After all, it is singular enough to see sentiments of the most sublime self-denial invoked in support of spoliation itself. See to what this boasted disinterestedness tends! These men who are so fantastically delicate as not to desire peace itself, if it is founded on the vile interest of mankind, put their hand into the pockets of others, and especially of the poor; for what article of the tariff protects the poor? Be pleased, gentlemen, to dispose of what belongs to yourselves as you think proper, but leave us the disposal of the fruit of our own toil, to use it or exchange it as we see best. Declaim on self-sacrifice as much as you choose, it is all very fine and very beautiful, but be at least consistent. XX. HUMAN LABOUR, NATIONAL LABOUR. Machine-breaking--prohibition of foreign commodities--are two acts founded on the same doctrine. We see men who clap their hands when a great invention is introduced, and who nevertheless adhere to the protectionist _régime_. Such men are grossly inconsistent! With what do they reproach free trade? With encouraging the production by foreigners, more skilled or more favourably situated than we are, of commodities which, but for free trade, would be produced at home. In a word, they accuse free trade of being injurious to _national labour?_ For the same reason, should they not reproach machinery with accomplishing by natural agents what otherwise would have been done by manual labour, and so of being injurious to _human labour?_ The foreign workman, better and more favourably situated than the home workman for the production of certain commodities, is, with reference to the latter, a veritable _economic machine,_ crushing him by competition. In like manner, machinery, which executes a piece of work at a lower price than a certain number of men could do by manual labour, is, in relation to these manual labourers, a veritable _foreign competitor_, who paralyzes them by his rivalry. If, then, it is politic to protect _national labour_ against the competition of _foreign labour_, it is not less so to protect _human labour_ against the rivalry of _mechanical labour_. Thus, every adherent of the _régime_ of protection, if he is logical, should not content himself with prohibiting foreign products; he should proscribe also the products of the shuttle and the plough. And this is the reason why I like better the logic of those men who, declaiming against the invasion of foreign merchandise, declaim likewise against the excess of production which is due to the inventive power of the human mind. Such a man is M. de Saint-Chamans. "One of the strongest arguments against free trade," he says, "is the too extensive employment of machinery, for many workmen are deprived of employment, either by foreign competition, which lowers the price of our manufactured goods, or by instruments which take the place of men in our workshops."* * Du Système d'impôts, p. 438.