, the melancholy shipwreck, in the public mind, of all correct
      notions of right, of property, of liberty, and of the true functions of
      the state.
    </p>
    <p>
      And what I should like much to be able to show here is, that the mischief
      will soon ascend to the proprietors themselves, who will have led the way
      to their own ruin by the ruin of the general consumer, for in that island
      they will see the population, more and more debased, resort to the
      inferior species of food. Here it will feed on chesnuts, there upon maize,
      or again upon millet, buckwheat, oats, potatoes. It will no longer know
      the taste of corn or of meat. The proprietors will be surprised to see
      agriculture decline. They will in vain exert themselves and ring in the
      ears of all,&mdash;'Let us raise produce; with produce, there will be
      cattle; with cattle, manure; with manure, corn.' They will in vain create
      new taxes, in order to distribute premiums to the producers of grass and
      lucern; they will always encounter this obstacle&mdash;a miserable
      population, without the power of paying for food, and, consequently, of
      giving the first impulse to this succession of causes and effects. They
      will end by learning, to their cost, that it is better to have competition
      in a rich community, than to possess a monopoly in a poor one.
    </p>
    <p>
      This is why I say, not only is Protection Communism, but it is Communism
      of the worst kind. It commences by placing the faculties and the labour of
      the poor, their only property, at the mercy of the rich; it inflicts a
      pure loss on the mass, and ends by involving the rich themselves in the
      common ruin. It invests the state with the extraordinary right of taking
      from those who have little, to give to those who have much; and when,
      under the sanction of this principle, the dispossessed call for the
      intervention of the state to make an adjustment in the opposite direction,
      I really do not see what answer can be given. In all cases, the first
      reply and the best would be, to abandon the wrongful act.
    </p>
    <p>
      But I hasten to come to an end with these calculations. After all, what is
      the position of the question? What do we say, and what do you say? There
      is one point, and it is the chief, upon which we are agreed: it is, that
      the intervention of the legislature in order to equalize fortunes, by
      taking from some for the benefit of others, is <i>Communism</i>&mdash;it
      is the destruction of all labour, saving, and prosperity; of all justice;
      of all social order.
    </p>
    <p>
      You perceive that this fatal doctrine taints, under every variety of form,
      both journals and books: in a word, that it influences the speculations
      and the doctrines of men, and here you attack it with vigour.
    </p>
    <p>
      For myself, I believe that it had previously affected, with your assent
      and with your assistance, legislation and practical statesmanship, and it
      is there that I endeavour to counteract it.
    </p>
    <p>
      Afterwards, I made you remark the inconsistency into which you would fall,
      if, while resisting Communism when speculated on, you spare, or much more
      encourage, Communism when acted on.
    </p>
    <p>
      If you reply to me, 'I act thus because Communism, as existing through
      tariffs, although opposed to liberty, property, justice, promotes,
      nevertheless, the public good, and this consideration makes me overlook
      all others'&mdash;if this is your answer, do you not feel that you ruin
      beforehand all the success of your book, that you defeat its object, that
      you deprive it of its force, and give your sanction, at least upon the
      philosophical and moral part of the question, to Communism of every shade?
    </p>
    <p>
      And then, sir, can so clear a mind as yours admit the hypothesis of a
      fundamental antagonism between what is useful and what is just? Shall I
      speak frankly? Rather than hazard an assertion so improbable, so impious,
      I would rather say, 'Here is a particular question in which, at the first
      glance, it seems to me that utility and justice conflict. I rejoice that
      all those who have passed their lives in investigating the subject think
      otherwise. Doubtless I have not sufficiently studied it.' I have not
      sufficiently studied it! Is it, then, so painful a confession, that, not
      to make it, you would willingly run into the inconsistency even of denying
      the wisdom of those providential laws which govern the development of
      human societies? For what more formal denial of the Divine wisdom can
      there be, than to pronounce that justice and utility are essentially
      incompatible! It has always appeared to me, that the most painful dilemma
      in which an intelligent and conscientious mind can be placed, is when it
      conceives such a distinction to exist. In short, which side to espouse&mdash;what
      part to take in such an alternative? To declare for utility&mdash;it is
      that to which men incline who call themselves practical. But unless they
      cannot connect two ideas, they will unquestionably be alarmed at the
      consequences of robbery and iniquity reduced to a system. Shall we embrace
      resolutely, come what may, the cause of justice, saying&mdash;Let us do
      what is our duty, in spite of everything. It is to this that honest men
      incline; but who would take the responsibility of plunging his country and
      mankind into misery, desolation and destruction? I defy any one, if he is
      convinced of this antagonism, to come to a decision.
    </p>
    <p>
      I deceive myself&mdash;they will come to a decision; and the human heart
      is so formed, that it will place interest before conscience. Facts prove
      this; since, wherever they have believed the system of Protection to be
      favourable to the well-being of the people, they have adopted it, in spite
      of all considerations of justice; but then the consequences have followed.
      Faith in property has vanished. They have said, like M. Billault, since
      property has been violated by Protection, why should it not be by the
      right of labour? Some, following M. Billault, will take a further step;
      and others, one still more extreme, until Communism is established.
    </p>
    <p>
      Good and sound minds like yours are terrified by the rapidity of the
      descent They feel compelled to draw back&mdash;they do, in fact, draw
      back, as you have done in your book, as regards the protective system,
      which is the first start, and the sole practical start, of society upon
      the fatal declivity; but in the face of this strong denial of the right of
      property, if, instead of this maxim of your book, 'Rights either exist, or
      they do not; if they do, they involve some absolute consequences'&mdash;you
      substitute this, 'Here is a particular case where the national good calls
      for the sacrifice of right;' immediately, all that you believe you have
      put with force and reason in this work, is nothing but weakness and
      inconsistency.
    </p>
    <p>
      This is why, Sir, if you wish to complete your work, it will be necessary
      that you should declare yourself upon the protective system; and for that
      purpose it is indispensable to commence by solving the economical problem;
      it will be necessary to be clear upon the pretended utility of this
      system. For, to suppose even that I extract from you its sentence of
      condemnation, on the ground of justice, that will not suffice to put an
      end to it. I repeat it&mdash;men are so formed, that when they believe
      themselves placed between <i>substantial good</i> and <i>abstract Justice</i>,
      the cause of justice runs a great risk. Do you wish for a palpable proof
      of this? It is that which has befallen myself.
    </p>
    <p>
      When I arrived in Paris, I found myself in the presence of schools called
      Democratical and Socialist, where, as you know, they make great use of the
      words, <i>principle, devotion, sacrifice, fraternity, right, union</i>.
      Wealth is there treated <i>de haut en bas</i>, as a thing, if not
      contemptible at least secondary, so far, that because we consider it to be
      of much importance, they treat us as cold economists, egotists, selfish,
      shopkeepers, men without compassion, ungrateful to God for anything save
      vile pelf. Good! you say to me; these are noble hearts, with whom I have
      no need to discuss the economical question, which is very subtle, and
      requires more attention than the Parisian newspaper-writers and their
      readers can in general bestow on a study of this description. But with
      them the question of wealth will not be an obstacle; either they will take
      it on trust, on the faith of Divine wisdom, as in harmony with justice, or
      they will sacrifice it willingly without a thought, for they have a
      passion for self-abandonment. If, then, they once acknowledge that
      Free-trade is, in the abstract, right, they will resolutely enrol
      themselves under its banner. Consequently, I address my appeal to them.
      Can you guess their reply? Here it is:&mdash;
    </p>
    <p>
      'Your Free-trade is a beautiful theory. It is founded on right and
      justice; it realizes liberty; it consecrates property; it would be
      followed by the union of nations&mdash;the reign of peace and of good-will
      amongst men. You have reason and principle on your side; but we will
      resist you to the utmost, and with all our strength, because foreign
      competition would be fatal to our national industry.'
    </p>
    <p>
      I take the liberty of addressing this reply to them:&mdash;
    </p>
    <p>
      'I deny that foreign competition would be fatal to national industry. If
      it was so, you would be placed in every instance between your interest&mdash;which,
      according to you, is on the side of the restriction&mdash;and justice,
      which, by your confession, is on the side of freedom of intercourse! Now
      when I, the worshipper of the golden calf, warn you that the time has
      arrived to make your own choice, whence comes it that you, the men of
      self-denial, cling to self-interest, and trample principle under foot? Do
      not, then, inveigh so much against a motive, which governs you as it
      governs other men? Such is the experience which warns me that it is
      incumbent on us, in the first place, to solve this alarming problem: Is
      there harmony or antagonism between justice and utility? and, in
      consequence, to investigate the economical side of the protective system;
      for since they whose watchword is Fraternity, themselves yield before an
      apprehended adversity, it is clear that this proceeds from no doubt in the
      truth of the cause of universal justice, but that it is an acknowledgment
      of the existence and of the necessity of self-interest, as an all-powerful
      spring of action, however unworthy, abject, contemptible, and despised it
      may be deemed.
    </p>
    <p>
      It is this which has given rise to a work, in two small volumes, which I
      take the liberty of sending you with the present one, well convinced, Sir,
      that if, like other political economists, you judge severely of the system
      of Protection on the ground of morality, and if we only differ as far as
      concerns its utility, you will not refuse to inquire, with some care, if
      these two great elements of substantial progress agree or disagree.
    </p>
    <p>
      This harmony exists&mdash;or, at least, it is as clear to me as the light
      of the sun that it does. May it reveal itself to you! It is, then, by
      applying your talents, which have so remarkable an influence on others, to
      counteract Communism in its most dangerous shape, that you will give it a
      mortal blow.
    </p>
    <p>
      See what passes in England. It would seem that if Communism could have
      found a land favourable to it, it ought to have been the soil of Britain.
      There, the feudal institutions, placing everywhere in juxtaposition
      extreme misery and extreme opulence, should have prepared the minds of men
      for the reception of false doctrines. But notwithstanding this, what do we
      see? Whilst the Continent is agitated, not even the surface of English
      society is disturbed. Chartism has been able to take no root there. Do you
      know why? Because the league or association which, for ten years discussed
      the system of Protection, only triumphed by placing the right of property
      on its true principles, and by pointing out and defining the proper
      functions of the state.*
    </p>
<pre xml:space="preserve">
     * This is a well-earned tribute, both to the people of
     England, and to the results of the exertions of the League
     and of Sir R. Peel. There can be no doubt that the calmness
     of this country, during the late agitations of Europe, was
     very much due to the contentment which followed on the
     abolition of the corn-laws, and on the reduction and
     simplification of the tariff. To this must be added the
     conviction (though the process is sometimes sufficiently
     slow), that their wishes, when clearly indicated, find
     expression and attention in the legislature, and that things
     are working on to a great though gradual improvement. The
     inhabitants of this kingdom had the practical good sense to
     perceive the progress made, and the security they had that
     the future would not be barren, and they refused to imperil
     these substantial advantages in favour of mere theories and
     of experiments, the effects of which no human wit could
     foresee.
</pre>
    <p>
      Assuredly, if to unmask Protectionism is to aim a blow at Communism in
      consequence of their close connexion, one might also destroy both, by
      adopting a course the converse of the above. Protection would not stand
      for any length of time before a good definition of the right of property.
      Also, if anything has surprised and rejoiced me, it is to see the
      Association for the Defence of Monopolies devote their resources to the
      propagation of your book. It is an encouraging sight, and consoles me for
      the inutility of my past efforts. This resolution of the Mimerel Committee
      will doubtless oblige you to add to the editions of your work. In this
      case, permit me to observe to you that, such as it is, it presents a grave
      deficiency. In the name of science, in the name of truth, in the name of
      the public good, I adjure you to supply it; and I warn you that the time
      has come when you must answer these two questions:
    </p>
    <p>
      First, Is there an incompatibility in principle between the system of
      Protection and the right of property?
    </p>
    <p>
      Secondly, Is it the function of the government to guarantee to each the
      free exercise of his faculties, and the free disposal of the fruits of his
      labour&mdash;that is to say, property&mdash;or to take from one to give to
      the other, so as to weigh in the balance profits, contingencies, and other
      circumstances?
    </p>
    <p>
      Ah! Sir, if you arrive at the same conclusions as myself&mdash;if, thanks
      to your talents, to your fame, to your influence, you can imbue the public
      mind with these conclusions, who can calculate the extent of the service
      which you will render to French society? We would see the state confine
      itself within its proper limits, which is, to secure to each the exercise
      of his faculties, and the free disposition of his possessions. We would
      see it free itself at once, both from its present vast but unlawful
      functions, and from the frightful responsibility which attaches to them.
      It would confine itself to restraining the abuses of liberty, which is to
      realize liberty itself! It would secure justice to all, and would no
      longer promise prosperity to any one. Men would learn to distinguish
      between what is reasonable, and what is puerile to ask from the
      government. They would no longer overwhelm it with claims and complaints;
      no longer lay their misfortunes at its door, or make it responsible for
      their chimerical hopes; and, in this keen pursuit of a prosperity, of
      which it is not the dispenser, they would no longer be seen, at each
      disappointment, to accuse the legislature and the law, to change their
      rulers and the forms of government, heaping institution upon institution,
      and ruin upon ruin. They would witness the extinction of that universal
      fever for mutual robbery, by the costly and perilous intervention of the
      state. The government, limited in its aim and responsibility, simple in
      its action, economical, not imposing on the governed the expense of their
      own chains, and sustained by sound public opinion, would have a solidity
      which, in our country, has never been its portion; and we would at last
      have solved this great problem&mdash;<i>To close for ever the gulf of
      revolution</i>.
    </p>
    <h3>
      THE END.
    </h3>
    <div style="height: 6em;">
      <br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />
    </div>
</html>