Alas! it was still the banner of monopoly; of a monopoly a little more niggardly, and a great deal more absurd, than that which they appeared to wish to overturn.
Owing to the sophism which we are about to unveil, the petitioners merely reproduced the doctrine of _protection to national labor_, adding to it, however, another folly.
What is, in effect, the prohibitive system?
Let us listen to the protectionist: "Labor constitutes the wealth of a people, because it alone creates those material things which our necessities demand, and because general comfort depends upon these." This is the principle.
"But this abundance must be the product of _national labor_.

Should it be the product of foreign labor, national labor would stop at once." This is the mistake.

(See the close of the last chapter.) "What shall be done, then, in an agricultural and manufacturing country ?" This is the question.
"Restrict its market to the products of its own soil, and its own industry." This is the end proposed.
"And for this end, restrain by prohibitive duties the entrance of the products of the industry of other nations." These are the means.
Let us reconcile with this system that of the petition from Bordeaux.
It divided merchandise into three classes: "The first includes articles of food, and _raw material free from all human labor.

A wise economy would require that this class should not be taxed_." Here there is no labor; consequently no protection.
"The second is composed of articles which have undergone _some preparation_.

This preparation warrants us _in charging it with some tax_." Here protection commences, because, according to the petitioners, _national labor_ commences.
"The third comprises perfected articles which can in no way serve national labor; we consider these the most taxable." Here, labor, and with it protection, reach their maximum.
The petitioners assert that foreign labor injures national labor; this is _the error_ of the prohibitive school.
They demanded that the French market should be restricted to French _labor_; this is the _end_ of the prohibitive system.
They insisted that foreign labor should be subject to restriction and taxation; these are the _means_ of the prohibitive system.
What difference, then, is it possible to discover between the petitioners of Bordeaux and the advocate of American restriction?
One alone: the greater or less extent given to the word _labor_.
The protectionist extends it to everything--so he wishes to _protect_ everything.
"Labor constitutes _all_ the wealth of a people," says he; "to protect national industry, _all_ national industry, manufacturing industry, _all_ manufacturing industry, is the idea which should always be kept before the people." The petitioners saw no labor excepting that of manufacturers; so they would admit that alone to the favors of protection.